Our proposals are based on the creation of a Budget for democratization which would be
debated and voted by a sovereign European Assembly. This will at last enable Europe to equip
itself with a public institution which is both capable of dealing with crises in Europe
immediately and of producing a set of fundamental public and social goods and services in the
framework of a lasting and solidarity-based economy. In this way, the promise made as far back
as the Treaty of Rome of 'improving living and working conditions' will finally become
meaningful.
This Budget, if the European Assembly so desires, will be financed by four major European
taxes, the tangible markers of this European solidarity. These will apply to the profits of
major firms, the top incomes (over 200,000 Euros per annum), the highest wealth owners (over 1
million Euros) and the carbon emissions (with a minimum price of 30 Euros per tonne). If it is
fixed at 4% of GDP, as we propose, this budget could finance research, training and the
European universities, an ambitious investment programme to transform our model of economic
growth, the financing of the reception and integration of migrants and the support of those
involved in operating the transformation. It could also give some budgetary leeway to member
States to reduce the regressive taxation which weighs on salaries or consumption.
The issue here is not one of creating a 'Transfer payments Europe' which would endeavour to
take money from the 'virtuous' countries to give it to those who are less so. The project for a
Treaty of Democratization ( www.tdem.eu )
states this explicitly by limiting the gap between expenditure deducted and income paid by a
country to a threshold of 0.1% of its GDP. This threshold can be raised in case there is a
consensus to do so, but the real issue is elsewhere: it is primarily a question of reducing the
inequality within the different countries and of investing in the future of
all Europeans, beginning of course with the youngest amongst them, with no
single country having preference. This computation does exclude spending that benefit
equally to all countries, such as policies to curb global warming. Because it will finance
European public goods benefiting all countries, the Budget for democratization will de facto
also foster convergence between countries.
Because we must act quickly but we must also get Europe out of the present technocratic
impasse, we propose the creation of a European Assembly. This will enable these new European
taxes to be debated and voted as also the budget for democratization. This European Assembly
can be created without changing the existing European treaties.
This European Assembly would of course have to communicate with the present decision-making
institutions (in particular the Eurogroup in which the Ministers for Finance in the Euro zone
meet informally every month). But, in cases of disagreement, the Assembly would have the
final word. If not, its capacity to be a locus for a new transnational, political
space where parties, social movements and NGOs would finally be able to express
themselves, would be compromised. Equally its actual effectiveness, since the issue is one of
finally extricating Europe from the eternal inertia of inter-governmental negotiations, would
be at stake. We should bear in mind that the rule of fiscal unanimity in force in the European
Union has for years blocked the adoption of any European tax and sustains the eternal evasion
into fiscal dumping by the rich and most mobile, a practice which continues to this day despite
all the speeches. This will go on if other decision-making rules are not set up.
"... an old-school Christian democracy, rooted in European traditions ..."
"... Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards. ..."
"... at least 300,000 refugees each year ..."
"... surge funding, ..."
"... raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU's relatively small budget. ..."
"... To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later, ..."
It is no secret that neoliberalism relentlessly pursues a globalized, borderless world where labor, products, and services obey
the hidden hand of the free market. What is less often mentioned, however, is that this system is far more concerned with
promoting the well-being of corporations and cowboy capitalists than assisting the average person on the street. Indeed, many of
the world's most powerful companies today have
mutated
into
"
stateless superpowers
," while consumers are forced to endure crippling austerity
measures amid
plummeting
standards
of living. The year 2018 could be seen as the tipping point when the grass-roots movement against these dire conditions took off.
Since 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants into Germany and the EU,
a groundswell of animosity has been steadily building against the European Union, perhaps best exemplified by the Brexit
movement. Quite simply, many people are growing weary of the globalist
argument
that
Europe needs migrants and austerity measures to keep the wheels of the economy spinning. At the very least, luring migrants with
cash
incentives
to move to Germany and
elsewhere
in
the EU appears incredibly shortsighted.
Indeed, if the globalist George Soros wants to lend his
Midas
touch
to ameliorating the migrant's plight, why does he think that relocating them to European countries is the solution? As
is becoming increasingly apparent in places like
Sweden
and
France, efforts to assimilate people from vastly different cultures, religions and backgrounds is an extremely tricky venture,
the success of which is far from guaranteed.
One worrying consequence of Europe's season of open borders has been the rise of far-right political movements. In fact, some of
the harshest criticism of the 'Merkel plan' originated in
Hungary
,
where its gutsy president, Viktor Orban, hopes to build "
an old-school Christian democracy,
rooted in European traditions
." Orban is simply responding to the democratic will of his people, who are fiercely
conservative, yet the EU parliament voted to
punish
him
regardless. The move shows that Brussels, aside from being adverse to democratic principles, has very few tools for addressing
the rise of far-right sentiment that its own misguided policies created.
Here it is necessary to mention once again that bugbear of the political right, Mr. Soros, who has received no political mandate
from European voters, yet who campaigns relentlessly on behalf of globalist initiatives through his Open Society Foundations (OSF)
(That campaign just got some serious clout after Soros
injected
$18bn
dollars of his own money into OSF, making it one of the most influential NGOs in the world).
With no small amount of impudence, Soros has condemned EU countries – namely his native Hungary – for attempting to protect their
territories by constructing border barriers and fences, which he believes violate the human rights of migrants (rarely if ever
does the philanthropist speak about the "human rights" of the native population). In the
words
of
the maestro of mayhem himself: "
Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building
border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human
rights standards.
"
Through a leaked
network
of
compromised EU parliamentarians who do his bidding, Soros says the EU should spend $30 billion euros ($33bln) to accommodate "
at
least 300,000 refugees each year
." How will the EU pay for the resettling of migrants from the Middle East? Soros has an
answer for that as well. He calls it "
surge funding,
" which entails "
raising
a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU's relatively small budget.
"
Any guesses who will be forced to pay down the debt on this high-risk venture? If you guessed George Soros, guess again. The
already heavily taxed people of Europe will be forced to shoulder that heavy burden. "
To
finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later,
" Soros admits. That comment is very interesting in
light of the recent French protests, which were
triggered
by
Emmanuel Macron's plan to impose a new fuel tax. Was the French leader, a former investment banker, attempting to get back some
of the funds being used to support the influx of new arrivals into his country? The question seems like a valid one, and goes far
at explaining the ongoing unrest.
At this point, it is worth remembering what triggered the exodus of migrants into Europe in the first place. A large part of the
answer comes down to unlawful NATO operations on the ground of sovereign states. Since 2003, the 29-member military bloc, under
the direct command of Washington, has
conducted
illicit
military operations in various places around the globe, including in Iraq, Libya and Syria. These actions, which could be best
described as globalism on steroids, have opened a Pandora's Box of global scourges, including famine, terrorism and grinding
poverty. Is this what the Western states mean by 'humanitarian activism'? If the major EU countries really want to flout their
humanitarian credentials, they could have started by demanding the cessation of regime-change operations throughout the Middle
East and North Africa, which created such inhumane conditions for millions of innocent people.
This failure on the part of Western capitals to speak out against belligerent US foreign policy helps to explain why a number of
other European governments are experiencing major shakeups. Sebastian Kurz, 32,
won
over
the hearts of Austrian voters by promising to tackle unchecked immigration. In super-tolerant Sweden, which has
accepted
more
migrants per capita than any other EU state, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats party
garnered
17.6
percent of the vote in September elections – up from 12.9 percent in the previous election. And even Angela Merkel, who is seen
by many people as the de facto leader of the European Union, is watching her political star crash and burn mostly due to her
bungling of the migrant crisis. In October, after her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a stinging setback in Bavaria
elections, which saw CDU voters abandon ship for the anti-immigrant AfD and the Greens, Merkel
announced
she
would resign in 2021 after her current term expires.
Meanwhile, back in the US, the government of President Donald Trump has been shut down as the Democrats refuse to grant the
American leader the funds to build a wall on the Mexican border – despite the fact that he essentially made it to the White House
on precisely that promise. Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any political party that does not support a strong and
viable border can continue to be taken seriously at the polls for very long. Yet that is the very strategy that the Democrats
have chosen. But I digress.
I am all alone (poor me) in the White House waiting for the Democrats to come back and make a deal on
desperately needed Border Security. At some point the Democrats not wanting to make a deal will cost our
Country more money than the Border Wall we are all talking about. Crazy!
The lesson that Western governments should have learned over the last year from these developments is that there exists a
definite red line that the globalists cross at risk not only to the social order, but to their own political fortunes. Eventually
the people will demand solutions to their problems – many of which were caused by reckless neoliberal programs and austerity
measures. This collective sense of desperation may open the door to any number of right-wing politicians only too happy to meet
the demand.
Better to provide fair working conditions for the people while maintaining strong borders than have to face the wrath of the
street or some political charlatan later. Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm
front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it.
After the US government elicited outrage from the Chinese due to its attempts to convince
its allies to bar the use of equipment made by telecoms supplier Huawei, President Trump is
apparently weighing whether to take another dramatic antagonistic step that could further
complicate trade negotiations less than two weeks before a US delegation is slated to head to
Beijing.
According to
Reuters , the White House is reportedly considering an executive order that would ban US
companies from using equipment made by Huawei and ZTE, claiming that both companies work "at
the behest of the US government" and that their equipment could be used to spy on US citizens.
The order would invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to order the Department
of Commerce to prohibit the purchase of equipment from telecoms manufacturers that could
threaten national security. Though it wouldn't explicitly name Huawei or ZTE, the ban would
arise from Commerce's interpretation. The IEEA allows the president the authority to regulate
commerce in the face of a national emergency. Back in August, Congress passed and Trump signed
a bill banning the use of ZTE and Huawei equipment by the US government and government
contractors. The executive order has reportedly been under consideration for eight months,
since around the time that the US nearly blocked US companies from selling parts to ZTE, which
sparked a mini-diplomatic crisis, which
ended with a deal allowing ZTE to survive, but pay a large fine.
The feud between the US and Huawei has obviously been escalating in recent months as the US
has embarked on an
"extraordinary influence campaign" to convince its allies to ban equipment made by both
companies, and the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada has also blossomed into a
diplomatic crisis of sorts.
But the real reason issuing a ban on both companies' equipment is seen as a priority is
because Huawei's lead in the race to build 5G technology is making its products more appealing
to global telecoms providers. Rural telecoms providers in the US - those with fewer than
100,000 subscribers - are particularly reliant on equipment made by both companies. They've
expressed concerns that a ban would require them to rip out and scrap their equipment at an
immense cost.
Rural operators in the United States are among the biggest customers of Huawei and ZTE,
and fear the executive order would also require them to rip out existing Chinese-made
equipment without compensation. Industry officials are divided on whether the administration
could legally compel operators to do that.
While the big U.S. wireless companies have cut ties with Huawei in particular, small rural
carriers have relied on Huawei and ZTE switches and other equipment because they tend to be
less expensive.
The company is so central to small carriers that William Levy, vice president for sales of
Huawei Tech USA, is on the board of directors of the Rural Wireless Association.
The RWA represents carriers with fewer than 100,000 subscribers. It estimates that 25
percent of its members had Huawei or ZTE equipment in their networks, it said in a filing to
the Federal Communications Commission earlier this month.
As Sputnik
pointed out, the news of the possible ban followed questions from Defense Secretary Gavin
Williamson, who expressed serious concerns over the involvement of Huawei in Britain's 5G
network, suggesting that Beijing sometimes acted "in a malign way." But even if it loses access
to the US market, Huawei's global expansion and its leadership in the 5G space are expected to
continue to bolster profits and growth. Currently, Huawei sells equipment in 170 countries.
According to a statement from the company's rotating chairman, the company's full-year sales
are expected to increase 21% to $108.5 billion this year. The company has signed 26 contracts
globally to supply 5G equipment for commercial use, leaving it well ahead of its US rivals.
The hypothesis is that due to emergence of mutual funds and other financial instruments the capitalist class became more
homogeneous in its interests and more united with financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... In such a situation there were significant divisions within the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining, nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence. ..."
"... Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!) the fog of all financial markets. ..."
"... The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. ..."
"... Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world. ..."
"... This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis, while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change: the underlying political economic factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them. ..."
"... The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights -- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a dialectic between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to the insular nature of that dialectic. ..."
"... Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent ..."
A standard narrative is that the Keynesian postwar order cracked up over the crisis of inflation during the mid-1970s. A conservative
alternative that trusted markets more and government less was vindicated by events and established its intellectual dominance. After
a lag of a few years, policy followed along. One can critique this on matters of detail: economic growth remained stronger during
the 70s than it would be thereafter, anti-Keynesians did not have a superior understanding of economic developments, and no intellectual
revolution was complete within the space of just a few years. But the deeper problem, it seems to me, is that this attributes vastly
exaggerated agency to coteries of intellectuals. Do we really think that the elections of Reagan and Thatcher, for instance, were
attributable to a shift in grad school syllabi in economics and related fields?
I propose an alternative hypothesis. From the end of WWII to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, a large portion
of capital was illiquid, its value tied to its existing use. The rich sought to diversify their portfolios, of course, but there
were limits. Stock market transactions were beclouded by large information costs, and share ownership tended to be more stable and
concentrated. Fortunes were rooted in specific firms and industries. In such a situation there were significant divisions within
the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political
parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans
were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining,
nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence.
Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts
established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory
restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!)
the fog of all financial markets. And firms themselves became separable bundles of assets as new technology and business methods
allowed for more integrated production across ownership lines. The combined result is a capitalist class with more uniform interests
-- an interest in a higher profit share of income and greater freedom for capital in every respect.
The crisis in real returns to
capital during the 1970s, the true economic instigator, galvanized this reorganization of the political economy. (In the US the S&P
peaked in 1972 and then lost almost half its inflation-adjusted value by the end of the decade. This is not an artifact of business
cycle timing.)
Of course, all understanding of the world is mediated by the way we think about it. The wealthy didn't say to themselves, "Gee,
my assets are taking a hit, so the government needs to change course." They turned to dissident, conservative thinkers who explained
the "failures" of the 70s as the result of too little concern for the engine of growth, which (of course) was understood to be private
investment. Market-friendly policy would, it was said, reinvigorate investment and spur economic growth. Keynesianism was seen as
having failed because it took investors for granted, taxing and regulating them and competing with them for finance; politicians
needed to show respect. It's understandable why capitalists would interpret their problems in this way.
The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal
were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. When the World Bank and the IMF were remade in the
wake of the 1982 debt crisis, this influence was extended internationally. Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries
the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world.
This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis,
while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change:
the underlying political economic
factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us
from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them.
The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking
the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing
the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights
-- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face
to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered
the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests.
An interesting discussion of the roots, differences and similarities between neoliberalism and ordoliberalism. And believe it
or not, the many comments raise some interesting points. Only one real gaslighting comment.
One thing Barkley said should be repeated: neoliberalism has opposing poles quite a distance apart. Neoliberalism is a dialectic
between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to
the insular nature of that dialectic. The neoliberal right has chosen its interlocutors, the centrist "left" very well, which
is an important reason that the non-neoliberal real Left is emerging now from the sojurn in the politics of cultural critique
where it went in the 1960's with no knowledge or interest in economics.
It does not take a genius to see that human civilization and the natural ecology can only survive if people somehow manage
to produce a rational architecture for political economy deliberately and on an unprecedented scale and level of sophistication.
Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent and a Left at peak consciousness -- is exactly the wrong place to be in
the political cycle.
Right now neo-fascism is the most probably scenario of the social system after the decline of
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret Thatcher's contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of "old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly. ..."
"... The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss. ..."
"... If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the consequence of the next major global financial crisis ..."
"... Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury imaginable ..."
"... Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life – as Hobbes put it – will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. ..."
"... As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great imagining. ..."
It is unfashionable, or just embarrassing, to suggest the
taken-for-granted late-modern economic order – neoliberal capitalism – may be in a
terminal decline. At least that's the case in what former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott
likes to call the "Anglosphere" .
What was once known as the Chicago school of economics
– the neoclassical celebration of the "free market" and "small government" – still
closes the minds of economic policymakers in the US and its satellite economies (although
perhaps less so in contemporary Canada).
But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration
of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret
Thatcher's
contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates
dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of
"old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly.
The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the
US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not
only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to
undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole
shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss.
What the
consequences might be
Two outstanding European scholars who are well aware of the consequences of the neoliberal
catastrophe are French economist Thomas Piketty and German economist Wolfgang Streeck.
Piketty's 2013 book, Capital in the
Twenty-First Century , charts the dangers of socioeconomic inequality in capitalism's
history. He demonstrates how this inequality can be – and has been over time –
fundamentally destructive of sustained economic growth.
Most compellingly, Piketty documented in meticulous detail how contemporary neoliberal
policies have constructed the worst forms of socioeconomic inequalities in history. His
analysis has been underlined by the recent Oxfam report that showed a mere eight
multi-billionaires own the equivalent amount of capital of half of the global population.
Despite Piketty's scrupulous scholarship, Western neoliberal economies continue merrily down
the road to nowhere. The foundations of that road were laid by the egregiously ideological
policies of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – and slavishly followed by Australian politicians
on all sides ever since.
Streeck's equally detailed scholarship has demonstrated how destructive of capitalism itself
neoliberal policymaking has been. His latest book, How Will Capitalism
End? , demonstrates how this neoliberal capitalism triumphed over its opponents (especially
communism) by devouring its critics and opponents, obviating all possible alternatives to its
predatory ways.
If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look
like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close
crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the
consequence of the next major global financial crisis .
Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very
few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury
imaginable .
Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life
– as Hobbes put it – will be solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short.
What comes next is up to us
The extraordinary thing is how little is known or understood of the work of thinkers like
Piketty and Streeck in Australia today.
There have been very fine local scholars, precursors of the Europeans, who have warned about
the hollow promises of "economic rationalism" in Australia.
But, like the Europeans, their wisdom has been sidelined, even as inequality has been
deepening exponentially and its populist consequences have begun to poison our politics,
tearing down the last shreds of our ramshackle democracy.
The time is ripe for some creative imagining of a new post-neoliberal world that will repair
neoliberalism's vast and catastrophic failures while laying the groundwork for an Australia
that can play a leading role in the making of a cosmopolitan and co-operative world.
Three immediate steps can be taken to start on this great journey.
First, we need to see the revival of what American scholar Richard Falk called "globalisation
from below" . This is the enlivening of international civil society to balance the power of
the self-serving elites (multinational managers and their political and military puppets) now
in power.
Second, we need to come up with new forms of democratic governance that reject the fiction
that the current politics of representative government constitute the highest form of
democracy. There is nothing about representative government that is democratic. All it amounts
to is what Vilfredo Pareto described as
"the circulation of elites" who have become remote from – and haughtily contemptuous
of – the people they rule.
Third, we need to see states intervening comprehensively in the so-called "free market".
Apart from re-regulating economic activity, this means positioning public enterprises in
strategic parts of the economy, to compete with the private sector, not on their terms but
exclusively in the interests of all citizens.
As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to
self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a
new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great
imagining.
This article is based on an earlier piece published in John Menadue's blog Pearls
and Irritations.
At the same time, however, it seems fair to point out that Trump and López Obrador both represent what
the Times described as "a global repudiation of the establishment." Indeed, this fact could actually help to distinguish
between the two leaders (along with other populist leaders) and their competing worldviews. While they stand on opposite sides
of the political spectrum, both Trump and López Obrador are part of the global revolt against what critics call neoliberalism,
and this is important for understanding our current era.
The past 30-plus years has been defined by the
political
project
of neoliberalism, spearheaded by the U.S. government and international financial institutions like the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with the utopian aim of creating a global capitalist economy perfectly guided
by the invisible hand of the market (for neoliberals and free-market fundamentalists, the invisible hand is an almost divine
concept, worshipped in economics departments around the country). The neoliberal era peaked in the 1990s, and in America it
was Democratic President Bill Clinton who accomplished neoliberal "reforms" that right-wingers had long dreamed of, including
financial deregulation, NAFTA and "ending welfare as we knew it" (he would probably have
privatized
Social Security too
had it not been for Monica Lewinsky).
Though the 1990s is often remembered as the beginning of our hyper-partisan age (demonstrated by the Clinton impeachment
scandal), the irony is that Democrats and Republicans became closer than ever before on economic issues during this decade.
The "Washington consensus" dominated this period, and it took a Democrat to pass a Republican trade deal and other
conservative economic policies. (Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party's shift to the right simply resulted in the GOP
shifting even further to the right.)
Neoliberalism was a global project advanced by economic elites. Not surprisingly, then, the neoliberal policies of the past
few decades have benefited those who pushed for them, creating enormous wealth for the richest individuals while leaving the
world grossly unequal. According to Oxfam, 82 percent of the wealth created in 2017
went
to the top one percent
, while the poorest half got nothing. In America alone, inequality is at historic levels and more
than 40 million people live in poverty; a
UN report
from
last month notes that the U.S. "now has one of the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility of any of the rich
countries," and zip codes "are tragically reliable predictors of a child's future employment and income prospects."
Advertisement:
In Europe, Latin America, Asia and the United States, the status quo is no longer acceptable to a populace that has been
betrayed time and again throughout the neoliberal era. Leaders who represent this status quo are being thrown out of office
left and right. Those who have challenged the "establishment" have been labeled "populists" by the press, of course, and
thus are categorized more for what they stand
against
than what they stand
for
(this would be like
identifying the Soviet Union and the U.S. for their anti-fascism, rather than their communism or capitalism).
Some dispute the characterization of right-wing populists as anti-neoliberal, and correctly point out that most of the
Trump administration's economic policies have actually been neoliberalism on steroids (e.g., the GOP tax bill, deregulation,
etc.). Right-wing populism is purely about racism and xenophobia, these critics insist, and to make it about economics is to
ignore these ugly realities. But as Thomas Frank
pointed
out
in The Guardian back in 2016, "trade may be [Trump's] single biggest concern -- not white supremacy."
"It seems to obsess him," wrote Frank, who watched several hours of Trump's speeches. "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."
Say what you will about Trump's tendency to lie and spew falsehoods, but on the issue of trade he has actually been pretty
consistent since entering the White House, and free trade is one of the staples of the neoliberal project. On the left, free
trade deals like NAFTA and TPP have also been major talking points, as we saw with Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in
2016. There are other economic issues where some agreement exists, and right-wing populist parties in Europe are even more
likely to be anti-neoliberal on economic issues. Marine Le Pen's National Front, for example,
opposed
austerity cuts and promised to increase welfare for the working class
(at least for French citizens), while lowering the
retirement age and increasing tariffs to benefit French companies (and, the claim goes, workers too).
Advertisement:
Still, the left- and right-wing alternatives to neoliberalism are poles apart, and the differences between left-populists
like López Obrador and Sanders and right-populists like Trump and Le Pen are hard to overstate. To appreciate just how
different their worldviews are, it is worth considering how the left and right have historically understood themselves in
relation to the Enlightenment and modernity.
Throughout the modern era progressives and reactionaries have more or less rejected the status quo, with thinkers from both
sides offering critiques of the modern world. The fundamental difference was that the left considered itself a part of the
Enlightenment tradition, while the right was part of the "counter-Enlightenment" (this goes back to the French Revolution,
when revolutionaries sat on the left side of the Estates General and royalists sat on the right).
The left criticized modernity not because it rejected the modern world, but because it saw the Enlightenment project as
incomplete. Karl Marx praised the bourgeoisie and called capitalism a "great civilizing influence," considering it to be a
positive development in history. He also wrote the most influential critique of capitalism to date, and while he acknowledged
that capitalism was progress over feudalism, he also believed that it must eventually be replaced with socialism to
realize the goals of the Enlightenment. Put simply, Marx and other leftists believed in the idea of progress, long associated
with the Enlightenment.
On the right, criticisms of modernity came from a very different perspective. Reactionaries did not see the modern world as
progress over the pre-modern world; rather, they saw it as a decline. Driven by nostalgia and resentment, reactionaries
romanticized the past and believed that the ills of modernity could be cured by simply turning back the clock and restoring
the status quo ante.
In his classic book "
Escape from Freedom
," the psychiatrist and
social philosopher Erich Fromm attempted to make sense of the rise of fascism in the early 20th century, and in doing so
offered a penetrating analysis of modernity. While the modern world had liberated men and women from social conventions of the
past and various restrictions on the individual (i.e., "freedom from"), it had also severed what Fromm called "primary bonds,"
which gave security to the individual and provided meaning. Forced from their communities into urban and industrial
environments, modern men and women were left alienated and rootless, feeling powerless and purposeless in the new world.
Advertisement:
There were two ways that people could respond to this situation, Fromm argued; either they could reject freedom
altogether and embrace counter-Enlightenment movements like fascism, or they could progress to a "positive freedom," where one
can relate oneself "spontaneously to the world in love and work."
"If the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a
basis for the realization of individuality," wrote Fromm, "while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them
security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden." Freedom, he continued, "becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of
life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some
kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his
freedom."
The reactionary impulse would be to "escape from freedom" and restore the conventions and "primary bonds" of the past,
while the progressive impulse would be to progress to a more complete and dynamic kind of freedom.
The reader may be wondering where all of this fits in with the current revolt against neoliberalism. Put simply, the
neoliberal age has left many people with the same kind of doubts and anxieties that Fromm discussed in his book almost 80
years ago. Numerous articles have been written in recent years about how the policies of neoliberalism have
worsened stress and loneliness
, exacerbated
mental
health problems
,
driven
rising rates of suicide
and the opioid crisis, and left people feeling desperate and hopeless in general. Globalization,
deindustrialization, consumerism and "financialization"; all these economic trends are contributing to the breakdown of our
democratic society, leading some to embrace authoritarian alternatives, as many did in Fromm's day.
From this point of view, the global rise of populism that continued with López Obrador isn't much of a surprise. The
popular rejection of neoliberalism around the world is undeniable at this point, but it is still unclear whether this
rejection of the status quo will lead to reactionary or progressive change in the long run. López Obrador represents
progressive change, as does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's surprise primary victory in New York's 14th congressional district.
Trump and other far-right populists like Le Pen represent something very different.
Advertisement:
It will ultimately come down to which side can offer the more appealing alternative, and the left should recognize that the
more realistic and "pragmatic" approach isn't always the most politically persuasive. One of the most common criticisms of
populists has been that they are selling a pipe dream, which to an extent is true -- especially for right-wing populists who
base their entire worldview on falsehoods. If the left wants to stop reactionary populism, however, it will have to adopt an
unapologetically populist approach of its own, and reject the dogma of neoliberalism once and for all.
Captain
Nonobvious
Leader
21 Jul
Neoliberalism is nothing more than a set of excuses and fables for giving more wealth, power
and income to the rich and well off than they have at any given moment, and for distributing
the assets of ownership and governance across borders, out of reach and jurisdiction of the
people.
Which brings us to today.
But what next? Neoliberalism is ending because enough of society now is owned and run by the top end --completely in Russia,
and mostly, here in the US-- that the people no longer have enough to work with to compete
against oligarchy.
In the US there's no more need for the pretense, so we get the blatant language and behavior of a Trump, and public display
of the aggression against the people and the nation that neoliberalism has been practicing
out of view all along. (It's not actually been so much hidden as willfully ignored by
moderates and commentators since the Administration of the previous lying, delusional
national media star.)
What's next is rapid consolidation of oligarchy. The Supreme Court will be held by oligarchy
fanatics for the coming 40 years, and will be ruling every imaginable practice of liberal or
progressive governance to be unconstitutional. Even an economic collapse like the Great
Depression can't unseat a Court, and no voting majorities can legislate against their
Constitution.
Basho
Leader
21 Jul
No matter how much you pretty up neoliberalism with racial diversity, women' empowerment, and
homosexual rights, it still stinks. Neoliberalism has turned the Democratic Party into a
political-correct Republican Party. All the great accomplishments that came from the1930s to
the mid-70s are gone. Democrats have become the party of the oligarchs and the professional
elites who serve them. They have - as Thomas Frank has suggested - ceased to be the party of
the people. The whole point of neoliberalism is to please big money donors by dismantling all
that Democrats did to help and ordinary working Americans before the1980s. This had been what
Noam Chomsky called Amerca's Golden Age. America had become the finest country to live in in
the entire history of the world. That's gone. Today Democrats join with Republicans in
supporting a corporate oligarchy. If the Democratic Party is to have a future (and if I am to
be a part of it) they must turn to new voices like Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
They need to make Bernie Sanders the Chair of the Democratic Party. And they need to quit
warmongering. The Democratic Party must model itself after Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Andrés
Manuel López Obrador in Mexico. Neoliberalism is a plague. It is anti-democratic. It must
end. The Democratic Party must once again be a moral force for economic justice.
Mike Calcagno
Leader
Basho
23 Jul
Edited
nYes, things were great in American cities in the 60s and 70s. Those riots - how
wonderful? Almost 1000 murders a year in Chicago in the early 70s, more than 2000 a year
in New York. Major American cities looked like Dresden after WWII in many neighborhoods.
LBJ was a warmonger who got 57000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians
killed, and Kennedy won by running to the right of Nixon. You continue to peddle this
nonsense that there was this golden age of liberalism. There was a brief period where the
White working class did well as a result of unions, and because wealthier white men who
served with them during the war felt an obligation to their fellow servicemen. As usual,
you ignore the plight of non-White Americans. I'm not calling you a racist; I'm
challenging you on your myopia. n
Reply
Share
Basho
Leader
Mike Calcagno
23 Jul
Edited
Today we have police armed with military equipment harassing and killing people of color
in American cities. Driving while Black has become a crime. Our Golden Age (which ended in
the 1970s) saw the least economic inequality of any industrialized nation. FDR created an
excellent economic safety net. He essentially created our middle class. Today we have
greatest wealth inequality of any industrialized nation. In the Golden Age we had the
nonviolent Civil Rights Movement (in which I participated.) There was a major peace
movement in the Democratic Party (in which I participated.) We had the War on Poverty.
Unions were strong. Working people had a decent standard of living. The Democratic Party
was actually liberal (The word liberal today has been drained of all meaning.) Kennedy
ran, not to the right of NIxon but as a hawk like Nixon, but at the time of his death he
was working to get out of Vietnam. And he started pushing the Democratic Party towards
civil rights.Kennedy got rid of the evil Alan Dulles as head of the CIA. Today's Dulles's
techniques are a clear part of the Democratic Party's foreign policy. Our CIA is Murder
Incorporated. The Democratic Party that I once loved has gone to hell.
Reply
Share
Show
2
more replies
FreeQuark
Leader
22 Jul
The social agenda of the left is entirely compatible with neoliberalism, and in fact certain
aspects of that social agenda - unrestricted immigration, for example - are fundamental
components of neoliberal economic ideology. Neoliberal politicians who are members of
center/left political parties thus run on a far left social platform and thereby win election
after election over economic progressives. The left has consequently neutered itself on
economics through its overemphasis on social issues. Most people on the left are totally
unwilling to acknowledge that reality, and that is why neoliberals will continue to dominate
center/left politics around the world. Even though "progressives" may manage to win an
election here or there, neoliberals will always be able to maintain overall control of
center/left parties by associating left-wing economics with opposition to immigration and
other alleged "right-wing" causes. For people on the left primarily concerned about
economics, alternative right politicians on the order of Trump or Le Pen are likely to remain
the only viable political options in most elections for a long time to come.
Reply
Share
1 Like
Darren
Tomlyn
Leader
21 Jul
Edited
Humanity now stands at a crossroads, for there's a difference between reacting against the
corruption of civilization, and reacting against civilization itself... The latter is
unfortunately what Trump (and Brexit) truly represents. If the latter is what people vote
for, then they vote for DEATH... Unfortunately, as has been proven throughout the past few
thousand years, this usually ultimately results in their very own death at the same time.
Although neoliberalism has been about the corruption of capitalism - using economic power to
get one part of humanity to essentially wage war on the rest to further their own goals -
this particular underlying economic conflict (the rich and powerful vs everyone else) is
inherent to civilization, and is what government exists to manage. So again, the main problem
stems from people not learning from history and repeating many of the same mistakes, even it
the context and outcomes merely rhyme...
Todd
Dunning
Leader
22 Jul
Can someone here help me out to properly define "Neoliberalism"?
Reply
Share
FreeQuark
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Neoliberalism is the idea that the removal of protectionist trade policies, government
regulations, immigration quotas, and other barriers to international commerce is the key
to economic growth and prosperity. It's safe to say I think that the adoption of the
neoliberal policy agenda by many governments around the world has not produced the outcome
that economists and globalist think tanks claimed it would produce. The problem now is
that mainstream political parties in Western countries have bought, hook, line, and sinker
into neoliberalism and are refusing to let it go regardless of its failings. The reason
they won't let it go of course is that most of those parties are controlled by wealthy
people who haven't been harmed by neoliberal policies. I'm guessing Justin Trudeau,
Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and the Clintons have never lost a night's sleep worrying
that the factory they work in may move overseas or that they will lose a job to some
upwardly-mobile immigrant.
Reply
Share
2
Likes
RobertSF
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Is there no wiki in your internet? Or are you looking for an argument?
jak123
Leader
21 Jul
Excellent article. Trump and AMLO are similar in that both are insurgents. The question for
both is whether they can make real progress within their respective political systems. The
Russia issue is a test of that. On one side is Trump, who represents a break from the
neoliberal policies of the past (even if many of his policies are neoliberal, as Lynch says),
such as hostility toward Russia, and on the other hand are elements of his government, such
as the intelligence agencies, that backed Clinton and are part of the effort to undermine
Trump because they want to topple Putin to allow the US to plunder Russia. The hysterical
overreaction to the summit. Strzok's shocking testimony to Congress and Mueller's pretend
indictments of Russians who will never stand trial represent an escalation by the elements of
Trump's government who oppose him.
In his recent article "Averting
World Conflict with China" Ron Unz has come up with an intriguing suggestion for the Chinese
government to turn the tables on the December 1 st arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada.
Canada detained Mrs. Meng, CFO of the world's largest telecoms equipment manufacturer Huawei,
at the request of the United States so she could be extradited to New York to face charges that
she and her company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The sanctions in question had been
imposed unilaterally by Washington and it is widely believed that the Trump Administration is
sending a signal that when the ban on purchasing oil from Iran comes into full effect in May
there will be no excuses accepted from any country that is unwilling to comply with the U.S.
government's demands. Washington will exercise universal jurisdiction over those who violate
its sanctions, meaning that foreign officials and heads of corporations that continue to deal
with Iran can be arrested when traveling internationally and will be extradited to be tried in
American courts.
There is, of course, a considerable downside to arresting a top executive of a leading
foreign corporation from a country that is a major U.S. trading partner and which also, inter
alia, holds a considerable portion of the U.S. national debt. Ron Unz has correctly noted the "
extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course
of world history." One might add that Washington's demands that other nations adhere to its
sanctions on third countries opens up a Pandora's box whereby no traveling executives will be
considered safe from legal consequences when they do not adhere to policies being promoted by
the United States. Unz cites Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs as
describing it as "almost a U.S. declaration of war on China's business community." If
seizing and extraditing businessmen becomes the new normal those countries most affected will
inevitably retaliate in kind. China has already detained two traveling Canadians to pressure
Ottawa to release Mrs. Meng. Beijing is also contemplating some immediate retaliatory steps
against Washington to include American companies operating in China if she is extradited to the
U.S.
Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the
licenses of Sheldon Adelson's casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby
eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator
rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring
Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any
positive results while Adelson
is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it
as a policy at all.
Adelson is the world's leading diaspora Israel-firster and he has the ear of the president
of the United States, who reportedly speaks and meets with him regularly. And Adelson uses his
considerable financial resources to back up his words of wisdom. He is the fifteenth wealthiest man in America
with a reported fortune of $33 billion. He is the number one contributor to the GOP having
given $81 million in the last cycle. Admittedly that is chump change to him, but it is more
than enough to buy the money hungry and easily corruptible Republicans.
In a certain sense, Adelson has obtained control of the foreign policy of the political
party that now controls both the White House and the Senate, and his mission in life is to
advance Israeli interests. Among those interests is the continuous punishment of Iran, which
does not threaten the United States in any way, through employment of increasingly savage
sanctions and threats of violence, which brings us around to the arrest of Meng and the
complicity of Adelson in that process. Adelson's wholly owned talking head National Security
Adviser John Bolton reportedly had prior knowledge of the Canadian plans and may have actually
been complicit in their formulation. Adelson has also been the major force behind moving the
U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, has also convinced the Administration to stop its criticism of the
illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land and has been instrumental in cutting off all
humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. He prefers tough love when dealing with the Iranians,
advocating dropping
a nuclear bomb on Iran as a warning to the Mullahs of what more might be coming if they don't
comply with all the American and Israeli demands.
Jana Bacevic
59
2 years ago
PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, Department of Sociology; sociology of
knowledge, social theory, political economy of knowledge production.
This is an extremely interesting and important question. In the past years, critics are
increasingly proclaiming that neoliberalism has
come to an end
, or at least become too broad or
too vague
to be used as an explanatory term.
Yet, neoliberalism has proven to be remarkably resilient. This, as
Jamie Peck
has argued, may be due to its propensity to 'fail forward', that is, perpetuate
rather than correct or reverse the mechanisms that led to its failures in the first place – the
economic/fiscal policies following the
2008 economic crisis
are a good example. Or it may have to do with what
Boltanski and Chiapello
have dubbed 'the new spirit of capitalism', meaning its capacity to
absorb political and societal challenges and subsume them under the dominant economic paradigm –
as reflected, for instance, in the way neoliberalism has managed to coopt politics of identity.
But the success of neoliberalism has arguably less to do with its performance as an economic
philosophy (at least after 2008, that is patently not the case – even IMF
has admitted
that neoliberal policies may be exacerbating inequality), and more to do with
what seems to be the consensus of political and economic elites over its application.
Neoliberalism allows for the convergence of financial, governmental, military, industrial and
technological networks of power in ways that not only make sustained resistance difficult, but
also increasingly constrain possibilities for thinking about alternatives.
This is not to say that
heterodox economic
ideas are lacking. Alternatives to mainstream (or neo-classical)
economics range from Marxist and Keynesian approaches, to post-Keynesian, participatory, or
'sharing' economies, and the philosophy of
degrowth.
Yet, in the framework of existing system of political and economic relations,
successfully implementing any of these would require a strong political initiative and at least
some level of consensus beyond the level of any single nation-state.
In this sense, the economic philosophy to succeed neoliberalism will be the one that manages
to capture the 'hearts and minds' of those in power. While the Left needs to start developing
sustainable economic alternatives, it seems that, in the short term, economic policies will be
driven either by some sort of
authoritarian populism,
(as for instance in Trump's pre-election speeches), or a new version
of neoliberalism (what
Will Davies
has called "punitive" neoliberalism). Hopefully, even from such a shrunk space,
alternatives can emerge; however, if we are to draw lessons from the
intellectual history of neoliberalism
, they will require long-term political action to
seriously challenge the prevailing economic order.
This isn very important question that i try to answer in my books. I think
regulation and taxation are key, as well as moving toward a more local circular
economy. You can download the books for free at
So much for peace that neoliberal globalization should supposedly bring...
Notable quotes:
"... We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations. ..."
"... In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America ..."
"... China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. ..."
"... In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. ..."
"... The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports ..."
"... The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei. ..."
"... Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown. ..."
We face a world of multiple wars some
leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to
big power confrontations.
We will proceed to identify 'great power'
confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of 'proxy' wars with world war consequences.
In our times the US is the principal
power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets,
namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin
America.
China is the prime enemy of the US for
several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its
technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three
continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built
an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On
all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.
In response the US has resorted to a
closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump
has declared a
tariff
war on China; and multiple separatist and propaganda war; and aerial
and maritime encirclement of China's mainland
The first line of attack are Chinese
exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the
promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions
to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by
expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US
exports.
The US economic war has moved to a higher
level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei.
The White House has moved up the ladder
of aggression from sanctions to extortion to kidnapping. Provocation, is one step up from military
intimidation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.
Russia faces similar threats to its
domestic economy, its overseas allies, especially China and Iran as well as the US renunciation of
intermediate nuclear missile agreement
Iran faces oil sanctions, military
encirclement and attacks on proxy allies including in Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on
Saudi Arabia, Israel and paramilitary terrorist groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine
Iran's economy and to impose a 'regime change'.
Each of the three strategic targets of
the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime
change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover
of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we
face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown.
Wars by Proxy
The US has targeted a second tier of
enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
In Latin America the US has waged
economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic
pressure on Bolivia. To expand its dominance Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil,
Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay as well as right-wing elites throughout the region
As in numerous other cases of regime
change Washington relies on corrupt judges to rule against President Morales, as well as US foundation
funded NGO's; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local political
proxies to further US imperial goals is to give the appearance of a 'civil war' rather than gross US
intervention.
In fact, once the so-called 'dissidents'
or 'rebels' establish a foot hole, they 'invite' US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as
propaganda weapons against Russia, China or Iran – 'first tier' adversaries.
In recent years US proxy conflicts have
been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war
against Eastern Ukraine; the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs
attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.
The US has established 32 military bases
in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are discarded as
local conflict between 'legitimate' regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribality and tyrants.
The objective of proxy wars are
threefold. They serve as 'feeders' into larger territorial wars
encircling
China, Russia
and Iran.
Secondly, proxy wars are 'testing
grounds' to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e.
Russia, China and Iran.
Thirdly, the proxy wars are 'low cost'
and 'low risk' attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.
Equally important 'proxy wars' serve as
propaganda tools, associating strategic adversaries as 'expansionist authoritarian' enemies of 'western
values'.
Conclusion
US empire builders engage in multiple
types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China;
regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.
These large scale, long-term strategic
weapons are complemented by proxy wars, involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the
economic bases of counting allies of anti-imperialist powers.
Hence, the US attacks China directly via
tariff wars and tries to sabotage its global "Belt and Road' infrastructure projects linking China with 82
counties.
Likewise, the US attacks Russian allies
in Syria via proxy wars, as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power
via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war.
However, the US quest for world
domination has so far taken steps which have failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.
China moves forward with its global
infrastructure programs: the trade war has had little impact in isolating it from its principal markets.
Moreover, the US policy has increased China's role as a leading advocate of 'open trade' against President
Trump's protectionism.
ORDER IT NOW
Likewise, the tactics of encircling and
sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal 'proxies'
in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true
of agro-mineral exports to China.
Notwithstanding the limits of US power
and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating
the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China's coast; it
allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political
leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, too, many nuclear fuses.
It is easy to imagine how a failed trade
war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it
will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies
in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are
reasons to hope!
I disagree. The parasitic terror regime that runs washington believe they can win a nuclear war, i have no
hope left for peace. They need a culling of the "useless eaters", we are stealing the food out of their poor
frightened children`s mouths by existing.
Eric Zuesse wrote a decent article yesterday at the Saker blog about the US nuclear forces and its owners
wet dream.
"The U.S. Government's Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion"
The actions of nato/EU/UK/ISR/KSA etc certainly supports his article, at least in my opinion.
The US, and the West, by instigating wars elsewhere, and selling weapons to
those, destroy countries and prosperity abroad. Those living in target countries find themselves miserable,
with loss of everything. It is only natural that they may try to escape a living hell by emigrating to the
West.
People in the US and the West in general will not want mass immigration, and with good reason; but if you
were in a war torn country or an impoverished country (as a result of western "help") you would also attempt
to move away from the bombs, etc.
If the West left the rest of the world alone (in terms of their regimes and in terms of their weapons),
they might prosper and no longer need to run away from their home countries.
The sanctions and embargoes have failed in the past, when China was much weaker, so we can be quite
confident that they will fail again, and quickly, as this timeline suggests:
September 3, 2018
:
Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to use
Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM.
With 20 percent faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has
twice the performance of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life
improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency
to deliver 10cm. positioning.
September 5, 2018
. China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's
semiconductor capacity this year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.
September 15, 2018.
China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations
operating as the rest of the world combined.
September 21, 2018
. China has reached global technological parity and now has twelve of the
world's top fifty IC design houses (China's SMIC is fourth, Huawei's HiSilicon is seventh), and twenty-one
percent of global IC design revenues. Roger Luo, TSMC.
October 2, 2018
. Chinese research makes up 18.6 percent of global STEM peer-reviewed papers, ahead
of the US at 18 percent. "The fact that China's article output is now the largest is very significant. It's
been predicted for a while, but there was a view this was not likely to happen until 2025," said Michael
Mabe, head of STM.
October 14, 2018
. Huawei announces 7 nm Ascend 910 chipset for data centers, twice as powerful as
Nvidia's v100 and the first AI IP chip series to natively provide optimal TeraOPS per watt in all scenarios.
Available 2Q19.
October 7, 2018
: China becomes largest recipient of FDI in H1, attracting an estimated 70 billion
U.S. dollars, according to UNCTAD.
October 8, 2018:
Taiwan's Foxconn moves its major semiconductor maker and five integrated circuit
design companies to Jinan, China.
October 22, 2018
. China becomes world leader in venture capital, ahead of the US and almost twice
the rest of the world's $53.4 billion YTD. The Crunchbase report says the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the
world is undergoing a major transformation: it is now driven by China instead of the US.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' –
regime change by cop or nuclear war
good article.
Only idiot can believe that nuclear war can be won, IMHO. Elites aren't suicidal, oh no. On the contrary.
Can they make a mistake and cause that war, definitely.
Which brings us to the important part:
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support.
Agree, but, that's
exactly
the reason I disagree with:
There are reasons to hope!
No need to be pedantic, of course there is always a reason for hope.
But, I see it as
so
fertile ground for making
The MISTAKE
.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!
It's when the elite war mongers' backs are up against the wall that they come up with a cleverly designed
false flag attack to rally public support for war. They are more dangerous now than ever.
Agree about Russia and China, however Iran needs to be viewed not as a play for oil or the Islamic crowd but
driven wholly and solely by Israel. Iran is not a threat to US in any context, only Israel.
question:
If the relatively small tariffs on Chinese goods amount to 'direct attacks on China', then what are the
massive tariffs by China on US goods?
The "Chess men" behind "The Wall Street Economy" have stated a few times that the only way to remain the
dominant economy is to first: convince rivals that resistance is futile, and second:
to atomize any
potential rival
(Ghaddaffi is a clear example).
Breaking up Russia has been on the to-do list for
decades, and I believe that the Chess Men have no idea what to do about containing China, and are clearly
flat-footed, and
desperate
kidnapping a Chinese business executive.
The Wall Street Economy depended on cheap Chinese labor it's own profits, and that was Ok until .?
Until the writing on the Wall became ledgible .
The smell of genuine fear is in the air.
" The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope! "
Is popular support
needed to get a people in a war mood ?
Both Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 demonstrate, in my opinion, that it is not very difficult to create a war
mood.
Yet, if another Sept 11 would do the trick, I wonder.
Sept 11 has been debated without without interruption since Sept 11.
After the 1946 USA Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour the USA government succeeded in preventing a
similar discussion.
Until now the west, Deep State, NATO, EU did not succeed in provoking Russia or China.
Each time they tried something, in my opinion they did this several times, Russia showed its military
superiority, at the same time taking care not to hurt public opinion in the west.
Is not it amazing that the morally miserable US, a "power in search of world domination through force and
violence," is officially governed by self-avowed pious X-tians. What kind of corruption among the high-level
clergy protects the satanists Pompeo, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Blair and such from excommunication?
"Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the
long war, while its [US] airstrikes
continue to rack up civilian deaths
At the same time, the US
military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase and the "armed gangs" around it prevent refugees from returning
home."
– Nothing new. The multi-denominational Syria has been pounded by the US-supported "moderate" terrorists
(armed with US-provided arms and with UK-provided chemical weaponry) to satisfy the desires of
Israel-firsters, arm-dealers and the multitude of war-profiteers that have been fattening their pockets at
the US/UK taxpayers' expense.
"Timber Sycamore" [initiated by Obama] is the most important arms trafficking operation in History. It
involves at least 17 governments. The transfer of weapons, meant for jihadist organizations, is carried out
by Silk Way Airlines, a Azerbaïdjan public company of cargo planes."
@Godfree Roberts
Huawei can announce whatever, there are much more experienced adversaries(IBM, intel and ARM) who can`t beat
nV in computation, and especially in integration of silicon. Guess who`s running inference and computer
vision in all these car autopilots.
I think we could have an economic collapse like the Soviet Union had , or like Argentina had in 2001 with
the " corralito "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corralito
.
Being the complex and global society that we are , it would be a disaster , it would produce hunger ,
misery and all types of local wars .
"Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes "
Have to agree with that
statement. Seriously, wherein is this vaunted "superpower" that our American politicians always yap about?
All I've seen in my lifetime is our military getting its butt kicked in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq,
Afghanistan. What, besides insanity and hubris, makes them think they could win anything much less a war
against Iran, China or Russia?
Mostly accurate, but 'closed protectionist society' ! Hardly. It's still very difficult to buy any
manufactured goods made in this country. Of course this is part of the World economic circle countries use
the US Dollar for all trade. They need dollars. We can print them and receive real goods in return. This has
been going around and around for decades. It may come to an end in the not-too-distant future, but it has a
lot of inertia.
@jilles dykstra
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."
The only threat to patriotic Americans is Zionism which has ruled the U.S. since it took control over the
money supply and the taxes via the privately owned Zionist FED and IRS and has given America nothing to wars
and economic destruction since the FED and IRS were put in place by the Zionist banking kabal in 1913 and
both are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within
the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign
to the American people as if it were from MARS!
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as
pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The
Protocols of Zion, to see the Zionist satanic NWO plan.
Lost me at Kurd takeover of northern Iraq/Syria. The Kurds have defacto owned those areas since 1991, and
earlier. Saddam gassing the Kurds didn't accomplish anything except for making himself a target, no Arab
lived in those areas, the Kurds would kill them.
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal
The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a
pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt
and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.
I agree with Bob Sykes' commentary over on Instapundit:
Well, our "anti-ISIS" model in eastern Syria consists of defending ISIS against attacks by the Syrian
government, allowing them to pump and export Syrian oil for their profit, arming them and allowing them
to recruit new fighters. I suppose that means we should be arming the Taliban.
ISIS was created by the CIA to fight against Assad. But they slipped the leash and became the fighting
force for the dissident Sunni Arabs all along the Euphrates Valley. We only began to oppose them when
their rebellion reached the outskirts of Baghdad, and even then the bulk of the fighting was done by
Iraq's Shias and Iran. Now we are transferring them, or many of them, into secure (for ISIS) areas of
Iraq.
The three U.S. presidents, six secretaries of defense and five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff are, in fact, war criminals, in exactly the same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et
al. were war criminals.
Those presidents, secretaries and generals launched wars of aggression
against Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen not one of which threatened us
in any way. They engineered coups d'état against two friendly governments, Egypt and Turkey.
Now the
fake American, anti-American neocons want to attack Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and even Russia and
China.
Green needs to get his head out of his arse. We, the US, are the great rogue terrorist state. We are
the evil empire. We are the chief source of death and destruction in the world. How many hundreds of
thousands of civilians have we murdered in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia? How many cities have
we bombed flat like Raqqa and Mosel. Putin is a saint compared to any US President.
Iran has always been at the center of the Great Game, the key square on the board to block
Eurasia.You must either control Afghanistan AND Pakistan or Iran.
With Pakistan now in the SCO, Iran is a US imperative.
Israels antipathy is secondary and a useful foil, not the primary motive.
Read MacKinder, the imperial power has changed, not the strategy.
How is it possible for anyone to write an article titled:
A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars
without mentioning the Principal Detonator of Global Wars?? The Elephant!
The United States of America is no longer a Sovereign Nation.
The Local Political Power Elite (C. Wright Mills term), serve, are Minions, of the Zionist Jewish
Financial Terrorist Initiators and Controllers of the Global New World Order.
I would express this point in stronger terms, but I have not yet finished my coffee. The "Mulitiple
Detonators" Petras discusses are useless unless Triggered by the Global Controllers.
A Slight Digression: maybe:
Petras may have written his exposé this way, understanding that he might safely avoid mention of the
anti-Semitic (they hate Palestinians and other Arabs – actual Semites), Zionist Land Thieves, because a
clueless Anarchist would appear and complete his article for him. If that is the case, I want half of the $
Unz is paying Petras for this article.
In Conclusion: and by the number###:
1. The American Power Elite and servile Politicians in America's Knesset in Washington DC, do not go to the
Bathroom, without permission from their Zionist Oligarch masters.
2. The American Gauleters, Quislings, (better known as Traitors), serve the Rothschild and other Foreign
Oligarchs. Recently, only 1, of 100 'Senators' demanded that there be a discussion of the Bill to send
another $35 Billion gift to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. Poor
Senator Rand Paul
. How many ribs
of his remain to be broken?
We the American people, have one Senator. And he has a great father.
3. Textbooks, Entertainment from Hollywood (key to all mind control), even Dictionaries, have been
ruthlessly censored.
4.
Our elected Zionist slaves in Congress, and all State and local governing bodies, live in fear
of saying (accidentally), some truth, and ending up working at Walmart or 7-11, (if they are lucky).
5. Our young are effectively brainwashed in their schools; they have already been removed from their
parents.
6. Our politicians are bribed with our own tax money (re-routed by the Zionists AIPAC, etc.).
7.
The Zionist Entity has huge Financial Resources
. They should be giving us 'Financial $$ Aid,
not the other way around. Since NAFTA, we have entire cities & tons of infrastructure to rebuild.
Excuse me
: Girlfriend thinks I should go to work.
Petras, I just fleshed out your, otherwise, promising article. You must understand – that
the ethnic
cleansing – genocide, against the Palestinian Nation, by the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs, is the greatest
single crime being committed on our Planet.
All other crimes stem from this one.
We Americans must Restore Our Republic!
John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, M L King, Malcolm X. John Lennon; we are late, but we are coming.
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government
which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American
people as if it were from MARS!
One comment:
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used
as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
In order to accomplish the above
, we American Citizen Patriots – must Restore Our Republic – that,
with our Last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy,
was destroyed by the Zionist Oligarchs and
their American underling traitors, in a hail of bullets, on November 22, 1963.
@Miro23
" same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. "
Why were they war criminals ?
Because of the Neurenberg farce ?; farce according to the chairman of the USA Supreme Court in 1945:
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme
Court Justices', New York, 1983
Churchill and Lindemann in fact murdered some two million German civilians, women, children, old men. Not a
crime ?
Churchill refused the May 1941 Rudolf Hess peace proposal, not a crime ?
FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, some 2700 casualties, his pretcxt for war, not a crime ?
900.000 German hunger deaths between the 1918 cease fire and Versailles, the British food blockade, not a
crime ?
Will these wild accusations ever stop ?
I am all for the mother of all wars; however, it isn't going to come anytime soon, nay, not in our lifetime
but when it does appear on the next century's horizon, it would be cathartic to all concerned. Rejoice!
Europe is realigning. England leaving Euro. French population is in upheaval. Eventually France will leave
the Euro also.Most of German tourists now are going to Croatia. Italy is loosing tourists.
Italy living standard is declining. Germany is being pushed inevitably toward cooperation with Russia. Only
supporter of Ukraine will remain USA. Ukraine will be only burden.
Brussels power will evaporate. NATO will remain only on paper and will cease to be reality.
.
This will be great step toward peace in the world.
US is treating its allies as used toilet paper.
Obviously Kashogi was sentenced to death for high treason in absence. The sentence was carried out on Saudi
Arabia's territory. So in reality it is nobody's business.
All hula-buu did happen because he was a reporter working for warmongering Zionist New york times.
@Durruti
I agree with you partly, especially when it comes to the US regarding Zionism and the power of the Israel
lobby to influence US foreign policy and even domestic policy.
But when it comes to Global governance, you have a somewhat narrow minded approach.
Most of the ills today that happen in the world, is driven by the NEW WORLD ORDER OF NEOLIBERAL
GLOBALIZATION.
Unrelated phenomena, such as the destruction in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria), the
destruction of Yugoslavia, the coup in Ukraine and the Greek economic catastrophe are a consequence of this
NWO expansion. NWO expansion is the phasing out of national sovereignty (through economic and/or military
violence) and its replacement by a kind of transnational sovereignty administered by a Transnational Elite.
This is the network of the elites mainly based in the G7 countries, which control the world economic and
political/ military institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, European Central Bank, NATO, UN and so on), as
well as the global media that set the agenda of the 'world community'.
The US is an important part of this since it provides the Military Means to integrate countries that do not
"comply" with the NWO dictates.
The Zionists carry a lot of blame and are part of that drive for this NWO, but there are others, most of
them in the US and Europe.
Here's a good link to an article if you have time, with good info about NWO & Trasnational corporations
that are mainly to blame about all the worlds and misery in our world today.
@WHAT
back door Intel
,
embedded ARM
Open source Red Hat-IBM
Hummm?.
I am not so sure, Mr. What. Experience may not mean much to abused IAI consumers. even if IAI catches up
to the exponential fundamentals achieved by Huawei consumers might prefer back-door-free equipment and
Operating Systems.
Russian times reported a few weeks ago that Russia has a quite different new processor and an OS that
does not use any IAI stuff and is developing a backup Internet for Russians which it expects to expand
regionally,
"What we have then, are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises
Norman Dodd, director of research for the (U.S.) REECE COMMITTEE in its attempt to investigate tax exempt
foundations, stated:
"The Foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the
wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being."
The Rothschilds rule the U.S. through the foundations, the Council on foreign Relations, and the Federal
Reserve System, with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive 'political campaigns' are routinely
conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the WORLD ORDER. Should they
deviate from the program, they would have an 'accident', be framed on a sex charge, or indicted on some
financial irregularity.
Senator Moynihan stated in his book, "Loyalties", "A British friend, wise in the ways of the world, put
it thus: "They are now on page 16 of the Plan." Moynihan prudently did not ask what page 17 would bring.
"Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioural science along Freudian lines of 'controlling' humans established
it as the world center of FOUNDATION ideology.
[MORE]
Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Standford Research
Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Centre of Strategic and International
Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand
and Mitre corporations.
(at the time of writing, 1992) Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 billion a year network
of foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are
under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which
originate many types of programs to increase the control of the WORLD ORDER over the American people.
The personnel of the FOUNDATIONS are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these
Tavistock controlled institutions.
A network of secret groups – the MONT PELERIN SOCIETY, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, DITCHLEY FOUNDATION,
and CLUB OF ROME is the conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.
Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used
experimentally on AMERICAN prisoners of war in KOREA.
Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a
surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behaviour
through topical psychology.
A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as
a 'refugee', the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which
originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve the U.S. in
WWII.
In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S.
sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies.
To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before
setting up the OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the
CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.
Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids [against the German people] carried
out by [the ALL LIES] Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records
of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions".
All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal – to break down the
psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the WORLD
ORDER.
Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of
religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of
crowd control.
The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this
treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to 'establish new rituals of
personal interactions', that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the
participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives – destroying their ability to
establish or maintain a family.
Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any
field unless he has been trained in behavioural science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.
Tavistock maintains 2 schools at Frankfort, birthplace of the Rothschilds, the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, and
the Sigmund Freud Institute.
The 'experiment' in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert of
the OSS (forerunner of CIA) and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the
Commission on Community Relations.
The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his
identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the
National Education Association.
The Institute of Social Research at the Natl Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of
business and government.
Another prominent Tavistock operation is the WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE.
A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy – the use of drugs such as the
infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, directed by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, in which unsuspecting CIA
officials were given LSD and their reactions studied like guinea pigs, resulting in several deaths –
no one was ever indicted.
(Source of info: author Eustace Mullins "The World Order: Our Secret Rulers" 2nd ed. 1992. He
dedicated his book "to American patriots and their passion for liberty". note: No copyright
restrictions)
@Agent76
Excellent video. More people need to see this to understand how corrupt the China Totalitarian state works
behind the scenes along with the US as part of the Globalization NWO movement to enrich the few and
impoverish the rest of the world population.
"... The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery or violence) rather than their company's alleged malfeasance. ..."
"... Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies, US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. ..."
"... The Trump administration is preparing actions this week to call out Beijing for what it says are China's continued efforts to steal American trade secrets and advanced technologies and to compromise sensitive government and corporate computers, according to U.S. officials. ..."
"... Multiple government agencies are expected to condemn China, citing a documented campaign of economic espionage and the alleged violation of a landmark 2015 pact to refrain from hacking for commercial gain ..."
"... Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its mounting aggression against the West and its attempts to displace the United States as the world's leader in technology, officials said. ..."
"... The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort devoted to acquiring sophisticated American technologies of all stripes. A number of agencies -- including the Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security departments -- have pushed for a newly aggressive U.S. response. A National Security Council committee coordinated the actions ..."
"... After three centuries of anglo-american imperialism the economic center of the world is moving back to the east . ..."
"... The U.S. is way too late to prevent this move. Its best and most profitable chance is not to challenge, but to accommodate it. That again would require to respect international laws and treaty obligations. The U.S. is not willing to do either. ..."
"... Nothing except a large scale war that results in the destruction of the industrial centers of east Asia, while keeping the U.S. and Europe save, could reverse the trend. Nuclear weapons on all sides and the principal of mutual assured destruction have made such a war unthinkable. What we are likely to see instead will be proxy conflicts in various other countries. ..."
"... The current U.S. strategy is to restrict China's access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking and higher education. While that may for a moment slow down China's rise it will in the long run strengthen China even more. Instead of integrating into the world economy it will develop its own capacities and international systems. ..."
"... dh posted a link on the last thread to China banning import and sale of all iPhones in China (strange, I thought they were made in China? Must be exported and re-imported?). ..."
"... This is interesting. China hits a top US company manufacturing in China by granting an injunction in a case of one US company against another US company, in which one accuses the other of intellectual property theft. China was not expected to find in Qualcomm's favour, according to the article (perhaps in part because Apple manufactures in China therefore is a client of China, so it was expected China might favour Apple). If this decision was influenced by the arrest, the US can hardly point the finger at China! ..."
"... In my opinion, China should make these criminal actions of the US extremely painful indeed, and as quickly as possible ..."
"... With Trump's utterance, he also exposed how he/his government has abused Canada's extradition law for political purposes. Officially in this extradition procedure, the US now has 60 days to submit a complete extradition request which requires far more detail. Meng's court date is set for February. In any case, Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US) was already successfully challenged once in the Diab case with France, was criticized by Canada's Superior Court (extraditions are processed at the provincial judicial level), so Trudeau's hiding behind 'judicial process' is two-faced cowardliness. ..."
"... What's even more damning for the collective absolute stupidity of capitalist bigwigs is that I could see this coming more than 20 years ago, yet these idiots blindly charged as if short-term profits were all they wanted and would be enough to ensure their eternal dominance. ..."
"... What an empire does not control they destroy. ..."
"... The "own goal" was not outsourcing manufacturing to China but in not isolating China by bringing Russia into the Western fold. Instead, they kicked Russia while it was down via capitalist "Shock Doctrine" - hoping for total capitulation. Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain. ..."
"... Does that moron Kissinger know nothing about WW2? That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians suggests that Kissinger knows the Americans have no ability to absorb pain themselves ..."
"... Maybe now Shell executives will be arrested for crimes against humanity in Nigeria. ..."
"... After all, as you stated, these maneuvers wrt Meng are emanating from John (I am the Eggman) Bolton's office and clearly evidence his trademarked hard-boiled belligerence which of course is heartily endorsed by Trump (as an "Art of the Deal" negotiating ploy by the master debater himself) who selected The Walrus in the first place. Or second place if you count Bolton's earlier appointment by that other intellectual giant of the GOP, GW Bush. ..."
"... "Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain." Then Kissinger is a bigger fool than I thought. He's old enough to know about WWII, and previous wars as well. I mean, he did study the Napoleonic wars... ..."
"... She's not being accused of trading with Iran. She's being accused of bank fraud (providing false information to obtain a loan). ..."
"... The charges against Meng were brought by Richard P. Donoghue, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Donoghue was appointed as Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on January 3, 2018, and as Attorney on May 3, 2018. ..."
"... The bottom line is that the bar for extradition from Canada is extremely low, which should worry Ms Meng. ..."
"... The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact with the new global centres of economic and political influence. A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious "highly likely." There are many examples of this dirty game...This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order" the parameters of which will be determined by a select few. ..."
"... We are especially concerned about the activities of the US administration aimed at destroying the key international agreements. These include withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran nuclear deal, the declared intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), an open line for revising the settlement principles in the Middle East, as well as sabotaging the Minsk Agreements on overcoming the internal Ukrainian crisis. The trade wars that have been launched contrary to the WTO principles are rocking the global economic architecture, free trade and competition standards. The US establishment, blindly believing in the idea of their exceptionalism, continues to appoint rivals and adversaries, primarily among the countries that pursue an independent foreign policy. Everyone can see that Washington is a loose cannon, liable to act incongruously, including regarding Russia where any steps taken by US President Donald Trump to develop stable and normal channels of communication with Moscow on the biggest current problems are promptly blocked by those who want to continue or even strengthen the destructive approach to relations with Russia, which developed during the previous US administration. ..."
"... Overall, it looks as if the Americans and some of our other Western colleagues have forgotten the basics of diplomacy and the art of dialogue and consensus over the past 25 years. One result of this is the dangerous militarisation of the foreign policy thinking. As RIAC Director General Andrey Kortunov recently pointed out at a Valdai Discussion Club meeting, the Clausewitz formula can be changed to a mirror image, "Politics is a continuation of war by other means. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the U.S. ruling class cares more about the psychic gratification it derives from dominating the world. ..."
"... The prosecutor's case against Meng is fundamentally weak. For instance, there is no identification of a "co-conspirator", necessary to a charge of conspiracy. It does not seem to have been developed much beyond the information developed in the 2013 Reuters investigation. At least half of that relies on unnamed "former employees" and unnamed persons who claimed to have dealt with Skycom in Iran. ..."
The United States issued an arrest warrant against the chief financial officer and heir apparent of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou. At issue
is a six years old
alleged violation of sanctions against Iran. Mrs. Meng was arrested in Canada. She has been set free under a
stringent $10 million bail agreement . An extradition trial will follow in February or March.
It is unprecedented
that an officer of a large company is personally indicted for the alleged sanction violations by a subsidiary company:
The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers
are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery or violence) rather than their company's
alleged malfeasance.
... Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies,
US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example, JPMorgan Chase paid
US$88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. Yet chief executive officer Jamie Dimon wasn't
grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.
The U.S. indicted dozens of banks for violating its sanction regime. They had to pay
huge fines (pdf) but none of their officers were ever touched.
U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters on Tuesday he would intervene in the U.S. Justice Department's case against Meng if it
would serve national security interests or help close a trade deal with China.
The arrest of Meng is but one part of a larger
political campaign against China directed out of the office of National Security Advisor John Bolton:
The Trump administration is preparing actions this week to call out Beijing for what it says are China's continued efforts
to steal American trade secrets and advanced technologies and to compromise sensitive government and corporate computers, according
to U.S. officials.
Multiple government agencies are expected to condemn China, citing a documented campaign of economic espionage and the
alleged violation of a landmark 2015 pact to refrain from hacking for commercial gain.
In typical propaganda style the U.S. media depict the Chinese as enemies:
Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its mounting aggression against the West
and its attempts to displace the United States as the world's leader in technology, officials said.
...
The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort devoted to acquiring sophisticated
American technologies of all stripes. A number of agencies -- including the Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security departments
-- have pushed for a newly aggressive U.S. response. A National Security Council committee coordinated the actions.
One wonders what those "mounting aggressions" are supposed to be. Is the U.S. not constantly spying and hacking for economic or
political gain?
Other reports today of alleged
Chinese hacking are
obviously part of the concerted anti-China campaign. As usual no evidence is presented for the vague allegations:
U.S. government investigators increasingly believe that Chinese state hackers were most likely responsible for the massive intrusion
reported last month into Marriott's Starwood chain hotel reservation system, a breach that exposed the private information and
travel details of as many as 500 million people, according to two people briefed on the government investigation.
These people cautioned that the investigation has not been completed, so definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. But the sweep
and tactics of the hack, which took place over four years before being discovered, prompted immediate speculation that it was
carried out by a national government.
The new anti-China campaign follows a
similar push of anti-Russian propaganda three month ago.
China has taken first countermeasures against Canada's hostage taking on behalf of the United States. It
detained Michael
Kovrig, a former Canadian diplomat who now
works for the International Crisis
Group. Beijing suggest that the ICG is
operating illegally in China :
"The relevant organization has violated Chinese laws because the relevant organization is not registered in China," Foreign Ministry
spokesman Lu Kang said at a press briefing Wednesday.
China sharply tightened its rules on NGOs operating in the country last year, ..
This will not be the sole Chinese measure against Canada for its role in enforcing extraterritorial U.S. sanctions.
The string of U.S. accusations and measures against China are partly to protect the market share of U.S. companies against better
and cheaper Chinese products and partly geopolitical. Neither has anything to do with protecting the international rule of law.
After three centuries of anglo-american imperialism the economic center of the world
is moving back
to the east .
The U.S. is way too late to prevent this move. Its best and most profitable chance is not to challenge, but to accommodate
it. That again would require to respect international laws and treaty obligations. The U.S. is not willing to do either.
Nothing except a large scale war that results in the destruction of the industrial centers of east Asia, while keeping the
U.S. and Europe save, could reverse the trend. Nuclear weapons on all sides and the principal of mutual assured destruction have
made such a war unthinkable. What we are likely to see instead will be proxy conflicts in various other countries.
The current U.S. strategy is to restrict China's access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking and higher
education. While that may for a moment slow down China's rise it will in the long run strengthen China even more. Instead of integrating
into the world economy it will develop its own capacities and international systems.
The U.S. can temporarily hinder the telecommunication equipment provider Huawei by denying it access to U.S. designed chips. It
will probably do so. But that will only incentivize Huawei to start its own chip production. With a few years delay it will be back
and out-compete U.S. companies with even better and cheaper products.
It is typical for the current U.S. to seek short term advantage while disregarding the long term negative effects of its doing.
It is a major reason for China's rise and its future supremacy.
Posted by b on December 12, 2018 at 07:07 AM |
Permalink
Comments
next page " The reason she is violating trade sanctions against Iran is because Trump suspended the Iran Nuclear treaty.
How short-sighted is that?
Well, all these sanctions are pushing target countries to be self sufficient. That's wonderful. Us are pushing countries for a
better production and decrease itself. Smart.
the King Liar has spoken...the boss of the mafia group U$A... The Chinese will interpret this as a kidnapping for blackmail and
act accordingly...this can only get much worse...
dh posted a link on the last thread to China banning import and sale of all iPhones in China (strange, I thought they were
made in China? Must be exported and re-imported?). This concerns a patent dispute between US company Qualcomm and Apple,
over which Qualcomm sued Apple in Chinese courts. The existence of the action in the courts must predate the Meng arrest, but
the court decision to support Qualcomm could be influenced by the arrest.
This is interesting. China hits a top US company manufacturing in China by granting an injunction in a case of one US company
against another US company, in which one accuses the other of intellectual property theft. China was not expected to find in Qualcomm's
favour, according to the article (perhaps in part because Apple manufactures in China therefore is a client of China, so it was
expected China might favour Apple). If this decision was influenced by the arrest, the US can hardly point the finger at China!
It gets better: The Apple executive states in the article that they have stocks of all models in China and sales will not stop.
How can this be, if sales are banned? Surely China can then arrest several Apple executives in China for breaking the injunction?
Would depend of course on the terms of the injunction, of which the article gave no details.
In my opinion, China should make these criminal actions of the US extremely painful indeed, and as quickly as possible.
One person arrested in China is not enough - it should be 10 Americans arrested for 1 Chinese, plus 5 Canadians. China should
make sure the US and Canada understand that the ratio will stay constant if the US/Canada respond to the arrests in China. China
should also take extremely painful action against US telecomms companies in China to compensate for the campaign against Huawei
- it could include denying access to comms links, forcing US telcom communications to go through very expensive route, ceasing
negotiations for investment consortia in favour of non-US companies, etc. The difficulty to navigate, of course, is the risk of
inciting escalating actions against Huawei; but the Chinese will find excellent startegies I am sure.
It may be the case that the Huawei equipment is very, very secure, has much better performance. Soon, China will be the tech leader,
hence the panic. I have a snippet below, but peruse the article in full on the 5G landscape.
"Huawei has been pouring money into research on 5G wireless networks and patenting key technologies. The company has hired
many experts from abroad as well to decide the technical standards for the next generation of wireless communication technology.
As of early 2017, 10% of 1450 patents essential for 5G networks were in Chinese hands in which majority belongs to Huawei and
ZTE.
Huawei spent around $12 Billion on R&D in 2017, which was threefold of Ericsson's spending of $4.1 Billion. This year, according
to estimates, it will spend $800 million in 5G research and development alone.
The company wants to involve AI in 5G which according to them is a much more integral element of Huawei's 5G strategy. The
company also plans to launch a full range of Huawei commercial equipment including wireless access networks, core networks, and
devices.
Huawei has also revealed its hopes to launch smartphones ready for supporting 5G networks by 2019 and starting selling in the
mid-2019. The company is also said to be working on developing a brand-new chipset for 5G services.
Huawei and Vodafone made the 5G call using non-standalone 3GPP 5G-NR standard and sub 6 GHz spectrum. The two companies built
a 5G NR end-to-end test network for the trial and used 3.7GHz spectrum. They also used Huawei Radio Access Network and core network
equipment to support the test with microservice-centric architecture, control plane/user plane separation, and unified access
and network slicing technology.
Huawei also started manufacturing products that provide 5G services. In Mobile World Congress, Huawei launched its 5G customer-premises
equipment (CPE), the world's first commercial terminal device supporting 3GPP standard for 5G. Huawei used its self-developed
chipset Balong 5G01 – world's first commercial chipset supporting the 3GPP standard for 5G, with downlink speed up to 2.3 Gbps."
With Trump's utterance, he also exposed how he/his government has abused Canada's extradition law for political purposes.
Officially in this extradition procedure, the US now has 60 days to submit a complete extradition request which requires far more
detail. Meng's court date is set for February. In any case, Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US)
was already successfully challenged once in the Diab case with France, was criticized by Canada's Superior Court (extraditions
are processed at the provincial judicial level), so Trudeau's hiding behind 'judicial process' is two-faced cowardliness.
Canada needs to amend its extradition law, become much more stringent, and arm this law against the bullying and abusive southern
neighbor who prefers to lord its own laws over others than abide by any kind of international law.
We've been at war with Eurasia long enough. Time for Eastasia! The main question is whether Putin will remain Emmanuel Goldstein
or if someone Chinese will get the honor.
China is set to introduce maximum residue limits (MRLs) of 200 parts per billion (ppb) or lower for glyphosate in all imported
final food products and raw materials including grains, soybeans and other legumes before the end of 2019, according to Sustainable
Pulse sources.....
It is expected that China will now import more grains from Russia, where glyphosate is not widely used as a desiccant. This
also enables China to use glyphosate as a political tool in the current U.S. / China trade war, as food and raw material imports
from the U.S., which often contain high levels of the weedkiller, will be put under major pressure.
That'll hit Monsanto's Roundup pretty hard. Of course China doesn't really have any problem with glyphosate - it's long been
a major producer and exporter itself. So this is obviously a trade war action.
"It is typical for the current U.S. to seek short term advantage while disregarding the long term negative effects of its doing.
It is a major reason for China's rise and its future supremacy."
Well, the economic and industrial rise of China is the ultimate
proof of this. Instead of making sure China would have a limited and purely internal development and would never become such a
fearsome rival, Western (specially US) capitalist fools decided to outsource their production there, creating the monster they
feared and fear even more nowadays.
I've never seen such a ridiculous and brilliant own goal in any World Cup. What's even more damning for the collective
absolute stupidity of capitalist bigwigs is that I could see this coming more than 20 years ago, yet these idiots blindly charged
as if short-term profits were all they wanted and would be enough to ensure their eternal dominance.
I think it's pretty clear to China, Russia, India, and many others, that trading in dollars is a losing strategy. Thus the dollar
is very fast losing its position as the world reserve currency. The EU is not using dollars for Iran's oil. India is not using
dollars for its purchase of Russia's S-400.
It's not only US anti-China strategy; but the US insistence to be the hegemon; the
rest of the planet will not have it, period. The US is done dictating what the rest of the planet will do/follow... Bye, bye,
American pie............
BM @4 I'm not sure where Qualcomm stands in relation to China. It could be a bargaining chip...excuse the pun. The Apple ban applies
to the older iPhone 8 & 7 not the new Xs & Xr......but that may change. Apple is already having trouble selling phones in China
and the Huawei dispute won't help.
What is the legal basis for Meng's arrest? What Canadian law is she alleged to have violated? Or is American wish fulfillment
now part of Canadian jurisprudence?
As a non-American I've got half a mind to find a way to purchase some Iranian products and then send the US State Department an
e-mail telling them to suck it.
Fernando Martinez , Dec 12, 2018 10:11:44 AM |
link
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Dec 12, 2018 9:14:45 AM | 10
The "own goal" was not outsourcing manufacturing to China but in not isolating China by bringing Russia into the Western
fold. Instead, they kicked Russia while it was down via capitalist "Shock Doctrine" - hoping for total capitulation. Kissinger
admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain.
* In his lunch interview with the Financial Times this past summer.
"What is the legal basis for Meng's arrest? What Canadian law is she alleged to have violated? Or is American wish fulfillment
now part of Canadian jurisprudence?"
As I understand it, the USA and Canada have an extradition agreement, and corporate fraud is also a crime in Canada.
This idiocy seems certain to increase curiosity in Huawei products by telcos worldwide. Business managers use technical experts
to evaluate available technologies when contemplating upgrades to their systems. They're certainly not swayed by MSM spin doctors.
This issue could soon be overtaken by a brand new reality. China is planning to launch a worldwide free wifi internet service
based on more than 100 satellites, which could be interpreted as a Commie scheme to undermine the profitability of telcos.
Not clear exactly which officials said, "Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its
mounting aggression against the West... The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort..."
but do know it's very unusual to repeat a verb in consecutive sentences. Mantra alert! Mounting... mounting... mounting... hear
the drums of war.
he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain
Does that moron Kissinger know nothing about WW2? That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians
suggests that Kissinger knows the Americans have no ability to absorb pain themselves
China is planning to launch a worldwide free wifi internet service based on more than 100 satellites, which could be interpreted
as a Commie scheme to undermine the profitability of telcos
cool. digital nomadism
and growing your own food will be the ticket.
The story I heard was that it was a screw up. Mira Ricardel was fired because she pissed off Melania about airplane seats. She
was fired before inter-agency coordination for the arrest but after the warrant for the arrest was issued - the warrant was issued
back in August. That and the fact that Trudeau hates Trump explains this idiocy. Trudeau was left to weigh up the US request against
the poor timing of the US request from the US point of view. No one from the WH got back to the Canadians to ask them to wait.
So Justin decided to go ahead to screw Trump. Fun, no?
ralphieboy | Dec 12, 2018 10:52:25 AM | 18: corporate fraud is also a crime in Canada.
More specifically, she's accused of inducing banks to provide financing that was illegal due to US sanctions. It appears that
as Huawei CFO, she certified that her company doesn't trade with Iran despite the fact that Huawei has an Iran-based subsidiary
(SkyCom Tech).
Is this an example of "US short term strategical thinking" or "Trump's-as-per-usual (non) thinking?"
After all, as you stated, these maneuvers wrt Meng are emanating from John (I am the Eggman) Bolton's office and clearly
evidence his trademarked hard-boiled belligerence which of course is heartily endorsed by Trump (as an "Art of the Deal" negotiating
ploy by the master debater himself) who selected The Walrus in the first place. Or second place if you count Bolton's earlier
appointment by that other intellectual giant of the GOP, GW Bush.
Please, the US voted less for Trump to be our trade representative then even the British voted for their own ridiculous "alt-right"
trade adventure wildride, AKA "Brexit."
And we now have another pretty solid election behind us illustrating even further that Trump's worldview doesn't represent
most of the US. He represents only a dwindling "base" of mostly old white male reactionary racist very scared supporters whose
presence within the GOP has terrified the GOP toadies into supporting most everything Trump wants because he delivers judges and
tax cuts to the rich.
But again,
the majourity
of the toadies don't support Trump on China. He has them by their shriveled up balls is all.
That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians ...
This is a misreading. Kissinger is not projecting but explaining. Look at the Financial Times interview for more clarity. Also,
they didn't fail to consider WWII. They miscalculated. And then they doubled down (as the neocons always do).
Jackrabbit 17 "Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb
pain." Then Kissinger is a bigger fool than I thought. He's old enough to know about WWII, and previous wars as well. I mean,
he did study the Napoleonic wars...
You have to remember, this was economic warfare, not military. And the USA/West were pretending to be helpful. IIRC, Yeltsin
was happy for this "help" too.
"The government and us are cut from the same cloth." Sam Giancana, former Mob boss from Chicago. Deep State, you say? No way,
Jose. More like the Gambino (Democrat's) and the Genovese (Republicans). You don't need "colors" to identify yourself as a gang
member. You can wear double breasted suits and have the same bad intentions as any member of the Crips, Bloods, Mafia or Mexican
Cartels. The US government is one great big Tammany Hall. Nothing has changed since the days of Boss Tweed. Instead of being centered
in New York, it's now in our nation's capital. Mah Rohn! Forget about it!
Fidelios Automata , Dec 12, 2018 12:22:34 PM |
link
This is beyond outrageous. US law is not the law of the world. The Chinese may trade with whomever they choose.
According to the above article, American firms set up foreign subsidiaries to do business with sanctioned countries. So if
SkyCom is an Iranian subsidiary, what can be Sabrina Meng Wanzhou's crime? Or even if SkyCom is a Hong Kong-based subsidiary?
The city-state effectively maintains its own laws and financial architecture, as part of one country, two systems.
It's a bit OT but this thing of Russia absorbing pain - to be fair, I always thought that producing Putin at the last moment was
really stretching survival to a fine thread. The neocons almost won there. The country was almost done for. It took a man whose
father nursed life back into his wife when medics figured she was done for...
Russia's ultimate salvation was way too close to the edge of the cliff for my taste.
Ya'll know how the Chinese finger trap works, yes? Instead of his fingers, Trump's got his whole head inside, and he's stuck real
good. There're only two ways out: Trump admits China can't be beaten so its better to join them or he cuts off his head to free
his body--both are essentially suicide, although the former is merely political instead of actual.
There is zero chance she gets deported to the US because doing so would mean a Canadian court blessing the idea that the US is
the sole legal authority of every thing on planet earth. There isn't a a judge in Canada that is goin g to sign off on the idea
that US law trumps Canadian law and international law in Canada.
There is a strange ambiguous nature to the post. It seems there is a reluctance to address the issues. It has long been
claimed that China has a tendency to copy or steal intellectual property. Most "I/P" is horse shit anyway - e.g. Apple and the
rounded corners. Apparently there has been some actual espionage, but that is probably pretty common its just that China has used
it to good advantage (if we accept that they have used it - as I do).
It is quite odd to to make such a fuss in the absence
of smoking gun - maybe Mueller is in need of something to investigate?
I am baffeled by the whole Iran thing and the nations in terror of U.S. sanctions. What is this "international law" of which
we speak? The implication is that because Mr Trump (Bolton) does not approve of a treaty that now Iran and RoW has violated a
law and are subject to sanction by the U.S.? I find it hard to comprehend.
This first paragraph from a today's Global Times op-ed nicely summarizes the 21st Century:
For a long time in the future, the international situation will evolve around the rise of China, the decline of the US and
the uncertain development level of Russia.
No arrests among the Israelis. None. The loyalty to Israel by Israel-firsters (and their corrupting influence on the US Congress)
overpowers any loyalty to the US.
But to arrest a woman because of the illegal economic sanctions against Iran (on Israelis' prodding) is fine for US "deciders"
Thanks for assembling those links. That is a good compilation. I was vaguely aware of those stories but had forgotten most
of the details. It is so true. And you didn't even get to the Jonathan Pollard betrayal!
thanks b! and thanks to the many informative comments.. i encourage others to read the jeffery sachs article in b's article near
the top under the word 'unprecedented"...
@23 john.. thanks.. i will take a look..
@24 harry.. thanks.. that is an interesting conjecture..
@38 jared.. larvov made some comments on the use of the term 'rule of law' which is different from 'international law'.. i
can't find the article from yesterday that i read on this, but essentially he is saying the usa wants to toss international law
and replace it with 'rule of law', or 'law based rules' and do away with international law, as international law is not working
in the usa's favour at this point..'rule of law' or 'law based rules' is something that a country can make up as it goes along..
the usa wants to drop international law essentially.. if i find larvov's comments, i will post them...
Here's the
legal mumbo-jumbo from B.C. which includes details on the charges against Meng. The poor banks were "victim banking institutions."
The investigation by U.S. authorities has revealed a conspiracy between and among Meng and other Huawei representatives to
misrepresent to numerous financial institutions. . . .The motivation for these misrepresentations stemmed from Huawei's need
to move money out of countries that are subject to U.S. or E.U. sanctions--such as Iran, Syria, or Sudan--through the international
banking system. At various times, both the U.S. and E.U. legal regimes have imposed sanctions that prohibit the provision of
U.S. or E.U. services to Iran, such as banking services....
Because Meng and other Huawei representatives misrepresented
to Financial Institution 1 and the other financial institutions about Huawei's relationship with Skycom, these victim banking
institutions were induced into carrying out transactions that they otherwise would not have completed. As a result, they violated
the banks' internal policies, potentially violated U.S. sanctions laws, and exposed the banks to the risk of fines and forfeiture.
.
Very accurate. Yes of course the smart move would have been to welcome China into a multi-polar world, but it is too late now,
and I doubt the US could ever have managed that. Trade war and probable actual war has been inevitable for some time. An alien
visiting earth would want to view every event through the prism of imminent US-China war.
Right now we see a US circling of
the wagons, with threats against outsiders. In particular Iran, NK and Russia are villified because the message is "look what
happens if you don't come in on our side". We think the casual slanders about these countries are just vulgar Americans, but they
are really calculated warnings to other countries.
The charges against Meng were brought by Richard P. Donoghue, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York. Donoghue was appointed as Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on January
3, 2018, and as Attorney on May 3, 2018.
Donoghue is one of five U.S. attorneys serving in a "working group" under the Justice Department's recently announced China
Initiative. Launched by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the China Initiative is a broad-based strategy designed to counter
Chinese economic espionage and a range of other national security threats. Donoghue has been leading an investigation of Huawei
since 2016 for possible violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
The Eastern District serves over eight million residents through its Criminal Division, with approximately 115 Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, and its Civil Division, with approximately 60 U.S.Attorneys. But what the heck, forget New Yorkers, Donoghue has bigger
fish to fry.
If one has an interest on seeing how the war-mongers visualize the US-China standoff, check out this
blog where I
regularly get roasted. (roasted bacon?)
Hmmm... following the downfall of the drunkard Yeltsin (the first miscalculation of the Empire, hubris strikes again), they
put their money on Medvedev, the 'Atanticist'. Bad move! Putin was the response. Nationalism bad? I don't think so, it's what
enabled Stalin to win WW2 and it enabled Putin to pull the country, but as said, only just! Phew.
70 years of isolating the Soviet Union meant that they really didn't have a handle on the Western propaganda machine. In the
80s the North Koreans made the same mistake.
A slight aside: I and a bunch of other journos, activists were invited to a wonderful slap up meal held at the N.Korean UN
delegation HQ in Manhattan. Food great but the video they showed horrendous! Imagine 1 1/2hrs of the Great Leader and endless
displays in stadiums waving flags in unison. They then asked us what we thought of it (that was the purpose of 12 course meal).
When they were told it would go down like a lead balloon, they just didn't get it. They lived in a different world, ditto the
Soviets.
BTW, the video was made for US consumption.
On the other hand, Verso brought out a book (I have it somewhere) on the aesthetics of East European cityscapes during the
Soviet period and lamented on the loss of individuality, following the fall of socialism and the rise of McDonaldism. How ironic.
And we though (were taught) that E. European design and architecture was drab!
MBA ideology, which is narrowly focused on the next quarter results, bottom line, and bonuses for executives has devastated /
destroyed industrial base of the 5 eyes!
I saw the discussion thread at that BreakingDefense.com post you linked to, and I must say you should seek help for that masochistic
tendency that drives you to post there and risk being savaged by armchair generals whose idea of military strategy comes from
playing wall-2-wall computer games.
I should think a better example from Ancient Greek history that we should heed, rather than Thucydides' Trap (discussions of
which use very selective examples to "prove" its premise) is Athens' military expedition to Syracuse to conquer the city and all
of Sicily in 415 BCE. How did that turn out for Athens?
September 3, 2018: Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to
use Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM. With 20 percent
faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has twice the performance of Qualcomm's
Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's
fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency to deliver 10cm. positioning.
September 5, 2018. China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's semiconductor capacity this
year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.
September 15, 2018. China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations operating as the rest of
the world combined.
I should add that the US put China under total embargoes on food, ag equipment, finance, technology for 25 years during Maos'
tenure. Yet he grew the economy by 7.25% annually, doubled the population, its life expectancy and literacy during that time.
[email protected] there is any question whether Canadian courts will side with American laws you only need to google Qmar
Khadr to answer the question.
@46 don bacon.. thanks for the link.. in it admiral Davidson says "I see a fundamental divergence of values that leads to two
incomparable visions of the future. I think those two incomparable visions are between China and the rules-based international
order."
there is that ''rules-based international order'' quote again - which i was mentioning to @38 jared in my post @42..
what the fuck is ''rules-based international order'' supposed to mean? you mean like - ignore international law and replace it
with ''rule-basd international order''??
i agree with jen... don, you must be a bit of a masochist!
I definitely second Jen's remark about BreakingDefense. Reading that post was very distressing and I can imagine they would
roast you and many who follow and admire b. But, as the saying goes, it is also good to know "how the enemy" thinks. Or in this
case how our gov + thinks.
Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US)was already successfully challenged once in the Diab
case with France
Not exactly. Diab was arrested in 2008 and, after a long series of legal proceedings (ending with the refusal of the Canadian
Supreme Court to hear his appeal), finally extradited to France in 2014. The case against Diab was flimsy to nonexistent to begin
with, but "good enough" to meet Canadian standards. In spite of the continued insistence by French prosecutors that they had a
legitimate case, multiple judges disagreed and Diab was finally released earlier this year and allowed to return to Canada.
The bottom line is that the bar for extradition from Canada is extremely low, which should worry Ms Meng.
The way the U.S. seems intent on punishing Australian Assange for exposing U.S. secrets exhibits the same determination to apply
U.S. law to everyone all over the world.
20 November 201815:24
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the general meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow, November
20, 2018
"The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world
order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact
with the new global centres of economic and political influence. A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging
from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious "highly
likely." There are many examples of this dirty game...This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been
made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order" the parameters of which will be determined by a select few.
We are especially concerned about the activities of the US administration aimed at destroying the key international agreements.
These include withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran nuclear deal, the declared intention to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), an open line for revising the settlement principles in
the Middle East, as well as sabotaging the Minsk Agreements on overcoming the internal Ukrainian crisis. The trade wars that have
been launched contrary to the WTO principles are rocking the global economic architecture, free trade and competition standards.
The US establishment, blindly believing in the idea of their exceptionalism, continues to appoint rivals and adversaries, primarily
among the countries that pursue an independent foreign policy. Everyone can see that Washington is a loose cannon, liable to act
incongruously, including regarding Russia where any steps taken by US President Donald Trump to develop stable and normal channels
of communication with Moscow on the biggest current problems are promptly blocked by those who want to continue or even strengthen
the destructive approach to relations with Russia, which developed during the previous US administration.
Overall, it looks as if the Americans and some of our other Western colleagues have forgotten the basics of diplomacy and
the art of dialogue and consensus over the past 25 years. One result of this is the dangerous militarisation of the foreign policy
thinking. As RIAC Director General Andrey Kortunov recently pointed out at a Valdai Discussion Club meeting, the Clausewitz formula
can be changed to a mirror image, "Politics is a continuation of war by other means."
Russia is a consistent supporter of the development of international life based on the principles of the UN Charter. We are
a serious obstacle in the way of different destructive undertakings." etc
Considering the eventual results of the Peloponnesian War for all combatants, Thucydides' Trap turned out to be a trap for everyone.
They all would have been better off peacefully settling their differences. Same goes for World War One. And the same goes for
a declining U.S. facing a rising China.
What the U.S. should do is to negotiate with China a deal which recognizes the status of China as a superpower in return for
an economic relationship that preserves the U.S. standard of living.
Unfortunately, the U.S. ruling class cares more about the psychic gratification it derives from dominating the world.
@ 52 james
re: "rules-based international order"
This is widely and repeatedly used by the Pentagon; I've also seen it used by the Australia government (no surprise there from
a US puppet). Of course we know that it's a code-phrase for. . .let's not change the current US-dominated world disorder with
its US-led wars, assassinations and torture.
Other pet phrases, taken from my blog link above:
... revisionist great powers like China and Russia
... China's state-led, market-distorting economic model
... democratic, liberal values that draws us together with our allies and differentiates us from China."
@ 57 Loz
Russia's Lavrov is a smart guy and gets it right, as a realist, but I prefer Iran's Khamenei who always looks on the bright side.
. . .from a
speech
delivered on November 3, 2018, by Ayatollah Khamenei
. . . the US waged military wars and military actions,
. . .There has also been an economic war in this 40-year challenge
. . .They have waged a media war as well.
Well, there is an important truth which is sometimes not seen by some people: its dazzling clarity makes it go unnoticed. This
truth is a bright and shining one, which is the fact that in this 40-year challenge, the side which has been defeated represents
the US and the side which has achieved victory represents the Islamic Republic. --This is a very important truth. What is the
reason behind America's defeat? The reason for their defeat was that it was they who began the attack. It was they who initiated
corrupt actions. It was they who imposed sanctions, and it was they who launched a military attack, but they have not achieved
their goals. --This is the reason why the US has been defeated.
And he's right, Iran has defeated the US, which is why Washington is so down on Iran. The defeats have come in Iraq, and Syria,
and next in Afghanistan . . .plus in Iran itself, which has stood up to the greatest world power for forty years full of sanctions
and assaults, and thereby served as a model and inspiration for other countries large and small.
The prosecutor's case against Meng is fundamentally weak. For instance, there is no identification of a "co-conspirator",
necessary to a charge of conspiracy. It does not seem to have been developed much beyond the information developed in the 2013
Reuters investigation. At least half of that relies on unnamed "former employees" and unnamed persons who claimed to have dealt
with Skycom in Iran.
If these persons cannot be produced then all that evidence cannot rise above hearsay. The coincidences left to the prosecutors
to suggest a shell corporation should be then overwhelmed by the perfectly legal offshore documentation, which represents common
corporate practice worldwide. If the US courts still nail Huawei, the precedent could put all large businesses and business persons
everywhere at criminal risk for currently accepted practices.
The exit door could be a finding by the Canadian court, tacitly ok'ed by the Americans, that the case lacks merit and Meng
is freed sometime in the spring to a chorus of self-congratulatory hurrahs over "rule of law". If the intent was to damage the
Huawei brand in the West, then mission already accomplished.
here is our canuck foreign affairs minister Freeland using the term as well.. "It, I think, is quite obvious that it ought to
be incumbent on parties seeking an extradition from Canada, recognizing that Canada is a rule-of-law country, to ensure that any
extradition request is about ensuring that justice is done, is about ensuring that the rule of law is respected and is not politicized
or used for any other purpose," she said." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-missing-person-questioned-1.4943591
last paragraph in that link is even better - here.. ""I think in the world today, where the rule of law is under threat in some
parts of the world, being a rule-of-law country is more important now than ever," Freeland said. "And what I can commit to for
Canadians, and for our partners around the world, is that Canada will very faithfully follow the rule of law."
My suggestion in the previous comments thread was noticed only by one (James) but I'm sure it still holds up well.
Huawei could undertake to pay Sabrina Meng's bail or at least her security detail when she has to leave her house. Huawei then
sends the amount paid to Beijing and Beijing charges Ottawa for the amount paid ... and includes interest payment for each and
every day that Ottawa declines to pay the principal.
Tit-4-tat actions against US companies, however desirable, might have unfortunate long-term consequences especially if elements
in the US Deep State are expecting them and are prepared for them.
Thanks for reposting Lavrov's acute observations, thus revealing that Russia and China already know the what and why of the
Outlaw US Empire's doings. Frankly, I was surprised nobody commented about my Monopoly Game analogy from yesterday which illustrates
the situation the Outlaw US Empire finds itself in thanks to its unilateral and exceptionalisms. Indeed, for its opponents, moves
made by the Outlaw US Empire can fairly well be anticipated and thus quickly countered. And thanks to the desire by most nations
for multilateralism, Russia and China find receptive audiences and ready allies in their campaign to neuter the international
outlaw bully.
A Must Remember: The USA has never wanted to subordinate itself to any rules other than its own that it can change whenever
it suits itself. The key evidence of this is that while the Senate was ratifying the UN Charter in late July of 1945, the Executive
branch was embarking on its terroristic Anti-Communist Crusade by arming and facilitating the infiltration of former Nazi SS and
Gestapo agents into the Soviet-held regions of Eastern Europe thereby violating the newly negotiated international system of law
and its own Constitution, and making itself THE primary International Outlaw Nation, which it proudly continues to be to this
day.
Great article and I would say that you are getting the political implications, the hypocrisy and the rest of it pretty much spot
on.
I'll add this just for the heck of it.
This case started a while back when ZTE narked out Huawei for using third party cutouts to avoid the sanctions. The ZTE case
was in England. Because Hauwei is not the legal owner of these chips or code it makes it "theft by conversion". Using banks to
launder the money is bank fraud as well.
What a lot of people are missing, legally, is that this is not the same at all as violating sanctions by selling your own products.
They do not own the chips or proprietary software in any legal sense. The chips and code are still owned by the parent company
that developed them, China has what amounts to a licensing agreement with the parent companies. If Weng had violated the sanctions
by transferring her own code and her own chips then it would be out of our jurisdiction. However, once they violated the terms
and conditions of the contract they not only have committed fraud they have committed theft by conversion of a US owned product
and they used US banks to launder the money. This is why she is actually being charged with fraud and not sanctions violations.
I'd bet that if they go full hardball she would be charged with Bank Fraud as well. That's the one that comes with the most prison
time.
In short, violating sanctions doesn't usually get you arrested because it doesn't also include theft, fraud although money
laundering gets them sometimes. But of course we also know that the rest of the article is pretty much correct. She was actually
arrested as part of the entire back and forth over trade and all the rest. Our government normally would not pick a top dog to
do jail time, so why now and why her? 5G and access to markets are a big part but so is a real concern over the constant pirating,
malware, spyware, backdoor access to the Chinese government to all the encryption they use, etc. etc.
I'm only adding my comments to remind people that the US actually does have a rock solid case against her company, so don't
be at all surprised if she isn't eventually charged unless Trump does something to stop it. They were caught red handed committing
fraud by using third party cut outs and lying to the banks involved as well. If the US really wants to push it they are within
their legal rights under our laws to do it. She essentially stole US property and laundered the proceeds with US banks. Go ahead
and try that yourself and see if you get away with it.
Transferring a product you do not own to a third party in violation of a contract is theft by conversion. It's the same as
if I recorded a football game and then sold it against their wishes and then laundered the money. It's not the violation of the
sanctions per se that will get her in trouble, it's transferring stolen property, fraud and money laundering that they are actually
holding over her head. If they want to, they can send her away for a long time and they know it. This could get really ugly.
Don That breakingdefence seems as broken as other neo-lib sites such as Lawyers, Guns and Money.
BTW, we are coming up for the sixtieth anniversary of the the Cuban revolutionaries kicking out the dictator Batista. Cuba,
which then went on to impose massive defeats on Reagan and Thatcher by bringing down their beloved (Reagan and Thatcher's, that
is) apartheid in South Africa. We are repeatedly told that it was Russian MiGs which it did but they were operated and flown by
Cubans, and if Castro hadn't sent them to defeat the apartheid state in Angola, it's doubtful the conservatives in the Soviet
Union would have done so. So, Cuba has been in the trenches for twenty years more than Iran and still appears to be undefeated.
Sorry, but the readers here seem to have no clue whatsoever about Putin's past.
Putin was part of the group under the St. Petersburg mayor - it was because of this that he was put in power as Yeltsin's 2nd
in command. And equally it was because of Putin's position under Yeltsin which made him acceptable to foreign powers as Russia's
new head.
Medvedev has always been an Atlanticist; much like the 1% in the US, his background is global technocracy which naturally gravitates
him toward the US. Having a close relative on Gazprom doesn't hurt either.
Point is, Putin didn't come out of nowhere nor was he a nobody.
That he is a very articulate and thoughtful leader - that was the only surprise.
China just ordered a boatload or more of soybeans and says they wont let this interfere with trade talks.
Just the way Trump likes to deal. Meng will work out of her expensive Vancouver home as hostage until a trade deal is done.
Then she gets released w/o extradition
How many US corporations are guilty of doing the same do ya think? As for industrial espionage, I have just one word--ECHELON.
There's an excellent reason why the Outlaw US Empire wants to change the rules of the game that it initially designed: It can
no longer win using them; indeed, it can be defeated by what it emplaced. Reminds me of an old Sting hit
Fortress Around Your Heart ; in fact, it's quite
apt.
"The pretext for her arrest is that Huawei has violated US sanctions against Iran. But the "sanctions" imposed on Iran by the
US recently are illegal under international law, that is under the UN Charter that stipulates that only the Security Council can
impose economic sanctions on a nation..... There is, therefore, no law that she or Huawei is violating. ....
(Trudeau stated) that this arbitrary arrest was not politically motivated ...... Article 2 of the Treaty (with the US) requires
that Canada can only act on such a request if, and only if, the offence alleged is also an offence by the laws of both contracting
parties. But the unilaterally imposed and illegal sanctions placed against Iran by the USA, are not punishable acts in Canada
and even in the USA the "sanctions" are illegal as the are in violation of the UN Charter.
Article 4 (1) of the Treaty states:
"Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition
is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying to punish him (or her) for an offense
of the above-mentioned character.....
So, Prime Minister Trudeau cannot evade responsibility for this hostage taking, this arbitrary arrest and detention since his
government had to consider the US request and consider whether it was politically motivated. ....... It was a political arrest.
The rule of law in Canada has been suspended, at least in her case, and so can be in any case.
Trudeau's insinuation that extradition is a purely judicial process in Canada is simply wrong. The "International Assistance Group"
in the Department of Justice works actively with the requesting state against the person sought for extradition, and this can
be a hugely political process involved outright lies to the court, as the Diab case revealed. Extradition law in Canada is so
politicized that even when a judge commits someone for extradition, the matter is then referred to the Minister of Justice, who
has the ultimate say. All of this is to maintain Canadian political alliances at the expense of the rights of the accused. Extradition,
kidnapping and extraordinary rendition are almost indistinguishable in Canada.
@75 "Canadians should be angry about their nation being led by people whose loyalty is to Washington instead of to the Canadian
people whose interests they care nothing for."
So is Christopher Black suggesting Canada put Meng on a plane back to China and give Trump the finger? How would that be good
for the Canadian people?
Brad #69
She is being charged with bank fraud. That is why she is being threatened with up to 60 years in prison. But the attribution of
the cut out or shell company, Skycom, with Huawei is based on anecdotal evidence which can be effectively challengd. Alleging
that Meng herself knowingly conspired to make false representation is a huge stretch, and none of the evidence assembled comes
close to that. Also, the sanction violation involved less than $2 million of Hewlett Packard "gear", not high-end proprietary
tech.
Your opinion on this? How could China win a trade war since it is relying on its large trade surplus with the US? As Trump said,
trade-surplus countries suffer more in trade wars, as it is they who get hit with tariffs.
In Giant Trade War Concession, China Prepares To Replace "Made In China 2025"
Karlof1 I agree, it's damage control at this point in time.
And yeah they have wanted "total information awareness" for a while. I think that was the term they used in the "Project for
a new American Century" talking points wasn't it? They wanted to grab every bit of data produced in the entire world and store
it. TOTAL information awareness. And they published that plan right out in the open for everyone to read. Then they went right
ahead and built the facilities, infrastructure, hired all the people to man it and nobody did jack nothing to stop em either.
(dem terrorsts might get us if we complain too much)
Why we didn't run those neo-con fools out of town on a rail is beyond me but the reality is that people will put up with damn
near anything before they really demand change.
By the way which would you prefer, a phone with a backdoor by China or a backdoor by the US? Pretty lousy choice either way
if you ask me. I bet if Heuwei would give our "intel" agencies the backdoor key to their devices they would be just fine with
that as a "settlement".
"The US has increasingly been wielding its legal definitions and measures as if it is the world's judge and jury.
"In recent years, American lawmakers have created a slew of legal weapons, including the Magnitsky Act, the Global Magnitsky
Act, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which give Washington the supposed power to penalize any country
it deems to be in breach of its national laws.
"The arbitrariness of US "justice" has got to the febrile point where Washington is threatening all nations, including its
supposed European allies, with legal punishment if they don't toe the line on its designated policy."
His conclusion:
"Washington's lawless pursuit of its nationalistic interests is turning the globe into a seething jungle of distrust and resentment.
The political chaos in Washington – where even the president is accused by domestic opponents of abusing democratic norms – is
fanning out to engulf the rest of the world.
"America's erstwhile claim of being the world's sheriff has taken on a macabre twist. Increasingly in the eyes of the world,
it is a renegade state which absurdly justifies its criminality with lofty claims of rule of law."
IMO, the world can do very well without the English-speaking nations of the Western Hemisphere. Containing them would be far
easier than Eurasia, even with bases strewn globally, for they must trade with the rest of the world to keep their current
standard of living whereas the rest of the world doesn't need to reciprocate. Yes, there's a very good reason why the USA called
its late 19th Century trade policy the Open Door--a policy that continues today. Trump seems to want autarky, so give it to him
by calling his massive bluff. Leave Uncle Scam sitting alone at his Monopoly Board masturbating while the rest of the world plays
Diplomacy and Go! Send an unmistakable message that he's the Bullying Misfit and shatter his exceptional ego. Hopefully if the
correct psychological approach is used, a planet devastating war can be avoided; but the latter cannot be feared when dealing
with the International Bully as it must be taught a lesson it will never forget.
@79 I'm not sure anybody will come out a clear winner....though Trump will claim victory for sure. A large order of soy beans
makes a nice gesture, so would buying a few airplanes from Boeing, but the Chinese still have a few red lines they won't cross.
All depends how hard Trump wants to push.
"Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order"
About time this was voiced publicly and Lavrov is the man to do it. It has been very noticeable over the last few years that
our western or five eyes "rule of law" narrative has been replaced by "rules based order" or so called "international norms".
@ james, in a snarky response to a warmonger at Breaking Defense, who misunderstood a previous james comment: --
. . ."thanks for yours as well.. usually the american trolls are always reminding others of how they abide by law, when in fact,
it is quite the opposite..."
...a classic put-down. kudos.
Thanks for your reply! I own the most fundamental of cell phones used for rudimentary texting and emergencies as I have no
need for further sophistication, and I had to be talked into buying that one! So, I'd prefer to have no backdoors anywhere near
my person at anytime and strive to establish that condition.
Indeed, this entire situation ought to bring governmental interference in citizen privacy to the fore so it can finally have
the debate it deserves--Constitutionally, the government is in violation, it knows it, but tries to circumvent Primary Law by
using the National Security canard. Should the citizen have an expectation of privacy within his/her own space or not? If not,
then the entire Bill of Rights is null and void.
@ 79 T
In Giant Trade War Concession, China Prepares To Replace "Made In China 2025"
The revised plan would play down China's bid to dominate manufacturing and be more open to participation by foreign companies,
these people said.
That's what the US has been complaining about, isn't it? The American manufacturers are invited in and then have to give up
all their trade secrets to be allowed to manufacture in China, until the locals take over with their newly acquired knowledge.
Regarding soybeans, China needs it to feed their hogs. Apparently Brazil didn't work out in the long term.
@Don, Thank you for the great brave job of posting on the out of realty redneck' site. A daily dose of reality comments should
really F*s the warmonger bastard' day.
I fail to see how exercising their sovereign right is giving Trump the finger, or bad for the Canadian people. However Canada
has basically become the US 51st state since NAFTA and the first Gulf War, so they follow orders
The new NAFTA will push up drug prices even more so they may soon join their brothers south of the border and enjoy declining
life expectancy due to unaffordable Drug prices
From ZeroHedge "Below we present some pertinent thoughts on the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou from former Fed Governor Larry
Lindsey and current head of the Lindsay Group."
.. Then along comes a story in the South China Morning Post about an October meeting with employees in which Meng said that
there are cases where, "the external rules are clear-cut and there's no contention, but the company is totally unable to comply
with in actual operations. In such cases, after a reasonable decision-making process, one may accept the risk of temporary non-compliance."
That statement is full of euphemisms, but it makes putting the corporate interest ahead of complying with the law the official
position of management. Put that in the context of a four-year anti-corruption campaign by Xi and a purge of top-level tech executives
who have gotten too big for their britches. In Xi's new world it may be one thing to have said that it was ok to put China's interests
first, but she is putting the corporate interests ahead of China's interests.
Also note that these comments were in quotes from an internal (and closed) Huawei meeting. How did the SCMP acquire these direct
quotes? The SCMP is one of the world's truly great papers, publishing candid news and commentary focused on getting to the truth
in a way that is only a distant memory in American newspapers. That said, it is also like Hong Kong – one nation, two systems.
If Beijing really wanted a story out, it would provide the sources and the reporters would do the rest. And if they really wanted
a story spiked it probably would be spiked. Those direct quotes obviously came from Chinese authorities and the story was printed
at a very inconvenient time for Meng – when she was protesting her innocence. Somebody in Beijing thinks Meng is a loose cannon.
Let's be a little conspiratorial or, more precisely, try and create a narrative that fits the facts. It arguably serves everyone's
interests for Ms. Meng to be taught a lesson. It is in Bolton's and the DoJ's interest to send a message that access to power
and connections does not buy you a get out of jail free card. It is in Xi's interest, or at least in the interests of major portions
of the Chinese government, to send a signal that even the extremely well-connected still have to toe the party line.
...The detention did not involve any surprises. The charges against Meng were leveled three months before her arrest. The market
reaction seemed to be based on the notion that this was a last-minute surprise. As for the Chinese, Xi and Company knows where
everyone is going and when. They certainly knew that Meng was traveling to Vancouver, that she had a warrant for her arrest outstanding,
and that Canada extradites to the U.S. They did nothing to warn her.
... Our conspiracy theory holds that she will be released when everyone thinks the lesson has been learned. America scores
a win in terms of signal value about enforcing Iran sanctions whether Meng spends two weeks, two months, or the rest of her life
behind bars. Xi will have signaled what he thinks about prioritizing corporate interests over national interests and bending regulations.
... One does not have to buy this conspiracy theory in all its detail to get at the essential truth that markets need to digest.
Meng's arrest is not going to affect the outcome of the trade talks. Xi (and China) have too much of a stake in this to let the
antics of a close friend's naughty daughter stand in the way of him getting what he wants. And once an example is made, America
also has too much to lose.
@88 "I fail to see how exercising their sovereign right is giving Trump the finger..."
ReallY? Then you haven't been watching Trump. He would go ballistic. He would probably renegotiate NAFTA ....again. He could
put thousands of Canadians out of work overnight if he felt like it.
@ 69 BS
". . .the US actually does have a rock solid case against her company,"
. . .to repeat from 43:
The investigation by U.S. authorities has revealed a conspiracy between and among Meng and other Huawei representatives to
misrepresent to numerous financial institutions. . . .The motivation for these misrepresentations stemmed from Huawei's need
to move money out of countries that are subject to U.S. or E.U. sanctions--such as Iran, Syria, or Sudan--through the international
banking system. At various times, both the U.S. and E.U. legal regimes have imposed sanctions that prohibit the provision of
U.S. or E.U. services to Iran, such as banking services....
Because Meng and other Huawei representatives misrepresented to Financial Institution 1 and the other financial institutions
about Huawei's relationship with Skycom, these victim banking institutions were induced into carrying out transactions that
they otherwise would not have completed. As a result, they violated the banks' internal policies, potentially violated U.S.
sanctions laws, and exposed the banks to the risk of fines and forfeiture.
So if Skycom belonged to Huawei, and the banks were "induced," there were problems --
1. violation of banks' internal policies
2. potentially violated US sanctions
3. exposed banks to US punishment
But if Skycom was an independent corporation the sanctions violations would have been okay? What am I missing. And why would the
US punish banks when they were knowingly duped.
" How could China win a trade war since it is relying on its large trade surplus with the US? As Trump said, trade-surplus
countries suffer more in trade wars, as it is they who get hit with tariffs."
Well, you do know tarrifs on imports are paid by the US importer and on to the consumer. China pays not a dime of US tarrifs
Now it could be hurt if US buyers could order from other countries. However, this is not an option for every import as there
are production capacity, quality and price constraints. In the short term orders to China would not be affected much since there
are not many good alternatives
China has some weapons of their own. US military required certain rate metals from China for weapons, China basically clothes
America and of course many electronics , furniture, tools and toys come from China. Witholding or taxing these exports is a weapon
they have yet to use.
Furthermore, much of the profits of US companies come from manufacturing or buying from China. Prices get marked up as much
as 10 times what China receives
18% of its exports go to US. With 20% of GDP based on exports that means US is responsible for 3.6% of Chinas GDP. Tarrifs
might affect 20% of exports meaning the hit on GDP would be 0.7%. With GDP growth over 6% they wont feel too much pain.
"hey do not own the chips or proprietary software in any legal sense. The chips and code are still owned by the parent company
that developed them, China has what amounts to a licensing agreement with the parent companies. If Weng had violated the sanctions
by transferring her own code and her own chips then it would be out of our jurisdiction. However, once they violated the terms
and conditions of the contract they not only have committed fraud they have committed theft by conversion of a US owned product
and they used US banks to launder the money. This is why she is actually being charged with fraud and not sanctions violations."
-
I've heard US government make this argument in courts before and historically US courts have generally agreed with it. However,
this legal argument ignores the huge practical consideration of this rule within the current international economic system (i.e.
the real world). Namely, for the last 70 years (post-WW2) the US has encouraged and promoted Liberal free market world economic
integration, that each country should focus on the specialization of their economies to produce a small number of goods at a low
production cost and then purchase all other goods they needed from other countries that specialized in that good (i.e. internal
economic self-sufficiency is bad). Generally people hear this and immediately think of how Germany specializes in mechanical engineering,
Japan specializes in high-tech computer and so on. However the realty in the world today is that is specialization goes much further
in that a single circuit board in a computer WILL contain transistors made in Korea, Inductors made in Japan, Capacitators made
in Taiwan, Transistors made in the US and then assembled in China. At each stage of the manufacturing / assembly process costs
are carefully analyzed to minimize costs based on the provider, transportation costs, etc... to produce the goods at the lowest
possible cost and maximize profits. This is what people call the Global Supply chain that has for the last 30 years underpinned
the entire world manufacturing economy. N(OTE: I'm not saying this is good or bad from a moral stance, merely that this is what
it is and the motive for it)
What the US is doing, by asserting that US law indefinitely applies to any component (including intellectual or financial)
that is made in or travels through the US and is then subsequently assembled or sold in a 3rd (or 4th or 5th or 6th....) country
that is subject to US sanctions is a direct attack on the Global Supply Chain economy and is extremely dangerous to standard of
living we've become accustom to in the Western world. Historically, when the US used sanctions like this against Cuba, North Korea,
Iran, China and the Soviet Union, these countries were relatively much weaker than the US and not integrated into the Western
World economy (nor were they well integrated with each other economically speaking), so the US was able to retard their economic
development. However after more than 40 years of increasing integration the Western world (US, Canada, Mexico, Europe) is totally
dependant on the Global Supply Chain, so now that the US is expanding their sanctions to everyone they are effectively sabotaging
their own economy and the economies of their allies/vassals. Conversely, the US rivals (Particularity Russia, China & Iran) are
become more economically integrated with each other and are already experienced with economic independence from the Western Market.
The two most likely outcomes from the US actions are 1) The non-western world becomes more integrated with each other and independent
of the Western market, effectively re-dividing the world like we saw during the Cold War, only now instead of Capitalist vs Socialist,
it will be Neo-Liberal Fascism vs National independence (i.e. a return to the pre-1914 concept of the state) 2) The Western World
will become more divided with their economies weakened as the US asserts more direct control over their vassals, impoverishing
their vassals' economies in order to consolidated wealth & power into their preferred elites who will ensure their control over
their vassal countries. As the quality of life of the average citizen declines and Western countries become more politically unstable
and economically stagnate, we may even see a "Prague Spring" type of event, where a Western government moves away from the US/NATO/EU
alliance only to suffer a US/NATO backed invasion similar to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
>> Well, you do know tarrifs on imports
>> are paid by the US importer and on to
>> the consumer. China pays not a dime of
>> US tarrifs
No, I don't know that. It depends.
If China's exporters have tiny margins and the consumer can afford to pay more, then yes.
If China's exporters have big margins and fear losing market share (not necessarily to domestic American manufacturers but
to other foreign manufacturers), they might choose to sell at a "lower but still profitable" price in order for the POS price
to remain nearly the same and for them to retain their market share.
>> With GDP growth over 6% they
>> wont feel too much pain.
Pft, I agree bigly there. (And thanks for doing the math.) Despite my prior post, I doubt China cares about "maintaining market
share" to ship real product to a nation that provides almost nothing but threats in payment.
>> we may even see a "Prague Spring" type
>> of event, where a Western government moves
>> away from the US/NATO/EU alliance only to
>> suffer a US/NATO backed invasion similar
>> to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
>> in 1968.
As a small step in that direction, someone mentioned a few French "police" vehicles bore EU insignia.
"18% of its exports go to US. With 20% of GDP based on exports that means US is responsible for 3.6% of Chinas GDP. Tarrifs
might affect 20% of exports meaning the hit on GDP would be 0.7%. With GDP growth over 6% they wont feel too much pain."
This 18 - 19 percent export number is not true, as in does not take into account exports to the US via Hong Kong. This is only
mainland exports. But China also "exports" a lot to HK, and then these goods are exported to the rest of the world. So exports
to the US are more than 18 percent.
And the US is waging the trade war via other means, for example it is urging allies to drop China's IT companies. New Zealand
and Japan are dropping Huawei and ZTE. EU is warning too. No doubt there will be other US allies following. So costs for China
will be substantial.
Japan sets policy that will block Huawei and ZTE from public procurement as of April
China's trillion dollar Belt & Road Initiative will change everything, so why get hung up on the past. The BRI provides China
with an opportunity to use its considerable economic means to finance infrastructure projects around the world.
"... "In this case, it is clear the Chinese government wants to put maximum pressure on the Canadian government," Guy Saint-Jacques, the former Canadian ambassador to Beijing , said. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland went on to criticize statements by US President Donald Trump, who said in an interview on Tuesday that he was ready to intervene in the Meng affair if it helped seal a trade deal with the world's second-largest economy. ..."
Her case has angered Beijing and shaken Canada's relations with China, which is embroiled in
a trade war with Washington.
"In this case, it is clear the Chinese government wants to put maximum pressure on the
Canadian government," Guy Saint-Jacques, the former
Canadian ambassador to Beijing , said. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland went on to criticize statements by US President
Donald Trump, who said in an interview on Tuesday that he was ready to intervene in the Meng
affair if it helped seal a trade deal with the world's second-largest economy.
"Our extradition partners should not seek to politicize the extradition process or use it
for ends other than the pursuit of justice and following the rule of law," she said at a press
conference.
"... this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. ..."
"... This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship. ..."
"... If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. ..."
"... Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone. ..."
"... Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"! ..."
"... Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL ! ..."
"... Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society? ..."
"... and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing
the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with
China is one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying
from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport airport when she was suddenly detained
by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New
York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate
America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of
this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's
deliberate 1999 bombing of China's
embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population.
Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly
described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced
telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is
not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial
success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping.
One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially
if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister
of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi
subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally
over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a
bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government
anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World
Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their
leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken
against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that
of the US several years ago and is now substantially
larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this
reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives
reminds me of
a comment
I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no
brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central
nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach.
Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens,
and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded
shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and
famously engaged in a heated
"kitchen debate"
with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction
if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported
that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells
more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra,
and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that
a former Canadian diplomat
had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much
doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it
becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet
in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even
if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing
is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the
current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American
national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign
against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel
zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely
unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President
Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon
Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy
and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely
must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not
be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist
are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call
to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the
15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in
Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible
for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully
aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved
in all sorts of political bribery scandals
, and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at
least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese
population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own
local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino
magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President
Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's
Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of
Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal
net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent
shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune,
and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires,
who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese
government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top
of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane
back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese
technology companies would not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize
the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.
This is no surprise. Anyone who follows political events knows that John Bolton is insane, so no surprise that he devised this
insane idea. The problem will be corrected within a week, and hopefully Bolton sent to an asylum.
However, this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire.
Canada provides soldiers for this empire in Afghanistan even today, and in Latvia. Most Canadians can't find that nation on a
map, but it's a tiny unimportant nation in the Baltic that NATO adsorbed as part of its plan for a new Cold War.
This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete
loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome
back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship.
I hope someone in China is reading this article. I would love to see Adelson and his cohorts go down in flames. This would fit
right in with China's current anti-corruption foray. Xi has a reputation for hanging corrupt officials. Shutting down Adelson's
casinos would be consistent with what Xi has been doing and increase his popularity, not least of all, right here in the US.
If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world
may stand a chance. The future will suffer once China's debt traps collapse and like America it begins placing military globally.
America would be the one country who could work towards a Western future but this will never be the case. Better start learning
Mandarin lest we end up like the Uyghurs.
@Anonymous Use your
brain. The Chinese elite want to use the political clout that Adelson and the other big casino Jews have with the US government.
To gain lobby power from a proven expert, Shelly Adelson, they are willing to allow him to make the big bucks in Macao. They expect
quid pro quo.
The Chinese are pussies and will always back down. The U.S. laughed in their face after they bombed and killed them in Belgrade
and got crickets from the Chinamen. China can't project much power beyond its borders. They can't punch back. The Chinese (and
East Asians) are only part of the global business racket because they are efficient worker bees facilitating the global financial
system. They have no real control over the global market. And if they start to think they do they'll get a quick lesson. Like
they're getting with Meng, who is being treated like coolie prostitute. LMAO.
I always enjoy fresh writing from Mr. Unz. Clarity of thought is a fine thing to witness in language. It should be stated, America
is not in any danger.the empire is and is in terminal decline. As Asia's economic might grows in leaps ad bound, so does the empire
scramble to thwart losing its global grip.
As Fred Reed once pointed out, declining empires rarely go quietly. Will America's leadership gamble on a new war to prevent asia's
ascendancy?
I think it's possible.
But what do I know. As my father once said, "I'm just a pawn in a game."
To his credit he had the wherewithal to see that. Alas, most Americans are asleep.
The call for Ms. Meng's arrest had to come from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They enforce every thing related
to sanctions, which they claim is what Meng was arrested for– sale of phones and software to Iran.
But they also say they had been on her company's case since 2013 so their timing is rather suspect.
What else I don't understand is her company has research and offices in Germany, Sweden, the U.S., France, Italy, Russia, India,
China and Canada ..So if what they sold or attempted to sell to Iran wasn't outright 'stolen' intellectual property from the US
or even if it was why not transfer it to and or have it made in China or some country not signed onto the Iran sanctions and then
sell it to Iran. I haven't boned up on exactly what kinds of phone software they were selling but I think it has something to
do with being able to bypass NSA and others intercepts.
You are assuming Meng is not a sacrificial pawn in some larger game.
It would be priceless for Xi to shut down Adelson's operations in Macau for a few days or weeks, but I'm afraid Xi is very
much akin to Capitain Louis Renault in Casablanca , and after walking into a Macau casino and uttering the phrase, "I am
shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!" might admit in the next breath, "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing
wind happens to be from Jerusalem."
Half a century or so propaganda like 'the USA policing the world' of course had effect.
Not realised is that in normal circumstances police is not an autonomous force, but has to act within a legal framework.
The illusion of this framework of course exists, human rights, democracy, whatever
She's out on bail. Agree that Bolton blindsided Trump. Trump is going to try to turn this into some sort of PR gesture when he
pardons her. No way he will let this mess up his trade deal. Which is beached until she exonerated.
What is true
of these stories of course cannot be known with certainty, but it is asserted that USA military technology is way behind China
and Russia.
Several examples exist, but of course, if these examples tell the truth, not sure.
PISA comparisons of levels of education world wide show how the west is intellectually behind the east.
Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost
gone.
"I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage".
I very much doubt whether that is the case. As far as I know, most Chinese people are distinguished by their intelligence,
thoroughness and diligence. What do the thousands of people employed by China's foreign ministry and its intelligence services
do all day, if they are unaware of such important facts?
However I also doubt if China's leaders are inclined to see matters in nearly such a black and white way as many Westerners.
Jewish people seem to get along very well in China and with the Chinese, which could be because both have high levels of intelligence,
culture, and subtlety. As well as being interested in money and enterprise.
It's certainly an interesting situation, and I too am waiting expectantly for the other shoe to drop.
Yes, whatever your bias is, China is a "normal" country. In the sense of being closer to the ideal than most countries – not of
being average.
You may bewail some of the "human rights" issues in China, although I believe they may be somewhat magnified for PR purposes.
But when did China last attack another country without provocation and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, level its
cities, or destroy the rule of law? (Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya )
The Chinese seem to be law-abiding, sensible, and strongly disposed to peace. Which is something the world needs a lot more
of right now.
@Dan Hayes "why hasn't
anyone before thought of it.. "
" WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEFORE THOUGHT OF IT !!"
You must be kidding me.
For over three years I have been issuing comment after comment after comment .Like a crazed wolf howling in a barren forest
.That the "number one" priority of the American people should be demanding the seizure of ALL the assets of Neocon oligarchic
class.
Why ?
Not because they are "oligarchs." ..or some might own "casinos" but because they "deliberately" Conspired to Defraud the American
People into illegal Wars of Aggression and have nearly bankrupted the nation in the process.
That's why.
And it is the worlds BEST REASON to seize the assets a thousand times better than "bribery charges." I have issued statement after statement to that affect ,on Unz Review, in the hope that at some point it might, at least subliminally,
catch on.
What I have witnessed over the past six years, is a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people "correctly diagnosing" the issues
which plague the nation But no one had any idea of what to do about it. I have been pointing out, that if people really want to do something about it then do whats RIGHT: Seize the assets of the defrauders.!
Of course we can. Of course we can Its the LAW! Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"!
(If you don't think so, go ask your local Police Officer. He will tell you FLAT OUT ..it is the Worst crime "Conspiracy to Defraud
into Mass Murder! .Not good ! You can even ask him if there is a statute of limitations. He will probably say something like "
Yeah .When the Sun collapses!")
And they are GUILTY as charged There is no doubt , .. not anymore. We all know it and can "prove" it ! Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until
the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL !
The keys to the kingdom are right there, right in front of your noses. If you want to change things ."take action" the law is on YOUR side. We don't need China to do a damn thing ..We just need the American People to rise up,"apply the law" and take back their country
and its solvency.
Canada may be
the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the
orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society?
An article with the identical take as Ron Unz, including the idea that China has its key lever via Sheldon Adelson's casinos,
was published on the Canadian
website of Henry Makow also noting that USA political king-maker Adelson, is a major force behind the anti-Iran obsessions
that partly grounded the arrest of Ms Meng, and so well-deserves consequences here...
In the Jeffrey Sachs article linked above, Sachs lists no less than 25 other companies which have been 'violating US sanctions'
and admitted guilt via paying of fines, but never suffered any executive arrests, including banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank
of America, PayPal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Wells Fargo.
The principle against 'selective, arbitrary, and political prosecutions'
The principle that one state cannot take measures on the territory of another state by means of enforcement of national laws
- 'proportionality of law', which demands that penalty for any said 'crime' needs to be proportionate to the offence, and not
draconian, 'cruel and unusual' Ms Meng is threatened with decades in prison
This is also a significant humiliation of President Trump personally, his own advisors apparently colluding to render him powerless
and uninformed
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, Fischer impressed the world with his genius, but, like Ms Meng became criminally indicted by
the USA regime, for the 'crime' of playing chess in Yugoslavia when the Serb government was under USA 'sanctions'. Harassed across
the globe, Fischer was jailed in Japan in 2004-05 by embarrassed Japanese leaders, for this fake 'crime' which few people in the
world thought was wrong. Fischer had been using his celebrity voice to strongly criticise the USA & Israeli governments, making
him also a political target, much as Ms Meng is a political target due to her being a prominent citizen and quasi-princess of
China.
The Japanese, loath to be the instrument of Fischer's USA imprisonment, finally allowed Bobby to transit to Iceland where he
was given asylum and residency. Living not far from Iceland's NATO military base, Fischer became quickly and mysteriously struck
with disease, and Fischer died in Reykjavik, perhaps a victim of a CIA-Mossad-Nato assassination squad.
The Chinese government, I am told, directly understands the power and role of Sheldon Adelson here, and Chinese inspectors
are perhaps inside Adelson's Macau properties as you read this. Perhaps Chinese officials may show up soon in Adelson's casinos,
and repeat the line of actor Claude Rains' character in the 1942 film 'Casablanca' -
"I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"
What we have to realize is that just as there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans because they are both
owned by the same people, so must we realize that in reality there is little difference between the leaders of the worlds countries
because they are all owned by the same central banks. This is why Nate Rothschild famously stated "give me control of a countries
money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" . All the world's central banks are tied together by BIS, WB and IMF and
the US marines. This is the reason Syria, Libya, NK and Venezuela have been taken down: Rothchild central bank control.
So this Huaiwei arrest almost certainly has nothing to do with the "trade war", and is with certainly a hit by one side of
the Kabal against the other. Zionist Nationalists versus Chabad Lubbovitz perhaps?
Jared Kushner has been lying pretty low lately and recently was stripped of his security clearance. He was linked to Kissilev
the Russian ambassador, plus he was pushing Trump to help protect MBS in SA. I would bet that he is at the center of this storm.
I'm honestly shocked no one has stated the obvious: very, very few Americans would be likely to care if Sheryl Sandberg were arrested
on dubious charges in China. I cant say I would be one of those few people.
I also should note that the crown prince of KSA is Mohammad bin Salman. Salman is his father, the king. The crown prince is
Mohammad, son of (aka "bin") Salman.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
In many ways China does deviate from international norms, but of course so does the United States. As Tom Welsh pointed out, Chinese
foreign policy is downright angelic compared to the US, even if you consider Tibet and Xinjiang to be illegitimately occupied
territories (an argument I'm sympathetic to). Perhaps China would act as belligerently as the US does if China were the sole global
superpower, but it's not, so it's fair to judge China favorably compared to the US.
@Craig Nelsen Trump
deserves it for hiring Bolton at all. Perhaps one might argue Trump was blackmailed into doing so but he doesn't seem to be acting
like a blackmailed man.
Mr. Unz, at no time since Ms. Wanzhou's arrest have I felt myself in a position to judge that this was a strategically unwise
or incautious act. It might be, but apparently I'm to be contrasted from so many of your readers, and you, simply for understanding
myself to have an inadequate handle on the facts to make the call. That would be true, that my handle on the facts would be inadequate,
even if I didn't have personal knowledge of Huawei's suspicious practices or their scale.
I worry that you don't seem to evidence the presence of someone trusted who will go toe to toe with you as Devil's Advocate.
Too often, on affairs of too great a consequence, you come across too strongly, when the data doesn't justify the confidence.
A confident error is still an error and Maimonides' advice on indecision notwithstanding, a confident error is a candidate for
hubris, the worst kind of error. All of this, of course, assumes you make these arguments in good faith because if not the calculus
changes mightily.
Too many of your readers evidence that they interpret this event and form an opinion of it based on nothing but this higher order
syllogism:
Because I distrust the US government
[or because I distrust those I believe to control the US government]
It follows that this was an unjustified act or else a dangerous strategic error
After this higher order syllogism is accepted without due critique, evidence is sought to justify it and no further consideration
of the possibilities is tallied.
At minimum you need to have run a permutation where you seriously consider that : it is well know to US operatives, if not
to US citizens, you, and your readers, that Huawei is actively, constantly and maliciously waging covert war on the USA. You should
at least consider this possibility. If true, this act may merely be a shot across the bow that notifies China of a readiness to
expose things China may not wished exposed, and might stop endangering US citizens, if it were made aware such things stand to
be exposed.
If that's true, not only are you a fishing trawler captain causing distraction with a loudspeaker yelling at the captain of
the destroyer that just fired the warning shot across the bow of a Chinese vessel that is likely covert PLA/N, but now you may
be positioning your trawler to block the destroyer.
Do you really have enough information to know this is wise? Do you really know as much as the destroyer captain?
I will be away today, in the off chance you reply and I don't immediately answer it is because I can't.
Superb, as always, Ron Unz!
For someone who says he has no background in economics you you put your finger dead center on the money nexus of this "puppet
run by another puppet controlled by another puppet dangling from the strings of a still bigger puppet" chain from hell.
I wish someone would read out the entire article, may be with photos of the culprits, on Youtube with subtitles in Chinese.
@Craig Nelsen Nobody
is suggesting that "the order" came from Bolton or that he could indeed give any such order. True his not telling Trump about
what was about to happen bears a sinister interpretation.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
I think what he means by normal are countries whose leaders are interested in the well being of their nation and the people they
rule. No divided or corrupted loyalties to another nation.
By this standard the United States is clearly not a normal country.
One angle you did not mention, Cisco (U.S. company) of course until not too many years ago had a near-monopoly on the kind
of network systems Huawei is selling as number one now (actually, I did not know of Huawei's success there, thought of it as a
handset maker), that may be a factor here.
There are a few Chinese or U.S. people of that descent on this site, mainly PRC-sympathetic, it would be very amusing if they
were able to ignite a big discussion of your hypothetical reprisals
During the bombing of Belgrade a missile fell on the Chinese Embassy. A local tv reporter approached a Chinese Embassy official
and asked him. What are you going to do now? The answer was.
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Fischer was another victim of Zionist controlled American imperialism. Yugoslavia, the child of Woodrow Wilson, became the
victim of the Imperialist war Against Russia. Russia's brother, and ally, Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the kind democrat gang
administration of Wm (that was not sex), Clinton.
Excellent article, and an ingenious suggestion regarding the Adelson casinos. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a casino
shutdown. Having worked in the marketing end of the casino industry myself, I can tell you the most coveted demographic lists
were always the Chinese players, words like fanatical and obsessive don't even come close to describing their penchant for gambling.
I could literally see casino shutdowns in China causing a national Gilet Jaune moment followed by the overthrow of the Communist
Party LOL.
I would definitely welcome seeing more Ron Unz articles on current topics.
@Carlton Meyer Any chance
this is Democrat, Deep State types at State and Justice manufacturing this cluster-f in order to make Trump look unaware? This
is a President that respects casinos. And business. If Bolton and Company pulled this from behind the scenes without Executive
knowledge or authorization, is that even legal? More treason? But given the circumstances, how does all this even GET to Iran,
hurt Iran at all? What was supposedly illegal was done in 2010. Are we certain bags of cash from the Chinese and Russians and
Iran weren't traveling about Democrat-ruled DC back then? Grabbing this chick helps the case against Iran? I'm at a loss as to
how.
And so the thought of a more local political benefit/purpose, stirring a diplomatic shit-storm on Trump's watch, something
he'd have to take responsibility for. To start a near war, sort of like the Bay of Pigs. Operatives, pulling tricks, writing checks
the President then has to cover, looking like an unelectable mook throughout.
I'm happy to give the AIPAC kiddies full credit, I just don't see the damage to Iran in all this. For crying out loud, we carted
$500 billion cash over to Iran under Obama's watch, what, 2013 or 2014ish? I don't know how we skip over THAT, to get to trade
shenanigans in 2010, also taking place under Obama's watch. What was Holder doing when he was AG after all, why no action then?
If it's Israeli-driven today, why wasn't Israel pushing Holder to take action against Huawei back in 2010?
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
How is the USA a "normal" country in any sense of the word? It once was truly great among the nations of the world but that ship
sailed looooong back.
We invade for fake "freedom", inject the poison of homo mania into nations that do not do the bidding of the homos and/or bend
to the will of the chosen ones, pretend it's all for some good cause then invite the survivors to displace the founding stock
of this country. You call that "normal"??
We are nothing more than a vehicle for every kind of degenerate (((loser))) with cash to use our men and women as their private
mercenaries. We spread filth around the place, destroy nations and proclaim ourselves as the peace-makers with the shrill voice
of a worn out street prostitute on kensingtion ave (philly).
We are like that hoe, living out the last days of her aids infested body, with a grudge on the world for something that was
completely of our (((own))) making. Philly might have been the birthplace of this country but camden is where we are all headed.
And looking at China, we are dysfunctional beyond repair. Of course we still have quite a few things the Chinese might want to
emulate (no the SJW versions but the read deal) but looking at our other maladies, they probably won't who'll blame them?
@Anon Yes it was s Portuguese
colony. Interesting that Persian traders including Jews were in Macau going back st least to 500 AD probably more.
Ron, have you sent this article to the Chinese ambassador in DC yet?
Strange that the Chinese let Adelson in. The Macau casinos have thrived for a long time. The Portuguese left valuable casinos
and the Chinese let the Jews in soon after the Portuguese left.
It makes sense that foreign casino operators would want to move into Macau, but why would China let foreigners in?
Could it be that one of the largest investors in China since the mid 1970s Richard Blum husband of Dianne Feinstein has something
to do with it??
She's as much the Senator representing China as a Senator representing California.
Another interesting aspect of all this is the "suicide" of Physics Professor Zhang Shoucheng at Stanford just a few hours after
Meng was arrested on Dec 1. According to reliable Chinese sources and widespread reporting on social media Zhang was the conduit
to China from Silicone Valley. He was richly rewarded by Chinese investment in his US companies. IMHO the Chinese understand the
role of Israel and Adelson in US politics but are cautious in going this far. The Chinese are taking the light touch approach
with Trump and his Adelson selected neocons. A Chinese businessman Guo WenGui with the highest connections to the Chinese elites
and security services has sought political asylum in the USA. On the internet he daily speaks to the Chinese diaspora (in Mandarin)
on the complex developments in Chinese official corruption. The NY Times has now started to take him seriously (good idea ) and
reports that he and Steve Bannon have formed an alliance to expose Chinese government activities. You can read all this in the
NY Times. Unz should translate Guo Wengui into English and publish his commentaries. In my analysis he is usually right about
China and has shown remarkable predictive powers. He knows how and what the Chinese think, where the bones are buried and what
comes next. He and Bannon plan to reveal the facts about the recent suicide in France of another prominent Chinese businessman
Wang Jian who was Chairman of Hainan Airlines parent company.
This article by Mr. Unz is a good example of why people should read and support the Unz Review. No one is better equipped to shed
light on otherwise unmentioned interests behind mainstream news events like this one.
Kudos for making a smart suggestion that no doubt will be heard by people who could carry it out.
Good article, but it is only scratching the surface.
Many things would be explained if somebody would find out what is the volume of US investment in China, and what percentage of
it is Jewish.
That would shed light why the rabid Jewish press in US so bestially attacking Trump, after Trump started to impose tariffs on
Chinese goods.
I do not know, but I could guess that Trump reached deep into Jewish profits.
We have no choice than wait what will happen to tariffs after Trump will be replaced.
@Carlton Meyer Canada
declared an end to participating in combat operations in Afghanistan in July 2011 and withdrew its combat forces, leaving a dwindling
number of advisors to Afghan forces. The last Canadian soldier departed Afghanistan in March 2014. You are spot on regarding Bolton's
certifiability.
Trump has been totally phagocyted by the Neo-Cons in the foreign policy. The two pillars of the neocons foreign policy are now
Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump is benefitting from the neo-cons intelligence and their powerful financial network that he is convinced
would help in his reelection.
Once he is re-elected then he may decrease his reliance on them but for the next few years the jewish lobby will prevail in Trump's
foreign policy. Unless they are not able to protect Trump from falling under the democrats assaults or been eliminated from power,
they are on for more wars, more troubles and more deaths. History will place Trump near Bush junior as neo-cons puppets responsible
for the largest destruction of countries since WWII.
@Brabantian Interesting
that she was arrested in the Chinese colony of Vancouver BC. Maybe the Canadian government is asserting sovereignty over Vancouver
at long last.
That must have been frightening. There she was sitting in the VIP lounge surrounded by deferential airline clerks as usual
and suddenly she's under arrest.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme
World Hegemon.
More delusional than when in 1957 the US government gave Iran a nuclear reactor and weapons grade uranium? In his latter years
Khashoggi 's relative, the weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, much later mused on what the US was trying to achieve by giving Iran
vast amounts of armaments, when all it did was set off an arms race in the region. America then switched to Iraq as its cop on
the beat and gave them anything they asked for, and were placatory of Saddam when he started talking crazy. This was under the
US government least attentive to Israel. Yes things should be more balanced as Steven Walt suggests
Averting World Conflict with China, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review If it wants to create the conditions for a final settlement
of the Palestinian problem, then America should be more even handed but it must also be very cautious about Iran. We don't know
who will be in power there in the future and history shows that once those ME counties are given an inch they take a mile.
Saudi Arabia seems quite sensible, its liking for US gov bonds that even Americans think offer too low a rate of interest is
easily explained as payment for US protection. Killing Khashoggi that way was a dreadful moral and foreign policy mistake from
someone who is too young for the amount of authority he has been given, but the victim did not beg for death like more than a
few Uygurs are doing right now. The CIA agent China rounded up with the help of it's network of double agents in the US were doubtless
glad to have their interrogation terminated.
Some sweeteners from Adelson are likely in the Tsunami of dirty Chinese money, which are amusingly being laundered in Canadian
casinos. As Walt points out the Chinese elite want bolt holes and bank accounts in north America. By the way most of the ill gotten
gains are from sale of opiates such as fentanyl.
Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
Yes that will work, especially when added to what China is already doing in targeting farmers who supported Trump, so he is
definitely not going to be reelected now you have explained all this to them, and you are also opening up Harvard to their children,
which can only redound to the detriment of white gentiles. Deliberate pouring of the vials of wrath or just accidentally spilling
them? I am begining to wonder.
Thank you, Ron, for a clear-headed and insightful article.
There are however, two tiny infelicities, which I would not want for them to distract from the article's merit.
First, I think the Saudi Arabian Prince you are referring to is Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not "Prince Salman". "Prince
Mohammed" would be the abbreviated form of his name. "Bin" is of course the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "ben" indicating paternity,
rather than a middle name, so "Salman" is not his surname. "Prince Salman" would refer to the current Saudi King before he was
King, rather than to the current Prince.
Second, maybe the hypothetical of China seizing Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook is not the best analogy since I, and I suspect
others who are aware of her key role in empowering and enriching a deceptive and parasitical industry, would not be terribly troubled
if China seized her. Indeed, we might consider it a public service. Admittedly, it is hard to find a good analogy for a prominent
female executive of a US national champion company since so many of our prominent companies are predatory rather than productive
and scorn their native country rather than serve it.
and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some
have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
@Baxter"America
is not in any danger." America is in very great danger, but only from within.
Almost half of all millenials believe that Capitalism is evil and that the Socialism should be the guiding economic principle
of this nation. When you point out that it has failed for every nation in history that has tried it, notably the Soviet Union
and more recently Venezuela, they retort that it is because those countries "did it wrong" and that "we will do it right."
When you ask for specifics as what they "did wrong" that we will "do right" they stare at you wordlessly as if you
are the one who is an idiot.
It should also be pointed out that a vast majority of Democrats think that Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant and that we need more
legislators like her.
What if Ms. Meng, was giving Iranian dissidents phones and other equipment to undermine the Government of Iran, starting another
color revolution, that sucks in America and Israel? What if the Trump administration asked that this not be done in order to end
the endless "revolutions" that have been happening and bankrupting our country and threatening Israel? What if the sanctions are
benefiting Iran's government too? China was allowed to become so large at our expense when we opened up trade and moved businesses
over there, but this was to keep them from being too cozy with Soviet Russia, just ask Nixon.
Part of the Zionist plan for a Zionist NWO was laid by David Rockefeller when he sent Kissinger to China to open up Chinas slave
labor to the NWO types like Rockefeller and the Zionist controlled companies in the U.S. and part of the plan was the deindustrialization
of America thus bringing down the American standard of living while raising the standard of living in China.
I will never believe the fake disagreement between the Zionist controlled U.S. and the Chinese government as long as G.M and
Google and the other companies that have shut down their operations in the U.S. and opened operations in China, it is all a NWO
plan to bring down we Americans to third world status and then meld all of us into a Zionist satanic NWO.
The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is in the government and its name is Zionism and the Zionist NWO!
"... Brexit can be considered as the rebuilding of the old nation state wall between England and the Continent. To an extent, this is a repudiation of the Globalist Movement, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Neo-Liberal Experiment. In it's essence, Trumps Wall is a repudiation of the NAFTA Consensus. The American 'deplorables' support it because they see it as a means of defending their livelihoods from those hordes of 'foreign' low wage workers. In both cases, it is a looking inwards. ..."
Brexit can be considered as the rebuilding of the old nation state wall between
England and the Continent. To an extent, this is a repudiation of the Globalist Movement, a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Neo-Liberal Experiment. In it's essence, Trumps Wall is a
repudiation of the NAFTA Consensus. The American 'deplorables' support it because they see it
as a means of defending their livelihoods from those hordes of 'foreign' low wage workers. In
both cases, it is a looking inwards.
Arguably, May is one of a generation of politicos in decline. Macron, (perhaps Merkel's
hope of having a posterity,) has caved. Merkel has seen the face of her political mortality
recently. May has her Pyrrhic victory.
The Clintons cannot even give tickets to their road show away. In all of these examples,
the replacements waiting in the wings are, to be charitable about it, underwhelming. Brexit
is but the opening act of a grand, worldwide crisis of governance.
How England muddles through this will be an object lesson for us all. We had better take
notes, because there will be a great testing later.
While the UK has rightly been the focus, I can't help wondering what the deeper feelings
are across Europe. It's very hard to gauge how much thought the rest of Europe is giving to
Brexit at this stage. The average punter seems very uninterested at this point, while a
growing number (from what I'm reading from other sources) just wish they'd get it over with
so the rest of Europe could be allowed to get on with its own internal concerns. I suspect
the rest of the EU economies most affected must be putting their 'crash-out' plans into
over-drive after this week's continuing escapades.
(Re: Sinn Féin. I was wondering if there was the remotest possibility that they
would cross their biggest line just to help a Tory government, and a particularly vile Tory
government from their standpoint. When speaking to veteran Belfast Republican during
negotiations on the GFA (Good Friday Agreement), their viewpoint was that nearly everything
could be negotiated but one thing was impossible: entering into a foreign London parliament.
Symbolically and practically, it was a step beyond the pale. I also noticed lately that a
couple of older Sinn Féin Republicans, who had to be persuaded into the negotiation
camp all those years ago, are again contemplating running for local government positions in
the North.)
Everything I've read indicates that the rest of Europe has simply given up on Brexit
– they are unwilling to expend any more energy or political capital on it. The leaders
have much bigger things on their plates than Brexit, and the general population have lost
interest – I'm told it rarely features much in reporting on the major media. I think
they'll grant an extension purely to facilitate another couple of months preparation for a
crash out, and thats it.
As for Sinn Fein, I get the feeling that after been caught on the hop by Brexit, they now
see a crash out as an opportunity. NI looks likely to suffer more than anywhere else if there
is a no-deal – there is hardly a business there that won't be devastated. But they are
caught between trying to show their soft face in the south and their hardliner face in the
North, and I think they are having difficulty deciding how to play it.
The British circus attracts interest and there is coverage on the motions and so on
treated as UK internal politics. May and the ultra-brexiteers get almost all the attention.
The only options mentioned are no deal and May's agreement.
" European diplomats in London watching the government's Brexit agony have conveyed a
mixture of despair, and almost ghoulish fascination, at the state of British politics, with
one saying it is as melodramatic as a telenovela, full of subplots, intrigue, tragedy and
betrayal
Although privately many diplomats would love Brexit to be reversed, and believe it could
mark a turning point against populism, there was also a wariness about the disruption of a
second referendum. One ambassador suggested the French realised that European parliamentary
election campaign of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, would be damaged by the sight of
furious British leave campaigners claiming they had been cheated of their democratic rights
by an arrogant elite who refused to listen: "What is happening in France is potentially
momentous. The social fabric is under threat, and this anger could spread across the
continent," the ambassador said, referring to the gilets jaunes protests ."
"... Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given 'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules, foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts. A wide range of policies can be challenged. ..."
Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given
'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the
ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational
vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules,
foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts.
A wide range of policies can be challenged.
Yeah! Philip Morris comes to mind. "The cost to taxpayers of the Australian government's
six-year legal battle with the tobacco giant Philip Morris over plain packaging laws can
finally be revealed, despite the government's efforts to keep the cost secret.
The commonwealth government spent nearly $40m defending its world-first plain packaging
laws against Philip Morris Asia, a tobacco multinational, according to freedom of information
documents.
Documents say the total figure is $38,984,942.97."
No-deal Brexit: Disruption at Dover 'could
last six months' BBC. I have trouble understanding why six months. The UK's customs IT
system won't be ready and there's no reason to think it will be ready even then. I could
see things getting less bad due to adaptations but "less bad" is not normal
The
Great Brexit Breakdown Wall Street Journal. Some parts I quibble with, but generally
good and includes useful historical detail.
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail ChinaWilly2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00
PM |
link
CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is
expected
to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump
and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely
be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.
It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.
The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged
U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged
collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.
Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor.
The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues,
an important political actor.
The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations.
Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but
Bolton was informed of it:
While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the
subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that
he knew about the arrest in advance, ..
Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.
It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever
Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with
China.
Posted by b at
02:00 PM |
Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between
Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their
readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.
The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read
about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but
I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with
"fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.
In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra
program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a
motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy
showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying
at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation
and an apology from the CIA. https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/
One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford
University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression
on and off.
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating
sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that
a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.
If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist
framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications
of that.
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well
hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from
Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A
malignancy is loose, no doubt.
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous
on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against
high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.
The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously
operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report
makes clear.
The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a
loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing
of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing
for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.
While we might want to give Trump credit for being who
he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach
to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their
gradual reduction of USTs.
All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media
to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer
that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?
If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce
likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying
its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.
Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting
Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into
China.
The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut
off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending
and financial aggression.
How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend
u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs,
further debasing the US dollar.
In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased
into nothing, and nobody wants it.
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump
is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.
Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows
what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then
the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.
The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.
At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador
Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage
and its pilot.
Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial
in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.
Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed
by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in"
on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications
during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]
...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..
i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact
Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid
though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..
@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada
now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state,
that is what we would tell the usa..
Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl
Harbor.
We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the
attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were
sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.
(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)
Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the
Nazi grand-daughter's file.
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out
of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do
so
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."
Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition
to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism.
There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic'
campaigns against enemies of the Empire.
2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby,
inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being
code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition'
Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.
I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.
Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against
Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials,
and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea,
and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.
The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.
Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam.
How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune
of the Deep State/neolibcon.
Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US
govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.
With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all
supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard,
it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are
the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final
levels of deceit. Worth the time.
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "
Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the
extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance
of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with
China and tank the market.
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable
naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem
there. You can't have it both ways.
Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval
of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from
partnering with China against the United States.
It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist
through and through.
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called
SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and
may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation
of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations,
as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan
horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user
( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself
own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services
who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting
for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from
Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc
on this page.. no one is discussing
this..
@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one..
meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what
is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which
has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections,
as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation
with iran..
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump
will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside
his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good
cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.
If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump
does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.
China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high
road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.
Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that
moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............
and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.
The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society
run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still
in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and
accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going
very well! here
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every
opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy
of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."
I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would
invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.
What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days,
but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely,
as in this case.
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance
exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).
That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?
They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions
without even knowing what hit them!
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something
Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.
In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows
that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch
the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well
and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22,
it was revealed at the hearing Friday
here . She was arrested on December
1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified
secret, for US national security?
Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy.
It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview
with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is
here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected
by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison.
General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears
that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit
her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.
So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy
internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford
to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot
obtain from other sources).
In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on
nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage
both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and
this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem
borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.
The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned
foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable
demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates
of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...
This is about destruction of neoliberalism. Transnational financial elite under neoliberalism is above the law. the USA blatantly
breaches this convention now. And will pay the price.
This is Onion-style humor is no it : White House, Trudeau seek to distance themselves from Huawei move
Notable quotes:
"... The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the arrest could complicate efforts to reach a broader U.S.-China trade deal but would not necessarily damage the process. ..."
"... Meng's detention also raised concerns about potential retaliation from Beijing in Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sought to distance himself from the arrest. ..."
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, the 46-year-old daughter of the company's founder, was detained
in Canada on Dec. 1, the same day Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping dined together at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires.
A White House official told Reuters Trump did not know about a U.S. request for her extradition from Canada before he met Xi and
agreed to a 90-day truce in the brewing trade war.
Meng's arrest during a stopover in Vancouver, announced by the Canadian authorities on Wednesday, pummeled stock markets already
nervous about tensions between the world's two largest economies on fears the move could derail the planned trade talks.
The arrest was made at Washington's request as part of a U.S. investigation of an alleged scheme to use the global banking system
to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, according to people familiar with the probe.
Another U.S. official told Reuters that while it was a Justice Department matter and not orchestrated in advance by the White
House, the case could send a message that Washington is serious about what it sees as Beijing's violations of international trade
norms.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the arrest could complicate efforts to reach a broader
U.S.-China trade deal but would not necessarily damage the process.
Meng's detention also raised concerns about potential retaliation from Beijing in Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
sought to distance himself from the arrest.
"The appropriate authorities took the decisions in this case without any political involvement or interference ... we were advised
by them with a few days' notice that this was in the works," Trudeau told reporters in Montreal in televised remarks.
I think that America's act against China borders on military aggression. The US is saying,
"Don't deal with any country that we're imposing sanctions on. We want to grab Iran's oil.
That's why we overthrew Mossedegh. That's why we installed the Shah and his police state. We
want Saudi Arabia's money, and they told us we have to support the Sunni against Shi'ites, so
our foreign policy is that of Saudi Arabia when it comes to the fate of who can and who
cannot trade with Iran. China must follow our orders or we will do everything we can to stop
its own development. It need only look at how we treated Iran to see what may be in store for
it."
This raises the Cold Wa to a new dimension.
Yes, guilty as charged. I expect a major challenge to the illegality of the Outlaw US
Empire's attempts at Extraterritoriality which has yet to be attempted but now must be done.
China has a very distinctive history regarding such treatment and will not let it pass. The
Trade War will escalate and the Empire's top tier of oligarchs will lose billions.
Blue peacock Walrus must be Boltonnnn! He just parrotted exactly the same bull about stolen
property except with the caveat that it's not the reason for her arrest!!! 😉😎
It's about doing business with Iran! F.U. AMERICA!
ARREST MBS INSTEAD, DAMN YOU EFFING HYPOCRITES! I can't get over Trudeau was a pasty to
this woman's arrest! THIS IS INSANE.
"... The incident shows that the US and some other countries that follow the US didn't abide by the bottom line of international law at all. From now on, we should reduce or cancel important people's visits to the US, Canada and some other countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The warning applies to not only Chinese citizens, but also citizens of any other country. ..."
"... Given the extreme risks of the political struggle in the US, Chinese scientists and technological experts in the West, particularly in the UKUSA countries (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are advised to make some risk prevention arrangements for their own sake and the sake of their children. ..."
"... Unlike China's State-owned enterprises, Huawei is a genuine private firm. But the severe political discrimination and repulsion from the US reflect an undeniable fact - the political gap between China and the US and a few other Western nations is too wide to bridge. ..."
Avoided a knee-jerk response, did some chores, read some other items, then went looking for
English language Chinese reactions, like this one provided by Global
Times , which said several different things to different audiences, although toward its
bottom we find this:
" The incident shows that the US and some other countries that follow the US didn't
abide by the bottom line of international law at all. From now on, we should reduce or cancel
important people's visits to the US, Canada and some other countries like the UK, Australia
and New Zealand. The warning applies to not only Chinese citizens, but also citizens of any
other country.
" Given the extreme risks of the political struggle in the US, Chinese scientists and
technological experts in the West, particularly in the UKUSA countries (the US, UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand) are advised to make some risk prevention arrangements for their
own sake and the sake of their children. "
Global Times also published this editorial with its emphasis on the
entire affair being an attack on Huawei's competitiveness, although suddenly in the middle it
says this:
" Unlike China's State-owned enterprises, Huawei is a genuine private firm. But the
severe political discrimination and repulsion from the US reflect an undeniable fact - the
political gap between China and the US and a few other Western nations is too wide to
bridge. "
A bit of a bombshell that seems to contradict what came before and after, which is an
exploration of how "the political gap" can be narrowed. This line says:
"Meanwhile, China needs to ease its geopolitical and ideological tensions with the US and
the West through expanding its opening-up to the world."
Unfortunately, the Outlaw US Empire has no interest in "eas[ing] its geopolitical and
ideological tensions" with China, Russia or any other nation as its unelected helmsmen want
everything for themselves a la Monopoly winners, thus rendering Chinese attempts at
appeasement vacuous--Real Men want it all; sharing--Win-Win--is for wussies.
Export restrictions, and threats of restrictions, are thus probably not just about sanctions
-- they're about making life harder for the main competitors of US tech companies
But the
startling arrest in Canada of a Chinese telecom company executive should wake people up to
the fact that there's a second U.S.-China trade war going on -- a much more stealthy conflict,
fought with weapons much subtler and more devastating than tariffs. And the prize in that other
struggle is domination of the information-technology industry.
The arrested executive, Wanzhou Meng, is the chief financial officer of telecom-equipment
manufacturer Huawei Technologies Co. (and its founder's daughter). The official reason for her
arrest is that Huawei is suspected of selling technology to Iran, in violation of U.S.
sanctions. It's the second big Chinese tech company to be accused of breaching those sanctions
-- the first was ZTE Corp. in 2017. The U.S. punished ZTE by forbidding it from buying American
components -- most importantly, telecom chips made by U.S.-based Qualcomm Inc.
Those purchasing restrictions were eventually lifted after ZTE agreed to pay a fine, and it
seems certain that Huawei will also eventually escape severe punishment. But these episodes
highlight Chinese companies' dependence on critical U.S. technology. The U.S. still makes -- or
at least, designs -- the best computer chips in the world. China assembles lots of electronics,
but without those crucial inputs of U.S. technology, products made by companies such as Huawei
would be of much lower-quality.
Export restrictions, and threats of restrictions, are thus probably not just about sanctions
-- they're about making life harder for the main competitors of U.S. tech companies. Huawei
just passed Apple Inc. to become the world's second-largest smartphone maker by market share
(Samsung Electronics Co. is first). This marks a change for China, whose companies have long
been stuck doing low-value assembly while companies in rich countries do the high-value design,
marketing and component manufacturing. U.S. moves against Huawei and ZTE may be intended to
force China to remain a cheap supplier instead of a threatening competitor.
The subtle, far-sighted nature of this approach suggests that the impetus for the high-tech
trade war goes far beyond what Trump, with his focus on tariffs and old-line manufacturing
industries, would think of. It seems likely that U.S. tech companies, as well as the military
intelligence communities, are influencing policy here as well.
In fact, more systematic efforts to block Chinese access to U.S. components are in the
works. The Export Control Reform Act, passed this summer, increased regulatory oversight of
U.S. exports of "emerging" and "foundational" technologies deemed to have national-security
importance. Although national security is certainly a concern, it's generally hard to separate
high-tech industrial and corporate dominance from military dominance, so this too should be
seen as part of the trade war.
A second weapon in the high-tech trade war is investment restrictions. The Trump
administration has greatly expanded its power to block Chinese investments in U.S. technology
companies, through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. CFIUS has already
canceled a bunch of Chinese deals:
The goal of investment restrictions is to prevent Chinese companies from copying or stealing
American ideas and technologies. Chinese companies can buy American companies and transfer
their intellectual property overseas, or have their employees train their Chinese replacements.
Even minority stakes can allow a Chinese investor access to industrial secrets that would
otherwise be off-limits. By blocking these investors, the Trump administration hopes to
preserve U.S. technological dominance, at least for a little while longer.
Notably, the European Union is also moving to restrict Chinese investments. The fact that
Europe, which has opposed Trump's tariffs, is copying American investment restrictions, should
be a signal that the less-publicized high-tech trade war is actually the important one.
The high-tech trade war shows that for all the hoopla over manufacturing jobs, steel, autos
and tariffs, the real competition is in the tech sector. Losing the lead in the global
technology race means lower profits and a disappearing military advantage. But it also means
losing the powerful knowledge-industry clustering effects that have been an engine of U.S.
economic growth in the post-manufacturing age. Bluntly put, the U.S. can afford to lose its
lead in furniture manufacturing; it can't afford to lose its dominance in the tech sector.
The question is whether the high-tech trade war will succeed in keeping China in second
place. China has long wanted to catch up in semiconductor manufacturing, but export controls
will make that goal a necessity rather than an aspiration. And investment restrictions may spur
China to upgrade its own homegrown research and development capacity.
In other words, in the age when China and the U.S. were economically co-dependent, China
might have been content to accept lower profit margins and keep copying American technology
instead of developing its own. But with the coming of the high-tech trade war, that
co-dependency is coming to an end. Perhaps that was always inevitable, as China pressed forward
on the technological frontier. In any case, the Trump administration's recent moves against
Chinese tech -- and some similar moves by the EU -- should be seen as the first shots in a long
war.
(This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text.
Only the headline has been changed)
This is 'eight nations alliance' [1] mark2 no less. The military encirclement of China is
in place, to be sprung if necessary. The trade war targets the entire Chinese high tech
industry, especially the Made in China 2030 proj. Huawei is the crown jewel of emerging
Chinese high tech, its rise is nothing less than astounding. In less than 30 years it has
displaced CISCO as the world's no 1 network supplier, presently gunning Samsung for top spot
in mobile phone preeminence.
It makes lots of people scare. [2]
They use false pretext to wage wars OF terror, now they use false pretext to launch a
trade war, hyping up Huawei's 'security risk'. But nsa has been 'monitoring' Huawei since
2007, even hacked into its Shenzhen HQ, to look for incriminating evidence of CCP
collaboration, it turned out naught. There'r absolutely No Evidence Huawei Spies on
Americans, [3]
Just like the lack of evidence didn't prevent fukus attack on 'terrorist' countries, it
sure doesn't stop Washington from mounting a frontal assault on Huawei. Huawei is currently
shut out of the 5lies markets plus SK, JP, courtesy of Washington. The 'battle' has extended
to the Pacifics isles,
where Washington/Oz joint force to arm twist Solomon isle to drop a undersea cable contract
with Huawei.
They tried that again with PNG, asking them to renege on their contract with Huawei, but
the PNG PM is made of sterner stuff, lecturing fukus on the importance of integrity and law,
no less.
hhhhh
When the Meng kidnap news broke, my jaw dropped in amazement, ....They'r really getting
really desperate now.
[2]
Huawei's U.S. competitors among those pushing for scrutiny of Chinese tech firm
It was long thought that we were the number-one economy and China just supplied cheap
labor,"
Guthrie said. "Now it is clear that China has lot to offer in terms of innovation and
Industrial policy and state investment, and now people are scared
Games in US intelligence agencies are one thing, but the fact that this arrest is a severe
blow, almost knockdown for neoliberalism is another.
From comments: "Spot on with your comment. As you point out, this event will cast a dark
shadow over executive travel for a long time to come, including those American executives who
will now be fearful of countermeasures."
Moreover, John Bolton is the sort who'd love to collect a high profile scalp like the arrest
of Meng, so it's credible that he would find a way to go ahead whether or not the China trade
negotiation team was on board.
Meng has her bail hearing in Vancouver today, so we will probably learn more about the
expected process and timetable.
Wondering why US dollars would ever be involved in transactions between a Chinese
supplier, a UK bank, and Iranian customers Assuming usage of correspondent banks in NYC?
Would also be a reason for where the indictment was filed.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that transactions are being routed through the US not
for any practical reason, or due to customer wishes, but only to expose them to US
jurisdiction for potential prosecution. An alternative to SWIFT is desperately needed
The FCPA is extremely expansive: a non U.S. company doing business in the U.S. must not do
business with Iran directly or indirectly if it knows or has reason to suspect the business
is related to Iran. So if they have the evidence it all looks like a slam dunk.
As to SWIFT, doesn't the U.S. have access to all SWIFT transactions, even those not
touching U.S. banks? They'd certainly have the Five Eyes SWIFT data.
Plus apparently the U.S. has (or had) access to Huawei's email traffic.
Not correspondent banks. HSBC has a New York branch, as does pretty much every foreign
bank with an international business. Dollar transactions clear though the US because no bank
is going to run intraday balances with other banks without the end of day settlement
ultimately being backstopped by the Fed. That means running over Fedwire.
Ah, thanks for the technical detail on why it would be cleared through the US. The Masters
of the Universe really are unwilling to take any risk unless it's socialized in some way.
Still curious why they would ever let it touch US jurisdiction, but I guess the details of
the case will eventually reveal that.
"The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that
prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret
services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications."
"The struggle centred around Huawei illustrates the way in which economic and military
preoccupations inter-connect. Already, many States have observed that Washington is so far
unable to decode this technology. Thus, as they did in Syria, they have entirely re-equipped
their Intelligence services with Huawei material, and forbid their civil servants to use any
others."
Taking into account this story from Syria the following dismissal, by China's Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying of a report in The New York Times, could be understood
differently than it was initially
"China on Thursday denounced a U.S. newspaper report that it is listening to Donald
Trump's phone calls as "fake news," and suggested he exchange his iPhone for a cellphone made
by Chinese manufacturer Huawei".
in AP, 2018-10-26, "China denies spying on Trump's phone, suggests he use Huawei".
So I turned on the local TV network to see how the story would be spun to find out what
the official line would be. There was no mention of the fact in the story that Meng was just
not the CFO of Huawei but also the daughter – the daughter – of the founder. More
to the point, nearly every scene showing Meng was when she was on-stage with Putin somewhere
so there is your guilt by association right there. They even used close-ups of the two
together though the stage was full of people seated there.
Something else in that story that I noticed. It featured the last day of the G-20 when the
American and Chinese delegation were facing each other over a conference table. On the right
was Trump and a bit further down was John Bolton. Now Trump has said he had no idea that this
arrest was taking place but Bolton said that he know beforehand. Does it not seem strange
that Bolton would not have pulled Trump aside beforehand and said 'Hey boss, we are going to
do something never done before and arrest a high-level Chinese citizen which could blow up
your whole agreement. You know, just so you know.'
With this is mind, it may be fairer to say that this was more a case of 'Huawei's Meng
Targeted using US Bank Sanctions'. The pity is that the US Justice Department finds no
trouble with targeting a corporation nearly 7,000 miles away but just can't seem to target
Wall Street which is only about 200 miles away from their headquarters. And I am afraid that
I am not too impressed with that internal Huawei memo as probably most international
corporations want to know where they can push the envelope. Personally I would be more
interested on a memo from the Clinton Foundation listing the amounts needed to gain access
the SecState and how much could be purchased for that amount. Both memos would amount to the
same thing.
This is new this development. The US has targeted individuals with sanctions but for the
first time they are attempting the extraterritorial rendition of a foreign citizen in
connection with sanctions violations meaning extraterritorial jurisdiction which means that
American laws apply all over the world. Could you imagine if this became standard practice?
The chill it would put on executive travel? The possibilities of tit for tat arrests? US tech
execs have already been warned on China travel. Do they really want to go there? This is
nothing less that a US declaration of war on firms competing with US business interests like
they have done with Russia.
I would be also wary of this massive 'coincidence' in the timing of her arrest. The US
Justice Department would probably know Meng's travel schedule better that she would –
Bolton with his contacts would see to that. It may be that events in her calendar were
pre-arranged for her. The Justice Department has a long history of setting up people.
Canada's involvement is simply another member of the Five Eyes group doing active
participation. It has not escaped my notice that all the countries rejecting Huawe's 5G
technology – Australia, the UK, New Zealand – are also members of the Five Eyes.
Not looking good.
This is not a rendition. Meng's extradition is all being done by the book. She is still in
Canada, and will have a bail hearing today. She will have the opportunity to contest her
extradition in Canada. Assuming she loses, she then goes to the US to face charges.
And I'm not keen about the CT. A top Chinese tech company like Huawei which knows it's on
America's shit list would have a very well protected Intranet. The US does not have access to
Chinese telcoms to locate or steal the data of Chinese citizens. Get real.
I'm not sure I embrace the notion of all this being done by the book as much as you Yves.
After all, even charades can have the appearance of procedural compliance and the following
of by the book rules, in fact, perhaps the incentive to create the appearance of following
the rules is even more pronounced in a high profile case such as this. As to whether she will
have a fair opportunity to defend herself, this is a watershed moment for Canada and she's is
in the spotlight here and no matter which way it goes, the decision to extradite or not will
have irrevocable implications on her international relations.
This is not a rendition. Canada isn't the UK. It's not going to bend its court processes,
particularly since Chinese have become big investors in Canada and Trump has been
astonishingly rude to Trudeau. And it has an independent judiciary.
I was pretty unimpressed by Trudeau's pusillanimity. He tried to give the impression that
Canada was just an innocent bystander in this whole process. Get real. If there's an
extradition treaty, the US has to make a formal request to the Canadian government. The idea
that the PM wasn't consulted on this is nonsensical. Justin engaging in his own version of
"cakeism". Wants to stay on the good side of both Beijing and Washington, which is an
impossible thing to do. Trudeau is already on Trump's sh*t list, and I'm sure Xi is taking
his measure of the man as well. Probably not terribly impressed with him either.
I have family and friends in Canada. Trust me, Canadians would be REALLY pissed if they
thought that the Canadian judiciary was rolling over for Trump and Bolton.Trump is not making
Canadian friends by running around throwing tantrums over NAFTA given that US-Canada trade is
one of the most balanced trade relationships in the world with very little net trade deficit
for either side.
I think this is very much being done by the book. Is there a viable law that is not, by
itself, a human rights violation? Is there credible evidence that this person broke this law?
Those are the basic questions that will need to be answered in a Canadian court room to have
an extradition move forward.
Canadians want the big powers to have coherent rational laws and treaties related to trade
etc. and then follow them. They also want to have rational, coherent international plans on
addressing conflicts and have historically been very strong supporters of the UN and
routinely have blue helmet troops all around the world on peace-keeping missions. Canada can
do this safely because it has balanced relationships with most countries around the world. It
will not do these types of arrests and extraditions on a whim because that would upset
Canada's role in the world.
Judging from what I've read, the US are claiming she committed fraud by alleging that a
company, Skycom that allegedly did business with Iran was not separate from Huawei. Here's
the BBC's take:
"On Friday, US prosecutors told the Supreme Court of British Columbia that Ms Meng had
used a Huawei subsidiary called Skycom to evade sanctions on Iran between 2009 and 2014 .
Spot on with your comment. As you point out, this event will cast a dark shadow over
executive travel for a long time to come, including those American executives who will now be
fearful of countermeasures.
Whose laws, one might ask? The US says ITS laws rule the world. ISDS says corporate right
to profit (by their accounting methods that discount externalities to zero) outweighs ALL
national and local laws.
And having spent some years as a lawyer, and observing several different kinds of courts
in operation, I would dare to challenge the assertion that "courts have to follow rules."
Like they have done in the foreclosure mess, maybe? Like the shenanigans displayed via
Chicago's "Operation Greylord" prosecutions? Or in traffic courts in small towns in Flyover
Country? how about the US bankruptcy courts, where shall we say "bad decisions" are endemic?
Remember Julius Hoffman? how about Kimba Woods, who sua sponte curtailed Michael Milken's
jail term for his junk bond racket? Even FISA, of course?
Good luck with that. It's almost impossible in the US never to break the law in some way.
It just takes a cop or prosecutors motivated enough. I find it hard to believe it's not the
same in China, let alone Russia or the UK, to name a few.
This law school lecture is 45mins long but really fun (it's got 2.5 million views). You
should never talk to the police – one reason being that, as Lynne says, there are SO
many possible offences, that you can never be sure you are not guilty of
something .
"Sounds like a good reason for executives not to break laws "
Yeah, I remember when all those HSBC executives were arrested, tried and thrown in jail.
Good times The U.S. government really believes in the rule of law. Remember when the Chief
Executive was sent to prison for life for committing "the supreme war crime" and shredding
the U.S. Constitution?
Rules are for little people Meng isn't big enough to be unprosecutable apparently.
So the US DOJ, according to "people familiar with the matter", has been investigating
Huawei for at least two years. My math tells me this is roughly since the signing of the deal
between Iran and the P5+1 countries in 2016, a deal subsequently incorporated into
international law by the UN. Now a bank that has run a laundry service for dirty money is
suddenly thrust into victimhood and (with Uncle Sam's boot on its neck no doubt) is
"cooperating" with the investigation? You couldn't make this more surreal if you tried.
If this isn't the final act in peeling off the rose tinted glasses from countries that
still consider the US a trusted friend and loyal ally, one wonders how much more evidence
they need to see it for what it really is, a duplicitous, hypocritical, tyrannical
imperialist. The irony of this charade being undertaken by the department of "justice" makes
this even more egregious. Expect development of an alternative system to Swift to go into
overdrive after this.
The point isn't "Is the US acting legally/by the book in enforcing the law", it's "Why is
the US legally enforcing the law in this case and not the million other cases equally
deserving of enforcement?" When the law isn't enforced evenly, then the law just becomes a
cover story for dishing out and withholding punishment by authorities.
Very interesting-actually mystifying. The powers that are- from their
pronouncements,haven't a clue about modern money, and in that framework the benefits of the
reserve currency they print. Maybe they do, but why, for what appears a minimal foreign
corporate compliance offence, would we want China, Russia, and a host of others to find
enough cause to continue their effort on a replacement reserve? Why are we so hell bent on
militarising the dollar? Save it for really big fish. Sure, its extremely difficult under the
current political framework for the world to organise and opt away from our dollar , but the
stability and leadership America has offered since the end of ww11, maybe appears
diminishing. Given Trump just made a deal with Xi, at the same time his vip citizen was being
targeted- obviously kind of humiliating-,as well as the administration turning a blind eye to
the murderous soprano fiefdom of Saudi Arabia; from any rational standpoint prioritising
human rights over crooked bank compliance issues , this looks keystone cop like! Sure we only
have a little info, but it still smells of hypocritical, imperialistic, one hand doesnt know
what the other hand is doing idiots in charge. Mike Hudson sees nefarious purposes,maybe hes
a bit hawkish, but this just seems so obtuse given the g20 hand shakes. Going to be very
interesting watching China's response. Then again maybe this lady is a criminal.
" the US Justice Department finds no trouble with targeting a corporation nearly 7,000
miles away but just can't seem to target Wall Street which is only about 200 miles away from
their headquarters "
This.
Having power over others seems to be a standard condition of our species. How one uses or
abuses power reveals the inner nature of the one(s) wielding the power. There need not be a
conspiracy of the powerful, just a consensus of how power should be used so that the sum
total exercises of the powerful reveal where their interests intersect. The rest of us just
got get out of the way.
If one wants to know what interesting times look like, well, we have front row seats. And
its in 3-D.
I must admit that President Trump is doing a better job than former President Obama in
ramping up a new theatre of economic warfare across the globe. Former President Obama was
rather crude, what with his drones. I'm thinking we have to update von Clausewitz's dictum:
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." to something along the lines of
"Economics is a continuation of war by other means."
The USA polity is certainly making it up close and personal.
Indeed. The possibilities for China to retaliate are seemingly endless though they won't
have the long arm the U.S. has.
Perhaps China should respond by trying to arrest and indicting some of the Wall Street big
wigs Obama never indicted. I'm sure China could come up with reasons why fraud Wall Street
committed violated Chinese law and damaged China.
Of course, being an exporter to the U.S. I'm sure China would much rather this go away,
than to retaliate.
Very interesting-actually mystifying. The powers that are- from their
pronouncements,haven't a clue about modern money, and in that framework the benefits of the
reserve currency they print. Maybe they do, but why, for what appears a minimal foreign
corporate compliance offence, would we want China, Russia, and a host of others to find
enough cause to continue their effort on a replacement reserve? Why are we so hell bent on
militarising the dollar? Save it for really big fish. Sure, its extremely difficult under the
current political framework for the world to organise and opt away from our dollar , but the
stability and leadership America has offered since the end of ww11, maybe appears
diminishing. Given Trump just made a deal with Xi, at the same time his vip citizen was being
targeted- obviously kind of humiliating-,as well as the administration turning a blind eye to
the murderous soprano fiefdom of Saudi Arabia; from any rational standpoint prioritising
human rights over crooked bank compliance issues , this looks keystone cop like! Sure we only
have a little info, but it still smells of hypocritical, imperialistic, one hand doesnt know
what the other hand is doing idiots in charge. Mike Hudson sees nefarious purposes,maybe hes
a bit hawkish, but this just seems so obtuse given the g20 hand shakes. Going to be very
interesting watching China's response. Then again maybe this lady is a criminal.
Why are we so hell bent? The U.S. hyper power status started in 1991. This is a generation
where they knew nothing else, coming off 45 years where allies did what they were told.
Whether its throwing around terms such as "American exceptionalism" or "indispensable
nation", there is a religious fervor around the U.S. among American foreign policy
elites.
Then there is imperial rot. The tenures in the U.S. Senate are longer than the Soviet
Politburo. At a practical level the Bushes and Clintons (not exactly great people) have been
responsible for who gets promoted in Washington and who develops marketable connections since
1986 with Reagan's alzheimers kicking in big time if not longer.
In many places in the US, if I jaywalk, I am a criminal. What corporate executive is not a
criminal, given the mass of laws that apply (until said criminals can bribe the legislatures
into de-criminalizing the bad behaviors)? Not to mention persuading the executive branch to
not prosecute, for all kinds of "political" reasons? Ask Wells Fargo and the other Banksters
how that works. Selective or non-prosecution for me, "the full weight of the law," that
fraudulent notion, for thee, I guess. And none of that is in any way new.
Speaking of Chinese criminals, I would add an anecdote. I have not been able to find the
episode, but one of the formerly investigative programs (20-20 or 60 Minutes, I believe) took
part in a sting of a Chinese corp that sells counterfeit medicines. This was maybe 8-10 years
ago. A very pretty if somewhat English-challenged young woman met with a bunch, maybe 10, men
and women who she thought were buyers for distributors and Pharma corps in the US and I
believe Canada. This meeting took place in a West Coast S city as I recall.
She offered that her company produced counterfeit meds using "latest technology" that from
the shape and color and texture and markings of the pills and package inserts, right down to
the packaging, holograms and all, could not be distinguished from the original. The products
were touted as being biologically inactive and "safe." She averred that her company could
deliver any quantity, from cartons to container loads, at very reasonable and attractive
price.
But that is a little different case from what appears at this point (barring correction as
the "case" develops) from the Huawei matter.
Not easy for another entity to take over the reserve currency.
China Germany etc want a trade surplus with us, so they must accept and store dollars. Very
similarly. Many individuals want to save dollars because they don't trust their own currency.
And some countries actually use dollars as their currency.
So the desire to accept or save dollars in exchange for their goods means the dollar is the
reserve currency. This won't change until something else becomes more attractive to savers
and mercantilists.
I agree that "done by the book" is irrelevant here. Selective enforcement is the issue.
Wall Street crooks have committed greater sins yet none of them is really punished.
Anyone could have written an "internal memo" like that. Proving its authenticity is a
different matter. After all, the biggest "smoking gun" I have ever seen in my life was the
"evidence" of Iraqi WMD.
Another interesting aspect of the case is that as I suspected, it might be difficult to
prove that Huawei sold Iran some specific American technologies that still have valid patents
in effect.
I personally know IBM and others breached the US arms control export laws by exporting
Cryptography to Apartheid South Africa, and believe that Shell Oil has broken nearly all
environmental laws in the Niger Delta for decades.
Is this what happens when a government is sliding rapidly down the slope of loss of
legitimacy?' We become acutely aware of the selective enforcement of its laws; a situation
that our poor and black and brown citizens have known for decades.
We have even become aware that the laws themselves are not always enacted for the public
good, but for the enrichment of certain small segments of the population.
This is not a good place to be. I mean this state of mind, not the NC site, which, as
always, provides the opportunity for much thoughtful and creative discussion.
Don't forget that the US ambassador to Germany threatened secondary sanctions against
Germany if they went ahead with Nordstream2. Trump then walked that back. But as for this
latest move, we know that Bolton at least was informed of the impending arrest so it's fair
to say that such a sensitive action would not have happened without some form of White House
approval–even if it wasn't Trump himself. It's probably not a CT therefore to say that
there's more going on here than a prosecutor making a routine request. The administration
hawks are firing a shot over the bow of anyone who defies them on Iran (the place "real men"
go to). Given what we know about Bolton's Iran obsession it may not even have much to do with
China.
And this bully boy approach to the rest of the world isn't only coming from Trump's
neocons since sanctions bills are a bipartisan favorite of our Congress. Apparently being
bribed on domestic matters isn't enough (unless you consider foreign policy to only be about
MIC profits). Doing the bidding overseas actors and their supporters taps a whole other
vein.
Flights that over fly US airspace are required to submit their manifests and passenger
names are bounced against the National Crime Information Center databases by CBP.
I would venture that her flight overflew Alaskan airspace and that is how they found out
she was on board.
So the USA decided to take hostages ;-) The key rule of neoliberalism is the financial
oligarchy is untouchable. This is a gangster-style move which will greatly backfire.
Now Russian financial executives would think twice about visiting UK, Canada, New Zealand or
Australia. and that's money lost. Probably forever.
Appearing in court wearing a green jumpsuit and without handcuffs, Meng reportedly looked to
be in good spirits in a Vancouver courtroom where the prosecutions' case was detailed publicly
for the first time. Specifically, the US alleges that Meng helped conceal the company's true
relationship with a firm called Skycom, a subsidiary closely tied to its parent company as it
did business with Iran.
Meng used this deception to lure banks into facilitating transactions that violated US
sanctions, exposing them to possible fines. The prosecutor didn't name the banks, but US media
on Thursday reported that a federal monitor at
HSBC flagged a suspicious transaction involving Huawei to US authorities, according to
Bloomberg. Prosecutors also argued that Meng has avoided the US since learning about its probe
into possible sanctions violations committed by Huawei, and that she should be held in custody
because she's a flight risk whose bail could not be set high enough. Before Friday's hearing, a
publication ban prevented details about the charges facing Meng from being released. However,
that ban was lifted at the beginning of her hearing.
Meng was arrested in Vancouver on Saturday while on her way to Mexico, according to reports
in the Canadian
Press.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada's ambassador in Beijing had
briefed the Chinese foreign ministry on Meng's arrest. The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa had
branded Meng's detention as a "serious violation of human rights" as senior Chinese officials
debate the
prospects for retaliation. Freeland said McCallum told the Chinese that Canada is simply
following its laws - echoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's claim that Meng's arrest was the
result of a legal process happening independent of politics.
Friday's hearing in Vancouver is just the start of a legal process that could end with Meng
being extradited to stand trial in the US. Even if prosecutors believe there is little doubt as
to Meng's guilt, the extradition process could take months or even years.
Anything involving Iran is inherently political. The US is abusing Interpol in no less
brazen fashion than Russia and China when seeking the extradition of dissidents. Canada
shouldn't accomodate this BS.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
@niceland
Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are
globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit
of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration
lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then
moved to a place where it best serves its owner.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
"Beijing is likely to react angrily to this latest arrest of a Chinese citizen in a third
country for violating U.S. law," Eurasia analysts wrote.
In fact, Global Times -- a hyper-nationalistic tabloid tied to the Chinese Communist Party
-- responded to the arrest by posting on Twitter a statement about trade war escalation it
attributed to an expert "close to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce."
"China should be fully prepared for an escalation in the #tradewar with the US, as the US
will not ease its stance on China, and the recent arrest of the senior executive of #Huawei is
a vivid example," said the statement, paired with a photo of opposing fists with Chinese and
American flags superimposed upon them.
U.S. President Donald Trump
and Chinese President Xi Jinping
met over a dinner during the G-20 summit in Argentina after months of increasing trade tensions
between the two countries. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods,
while Beijing has retaliated with duties on $110 billion of U.S. goods.
The White House's latest round of tariffs on $200 billion goods was set to rise to 25
percent from 10 percent on Jan. 1, 2019, but Trump agreed at the G-20 meeting not to do so.
The catch is, however, that Xi and Trump must find resolution on "forced technology
transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber
theft, services and agriculture" within 90 days, according to the White House press secretary's
statement.
That gives the leaders until early March -- past Christmas, New Year's and Chinese New Year
-- to find a way to keep tariffs from rising.
However, official online statements about Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's briefing on the
meeting did not discuss the technology transfers or the 90-day condition.
The timeframe and details on areas of disagreement also did not appear in online reports
from China's state news agency Xinhua , People's
Daily -- the official Communist Party paper -- and CGTN -- the
English-language version of state broadcaster CCTV.
The articles did note the U.S. and China agreed to work towards mutual benefits, and
generally indicated Beijing would increase purchases of U.S. goods. The state media also said
the two parties discussed North Korea denuclearization. The Chinese press also said Trump
upheld a "One-China Policy" regarding Taiwan -- something not mentioned in the White House
statement.
On top of that, Trump tweeted late Sunday evening that "China has agreed to reduce and
remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%."
Prior to that Twitter post, there had not been any mention of such an agreement in Chinese
sources.
The arrest is related to violations of U.S. sanctions, a person familiar with the matter
said. Reuters was unable to determine the precise nature of the violations. Meng Wanzhou, who
is one of the vice chairs on the Chinese technology company's board and the daughter of company
founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested on Dec. 1 and a court hearing has been set for Friday, a
Canadian Justice Department spokesman said.
The U.K.'s spy chief said that decisions still had to be made on China's role in building
Britain's 5G network.
... ... ...
Last week, New Zealand
banned Huawei from providing tech for its 5G rollout -- the third member of the Five Eyes
security alliance to do so. At the time, New Zealand's government said it had identified a
"significant network security risk."
Fellow members Australia and the U.S. have also excluded Chinese telecoms firms from
providing 5G equipment for their domestic networks, leaving Canada and the U.K. as the only
members not to rule out using the telecoms giant.
All three nations cited national security fears as the reason for excluding Chinese
companies from their 5G rollouts, with Younger's Australian counterpart
referring to them as "high-risk vendors."
... ... ...
Huawei and ZTE – another Chinese firm blocked from the U.S. 5G market – have
repeatedly denied that their involvement in the rollouts would give China's government access
to international networks. Warning to Russia China wasn't the only country raising
security questions for MI6. Younger told his audience the U.K. faced many adversaries who
regarded themselves as being in a state of "perpetual confrontation" with the nation --
including Russia.
"I urge Russia or any other state intent on subverting our way of life not to underestimate
our determination and our capabilities, or those of our allies," he said.
"I should emphasize that even as the Russian state seeks to destabilize us, we do not seek
to destabilize Russia. We do not seek an escalation. If we see a change in Russian behavior, we
will respond positively. But we will be implacable in defense of our people and our vital
interests."
How many alternative economic systems would you say have been given a fair trial under
reasonably favorable circumstances?
A good question. Answer: admittedly, not a huge number - but not none either. Feudalism
held sway in the middle ages and mercantilism in the 18th century, before both fell out of
fashion. In the 20th century Russia stuck with communism for 74 years, and many other
countries tried it for a while. At one time (around 1949-89) there were enough countries in
the communist block for us to be able to say that they at least had a fair chance to make it
work - that is, if it didn't work, they can't really blame it on the rest of the world
ganging up on them.
Lately, serious challengers to the global economic order have been more isolated
(Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea?) - so maybe you could argue that, if they are struggling, it is
because they have been unfairly ganged up on. But then again, aren't they pursuing a
version of socialism that has close affinities to that tried in the Soviet Union?
The problem with giving any novel political idea a really extended trial is that you have
to try it out on live human beings. This means that, once a critical mass of data has built
up that indicates a political idea doesn't work out as hoped, then people inevitably lose the
will to try that idea again.
So my question is: are critics of the current world economic order able to spell out
exactly how their proposed alternative would differ from Soviet-style socialism?
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - China and the United States have agreed to halt new tariffs as
both nations engage in trade talks with the goal of reaching an agreement within 90 days, the
White House said on Saturday after U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi
Jinping held high-stakes talks in Argentina.
Trump agreed not to boost tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25 percent on Jan. 1
as previously announced, as China agreed to buy an unspecified but "very substantial" amount
of agricultural, energy, industrial and other products, the White House said. The White House
also said China "is open to approving the previously unapproved Qualcomm Inc <QCOM.O>
NXP <NXPI.O> deal should it again be presented."
The White House said that if agreement on trade issues including technology transfer,
intellectual property, non-tariff barriers, cyber theft and agriculture have not been reached
with China in 90 days that both parties agree that the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to
25 percent.
Studying history is very important for your formation as a personality...
Notable quotes:
"... He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present day decisions. ..."
"... I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know." ..."
"... The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison. His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born. ..."
"... He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it. ..."
"... There are other forces that are effective in addition to plutocrats and they are mostly bad. ..."
"... Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis against thinking of this type. ..."
"... A lot of people come out of humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc. ..."
"... He is in thrall to the Israelis, their allies, the neocons, political donors and the popular media. An easy mark for skilled operators. ..."
"... Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school, the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that college classes would fill the gap though. ..."
"... Read widely. start with something encyclopedic like Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization." ..."
"... How about William H. McNeill's Rise of the West. ..."
"... Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also works with women that you want personally. ..."
Yes. Trump says that is how he "rolls." The indicators that this is true are everywhere. He does not believe what the "swampies"
tell him. He listens to the State Department, the CIA, DoD, etc. and then acts on ill informed instinct and information provided
by; lobbies, political donors, foreign embassies, and his personal impressions of people who have every reason to want to deceive
him. As I wrote earlier he sees the world through an entrepreneurial hustler's lens.
He crudely assigns absolute dollar values to
policy outcomes and actions which rarely have little to do with the actual world even if they might have related opposed to the arena
of contract negotiations.
He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania
and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the
Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present
day decisions.
I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly
that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy
mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested
in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know."
That does not mean that he has been
recruited by someone or something but the vulnerability is evident. IMO the mistake he has made in surrounding himself with neocons
and other special pleaders, people like Pompeo and Bolton is evidence that he is very controllable by the clever and subtle. pl
I have an aged wire haired Jack Russel Terrier. He is well past his time. He is almost blind, and is surely deaf. In his earlier
days he was a force of nature. He still is now, but only in the context of food. He is still obsessed with it at every turn. Food
is now his reality and he will not be sidetracked or otherwise distracted by any other stimuli beyond relieving himself when and
where he sees fit. He lives by his gut feeling and damn everything else. There is no reason, no other calculus for him. Trump's
trusting his "gut" is just about as simplistic and equally myopic. My dog is not a tragedy, he shoulders no burden for others
and when he gets to the point of soiling himself or is in pain, he will be held in my arms and wept over for the gift he has been
when the needle pierces his hide. Trump, well, he is a tragedy. He does shoulder a responsibility to millions and millions and
for those to follow after he is long dead and gone. His willful ignorance in the face of reason and science reminds me of the
lieutenant colonel of 2/7 Cav. you spoke of at LZ Buttons.
The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison.
His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character
must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his
gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born.
Just after I looked at this post I went to Twitter and this came up. I don't know how long it's been since Jeremy Young was in
grad school but a 35% decline drop in History dissertations is shocking even if it's over a span of 3-4 decades.
View
Hide
Yes. It's either STEM or Social Sciences these days and that is almost as bad as Journalism or Communications Arts. Most media
people are Journalism dummies.
He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration
of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red
button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there
will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it.
Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated
wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis
against thinking of this type.
I am commending study of the humanities as historically understood, not the "humanities" of
contemporary academia, which is little better than atheistic materialism of the Marxist variety, out of which any place for the
genuinely spiritual has been systematically extirpated in favor of the imposition of some sort of sentimentalism as an ersatz
substitute.
My response to flattery, even if subtle, is, "Yeah? Gee thanks. Now please just tell me what you're really after". I'd think any
experienced man should have arrived at the same reaction at least by the time he's 35. Ditto trusting anyone in an atmosphere
where power and money are there for the taking by the ambitious and clever. As for a balance sheet approach, IMO, there is a real
need for that kind of thinking in govt. Perhaps a happy mix of it + a humanities based perspective.
A lot of people come out of
humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc.
That is what the smart guys all say before really skilled people work on them. Eventually they ask you to tell them what is real.
The Humanities thing stung? I remember the engineer students mocking me at VMI over this.
They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content.
Fully concur. They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS. If, just
in case, I am misconstrued as fighting humanities field--I am not fighting it. Literature, language, history are essential for
a truly cultured human. When I speak about "humanities" I personally mean namely Political "Science".
As I wrote earlier the Issue in those Courses is they are actually pure and concentrated Fields...... Political Science, International
Relations are ambigious enough that a candidate can appeal to many Sectors and it is accepted, expected they will be competent....
Whether that be Governance/Diplomacy, Business, Travel etc...
Thus if you have no Idea what you want - those Fields are good to study, learning relatively little.....
If you know what you want - you have a Path.... You can study more concentrated Fields, but you damn well have to hope there
is a Job at the end of the Rainbow (Known at least a couple People who studied only to be told almost immediately - you will not
find Jobs domestically)
Sir, I stand corrected on the humanities into govt assertion. I do tend to get humanities and social sciences jumbled in my numbers/cost/benefit
based thinking. I am open to people telling me how to do tasks that they have more experience performing and that I might need
to know about. And I have curiosities about people's experiences and perspectives on how the world of men works, but I'm not so
concerned about the world of men that I lose my integrity or soul or generally get sucked into their reality over my own. Of course
that's just me. Someone like Trump seeks approval and high rank amongst men. So, yes, I guess he is susceptible; though I still
think somewhat less than others. This is evident in how he refuses to follow the conventions and expectations of what a president
should look and act like. He is a defiant sort. I like that about him. Of course needing to be defiant is still a need and therefore
a chink in his armor.
Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're
not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its
everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school,
the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that
college classes would fill the gap though.
Any advice to help the "marks" out there?
I started developing my BS filter when I recognized that when my older brother was being nice, he wanted something. His normal
approach was to ignore me.
Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also
works with women that you want personally.
US allies in Europe and Asia did not expect to be treated like vassal states, at least not
openly. Succumbing to Trump's demands is an admission of being a lapdog.
US allies in Europe and Asia have no choice but to push back against Trump's bullying and
condescending stances. They are elected by their citizens to protect the countries' sovereignty
and interests, after all. Too, these leaders must save face and protect their legacies.
One of the first European leaders having the courage to defy Trump is French President
Emmanuel Macron, calling for the establishment of a European Union army independent of the US
to defend itself against Russia, China and possibly America itself. His proposal is supported
by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Asian allies, particularly India, also seem to have pushed back , buying Iranian oil whether
the US likes it or not.
Washington's attempt to revive the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising itself and
soulmates Australia, India and Japan may be losing support. Instead of joining with the US to
contain China, India and Japan are seeking rapprochement with the Asian giant. Even "deputy
sheriff" Australia is apparently having second thoughts, as one of its states is
officially joining China's Belt and and Road Initiative.
In short, these three allies might finally realize that joining the US in containing China
is harmful to their national interests. Fighting that nuclear power on their own soil might not
be a good idea.
No country treats the US 'unfairly'
The fact of the matter is no country treats the US "unfairly" or is "eating its lunch." On
the contrary, it could be argued that it is the other way around.
Having emerged as the world's strongest nation during and after World War II, US foreign
policies have one goal: Shape the world to its image. That process began at the 1944 Bretton
Woods Conference, insisting on using the US dollar as the world reserve currency and writing
the trade rules. In this way, the US has accumulated a very powerful tool, printing as much
money as it wants without repercussions to itself. For example, when a country wants to cash
its US Treasury holdings, all America has to do is print more greenbacks.
To that end, the US is clearly "eating other countries' lunch." Indeed, a major reason the
US can afford to build so many weapons is that other countries are paying for them.
US
trade practices
On trade, the US in 1950 rejected the UK's proposal of forming an International Trade
Organization (ITO) modeled after the International Monetary Fund and World Bank because it
feared the ITO might have harmed American manufacturing. In its place, the US proposed and
succeeded in forming the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) framework to negotiate tariff rates on goods.
Being the world's most powerful economy and biggest trading nation at that time, the US
dominated the world trading system and wrote its rules. For example, it was the US that
invented and implemented non-tariff trade barriers such as anti-dumping duties and
national-security concerns to block imports. For example, the US imposed tariffs on Canadian,
EU, Mexican and other countries' steel and aluminum from entering its market for security
reasons.
It is laughable for the US to accuse Canada, the EU and Mexico of posing a national-security
threat. They are, in fact, America's most staunch allies.
US foreign direct investment
abroad
US companies bring with them ideas and technology (for which they charge exorbitant prices)
when investing in a foreign market such as China and elsewhere. The capital needed to build
factories is largely funded by the host country or other partners. For example, it is Taiwanese
and Japanese investors that built Foxconn factories in China to assemble American electronic
gadgets such as the iPad.
What's more, US companies charge huge prices for the products they make in China. According
to the Asian Development Bank and other research organizations, Chinese labor, for example,
receives a small percentage of the profits Apple takes in from gadgets it produces in China.
This lopsided profit distribution raises the question: Who is "eating whose
lunch?"
America has itself to blame
The US cannot blame China or any other country for its declining global influence and
dominance – America, particularly under Donald Trump, did that to itself. Chinese
President Xi Jinping, indeed, has advocated cooperation and dialogue as ways to defuse
conflicts and attain a better world.
No country has ever even hinted at attacking the US; it is after all the world's most
powerful nation, armed with enough conventional and nuclear weapons to blow up the world. The
"threats" are exaggerated or invented by US neoconservatives and vested interests to scare
Americans into supporting huge defense spending.
'Fake news' can only go so far
Using "fake news" to pressure countries into submission might work with those unable to
fight back, but could be extremely costly against powers such as China and Russia. For example,
Trump's escalating trade tensions with China are already adversely affecting the US economy, as
seen in falling GDP growth, decreasing stock prices, a huge agricultural inventory, and rising
poverty.
According to United Nations, the impoverished American population is being hit the hardest
under the Trump administration. The US Federal Reserve and others are projecting significant
economic decline in the foreseeable future if the trade war does not end.
One can only imagine what a nuclear war would bring.
Donald Trump is probably no less bullying than his predecessors (perhaps with the exception
of George W Bush), but he is more open about it. Bush's outburst, "You are either with us or
against us," earned America a bad reputation when he demanded that allies join him to invade
Iraq.
Trump has bullied or offended everyone, friends and foes alike. Unless he shifts gear, he
could alienate friends as well as foes, which could erode US geopolitical influence and
economic growth or might even bring the country down. He cannot threaten sovereign nations
without incurring huge costs to America.
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
"I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,"
Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political
figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the
Americas.
"I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by
leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must
send a very clear message – 'we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and
support ' – because if we don't deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil
the body politic."
Hillary still can't admit to herself that she lost the election because she was a horrible
candidate and people refused to vote for her.
Clinton urged forces opposed to rightwing populism in Europe and the US not to neglect the
concerns about race and i dentity issues that she says were behind her losing key votes in
2016. She accused Trump of exploiting the issue in the election contest – and in
office.
"The use of immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of
attacks on one's heritage, one's identity, one's national unity has been very much exploited
by the current administration here," she said.
"There are solutions to migration that do not require clamping down on the press, on your
political opponents and trying to suborn the judiciary, or seeking financial and political
help from Russia to support your political parties and movements."
Let's recap what Obama's coup in
Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine
might have something to do with the rise of " populists on the right " that is
spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama
regime began planning
for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside
the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist,
or nazi, political parties , Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the
Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party,
or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call
instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will
be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy
organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media
misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but
still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said
he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup
there).
I personally don't understand the French electorate on these matters. Macron in particular
did not promise anything other than to deliver more of the same policies, albeit with
more youth and more vigor, as a frank globalist. Who, exactly, was excited at his election but
is disappointed now? People with a short attention span or susceptibility to marketing
gimmicks, I assume.
It is hard to talk about the French media without getting a bit conspiratorial, at least, I
speak of "structural conspiracies." Macron's unabashed, "modernizing" globalism certainly
corresponds to the id of the French media-corporate elites and to top 20% of the
electorate, let us say, the talented fifth. He was able to break through the old French
two-party system, annihilating the Socialist Party and sidelining the conservatives. The media
certainly helped in this, preferring him to either the conservative François Fillon or
the civic nationalist Marine Le Pen.
However, the media have to a certain extent turned on Macron, perhaps because he
believes his "complex thoughts" cannot be grasped by
journalists with their admittedly limited cognitive abilities . Turn on the French radio
and you'll hear stories of how the so-called "Youth With Macron," whose twenty- and
thirty-somethings were invited onto all the talk shows just before Macron became a leading
candidate, were actually former Socialist party hacks with no grass roots. Astroturf. I could
have told you that.
Macron has made a number of what the media call "gaffes." When an old lady voiced concern
about the future of her pension,
he answered : "you don't have a right to complain." He has also done many things that
anyone with just a little sense of decorum will be disgusted by. The 40-year-old Macron, who
has a 65-year-old wife and claims not to be a homosexual, loves being photographed with sweaty
black bodies.
... ... ...
So there's that. But, in terms of policies, I cannot say that the people who supported
Macron have any right to complain. He is doing what he promised, that is to say, steaming full
straight ahead on the globalist course with, a bit more forthrightness and, he hopes,
competence than his Socialist or conservative predecessors.
Link
Bookmark In truth there are no solutions. There is nothing he can do to make the elitist and
gridlocked European Union more effective, nothing he can do to improve the "human capital" in
the Afro-Islamic banlieues , and not much he can do to improve the economy which the
French people would find acceptable. A bit more of labor flexibility here, a bit of a tax break
there, oh wait deficit's too big, a tax hike in some other area too, then. Six of one, half a
dozen in the other. Oh, and they've also passed
more censorship legislation to fight "fake news" and "election meddling" and other pathetic
excuses the media-political class across the West have come up with for their loss of control
over the Narrative.
Since the European Central Bank has been printing lending hundreds of billions of euros to
stimulate the Eurozone economy, France's economic performance has been decidedly mediocre, with
low growth, slowly declining unemployment, and no reduction in debt (currently at 98.7% of
GDP). Performance will presumably worsen if the ECB, as planned, phases out stimulus at the end
of this year.
There is a rather weird situation in terms of immigration and diversity. Everyone seems to
be aware of the hellscape of ethno-religious conflict which will thrive in the emerging
Afro-Islamic France of the future. Just recently at the commemoration of the Battle of Verdun,
an elderly French soldier asked Macron : "When will you kick out the illegal immigrants? .
. . Aren't we bringing in a Trojan Horse?"
More significant was the resignation of Gérard Collomb from his position as interior
minister last month to return to his old job as mayor of Lyon, which he apparently finds more
interesting. Collomb is a 71-year-old Socialist politician who has apparently awakened to the
problems of ethnic segregation and conflict. He said in his
farewell address :
I have been in all the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods of Marseille-North to Mirail in
Toulous, to the Parisian periphery, Corbeil, Aulnay, Sevran, the situation has deteriorated
greatly. We cannot continue to work on towns individually, there needs to be an overarching
vision to recreate social mixing. Because today we are living side by side, and I still say,
me, I fear that tomorrow we will live face-to-face [i.e. across a battle lines].
It is not clear how much Collomb tried to act upon these concerns as interior minister and
was frustrated. In any case, he dared to voice the same concerns to
the far-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles last February. He told them: "The relations
between people are very difficult, people don't want to live together" (using the term
vivre-ensemble , a common diversitarian slogan). He said immigration's responsibility
for this was "enormous" and agreed with the journalist that "France no longer needs
immigration." Collomb then virtually predicted civil war:
Communities in France are coming into conflict more and more and it is becoming very
violent . . . I would say that, within five years, the situation could become irreversible.
Yes, we have five or six years to avoid the worst. After that . . .
It's unclear why "the next five or six years" should be so critical. From one point of view,
the old France is already lost as about
a third of births are non-European and in particular
one fifth are Islamic . The patterns of life in much of France will therefore likely come
to reflect those of Africa and the Middle-East, including random violence and religious
fanaticism. Collomb seems to think "social mixing" would prevent this, but in fact, there has
been plenty of social and even genetic "mixing" in Brazil and Mexico, without this preventing
ethno-racial stratification and extreme levels of violence.
I'm afraid it's all more of the same in douce France , sweet France. On the current
path, Macron will be a one-termer like Sarkozy and Hollande were. Then again, the next
elections will be in three-and-a-half years, an eternity in democratic politics. In all
likelihood, this would be the Right's election to win, with a conservative anti-immigration
candidate. A few people of the mainstream Right are open to working with Le Pen's National
Rally and some have even defended the Identitarians. Then again, I could even imagine
Macron posing as a heroic opponent of (illegal . . .) immigration if he thought it could
help get him reelected. Watch this space . . .
How many immigrants from Africa come to Europe depends only on political will of Europeans. The
demography of African has nothing to do with it. Europe has means to stop immigration legal and
illegal. Macron talking about how many children are born in Africa is just another cop out.
A few months ago I claimed that Emmanuel Macron has/holds an ""Alt Right" worldview" due
to him having had interactions with an influential member of the French Protestant Huguenot
minority in France: http://www.unz.com/article/collateral-damage/#comment-1955020
[...] Macron : Germany is different from France. You are more Protestant, which results
in a significant difference. Through the church, through Catholicism, French society was
structured vertically, from top to bottom. I am convinced that it has remained so until
today. That might sound shocking to some – and don't worry, I don't see myself as a
king. But whether you like it or not, France's history is unique in Europe. Not to put too
fine a point on it, France is a country of regicidal monarchists. It is a paradox: The
French want to elect a king, but they would like to be able to overthrow him whenever they
want. The office of president is not a normal office – that is something one should
understand when one occupies it. You have to be prepared to be disparaged, insulted and
mocked – that is in the French nature. And: As president, you cannot have a desire to
be loved. Which is, of course, difficult because everybody wants to be loved. But in the end,
that's not important. What is important is serving the country and moving it forward.
Who, exactly, was excited at his election but is disappointed now? People with a short
attention span or susceptibility to marketing gimmicks, I assume.
Gold age of the USA (say 40 years from 1946 to approximately 1986 ) were an in some way an aberration caused by WWII. As soon
as Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves this era was over. And the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or more correct Soviet
nomenklatura switching sides and adopting neoliberalism) only make the decline more gradual but did not reversed it. After
200 it was clear that neoliberalism is in trouble and in 2008 it was clear that ideology of neoliberalism is dead, much like
Bolshevism after 1945.
As the US ruling neoliberal elite adopted this ideology ad its flag, the USA faces the situation somewhat similar the USSR
faced in 70th. It needs its "Perestroika" but with weak leader at the helm like Gorbachov it can lead to the dissolution of
the state. Dismantling neoliberalism is not less dangerous then dismantling of Bolshevism. The level of brainwashing of both
population and the elite (and it looks like the USA elite is brainwashed to an amazing level, probably far exceed the level of
brainwashing of Soviet nomenklatura) prevents any constructive moves.
In a way, Neoliberalism probably acts as a mousetrap for the country, similar to the role of Bolshevism in the
USSR. Ideology of neoliberalism is dead, so what' next. Another war to patch the internal divisions ? That's probably
why Trump is so adamant about attacking Iran. Iran does not have nuclear weapons so this is in a way an ideal target.
Unlike, say, Russia. And such a war can serve the same political purpose. That's why many emigrants from the USSR view the current
level of divisions with the USA is a direct analog of divisions within the USSR in late 70th and 80th. Similarities are
clearly visible with naked eye.
Notable quotes:
"... t is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all. ..."
"... "Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls. ..."
"... A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.' ..."
"... The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people. ..."
"... please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back ..."
"... America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work ..."
"... It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem. ..."
"... And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? ..."
"... The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class... ..."
"The only wealth you keep is wealth you have given away," said Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD),
last of the great Roman emperors. US President Donald Trump might know of another Italian,
Mario Puzo's Don Vito Corleone, and his memorable mumble : "I'm going to make him
an offer he can't refuse."
Forgetting such Aurelian and godfather codes is propelling the decline and fall of the
American empire.
Trump is making offers the world can refuse – by reshaping trade deals, dispensing
with American sops and forcing powerful corporations to return home, the US is regaining
economic wealth but relinquishing global power.
As the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Mikhail Gorbachev's
perestroika (restructuring) led to the breakup of its vast territory(22 million square
kilometers). Gorbachev's failed policies led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and
independent countries, and the end of a superpower.
Ironically, the success of Trump's policies will hasten the demise of the American empire:
the US regaining economic health but losing its insidious hold over the world.
This diminishing influence was highlighted when India and seven other countries geared up to
defy Washington's re-imposition of its unilateral, illegal sanctions against Iran, starting
Monday.
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the
station
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station.
The law of cause and effect unavoidably delivers. The Roman Empire fell after wars of greed
and orgies of consumption. A similar nemesis, the genie of Gorbachev, stalks Pennsylvania
Avenue, with Trump unwittingly writing the last chapter of World War II: the epilogue of the
two rival superpowers that emerged from humanity's most terrible conflict.
The maverick 45th president of the United States may succeed at being an economic messiah to
his country, which has racked up a $21.6 trillion debt, but the fallout is the death of
American hegemony. These are the declining days of the last empire standing.
Emperors and mafia godfathers knew that wielding great influence means making payoffs.
Trump, however, is doing away with the sops, the glue that holds the American empire together,
and is making offers that he considers "fair" but instead is alienating the international
community– from badgering NATO and other countries to pay more for hosting the US legions
(800 military bases in 80 countries) to reducing US aid.
US aid to countries fell from $50 billion in fiscal year 2016, $37 billion in 2017 to $7.7
billion so far in 2018. A world less tied to American largesse and generous trade tarrifs can
more easily reject the "you are with us or against us" bullying doctrine of US presidents. In
the carrot and stick approach that largely passes as American foreign policy, the stick loses
power as the carrot vanishes.
Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in The Godfather. Big payoffs needed for big influence. A
presidential lesson for Don Trump
More self-respecting leaders will have less tolerance for American hypocrisy, such as
sanctioning other countries for nuclear weapons while having the biggest nuclear arsenal on the
planet.
They will sneer more openly at the hysteria surrounding alleged interference in the 2016 US
presidential elections, pointing to Washington's violent record of global meddling. They will
cite examples of American hypocrisy such as its sponsorship of coups against elected leaders in
Latin America, the US Army's Project Camelot in 1964 targeting 22 countries for intervention
(including Iran, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia), its support for bloodthirsty dictators, and its
destabilization of the Middle East with the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Immigrant
cannon fodder
Trump's focus on the economy reduces the likelihood of him starting wars. By ending the
flood of illegal immigrants to save jobs for US citizens, he is also inadvertently reducing the
manpower for illegal wars. Non-citizen immigrants comprise about 5% of the US Army. For its
Iraq and Afghanistan wars, US army recruiters offered citizenship to lure illegal immigrants,
mostly Latinos.
Among the first US soldiers to die in the Iraq War was 22-year old illegal immigrant
Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an orphan from the streets of Guatemala City. He sneaked
across the Mexican border into the US six years before enlisting in exchange for American
citizenship.
On March 21, 2003, Gutierrez was killed by friendly fire near Umm Qasr, southern Iraq. The
coffin of this illegal immigrant was draped in the US flag, and he received American
citizenship – posthumously.
Trump policies targeting illegal immigration simultaneously reduces the availability of
cannon fodder for the illegal wars needed to maintain American hegemony.
Everything comes to an end, and so too will the last empire of our era.
The imperial American eagle flying into the sunset will see the dawn of an economically
healthier US that minds its own business, and increase hopes for a more equal, happier world
– thanks to the unintentional Gorbachev-2 in the White House.
I am sure that many of us are OK with ending American Empire. Both US citizens and other
countries don't want to fight un-necessary and un-ending wars. If Trump can do that, then he
is blessed.
See a pattern here? Raja Murthy, you sound like a pro-American Empire shill. 1964 Project
Camelot has nothing to do with the current administration. Raja, you forgot to wear your
satirical pants.
The idea and catchy hook of 2016 was Make America Great Again, not wasting lives and
resources on the American Empire. You point out the good things. Who might have a problem
with the end of the American Empire are Globalists. What is wrong with relinquishing global
power and not wasting lives and money?
"The only lives you keep is lives you've given away" That does not ring true. The only
lies you keep are the lies you've given away. What? You're not making any sense, dude. How
much American Empire are you vested in? Does it bother you if the Empire shrinks its death
grip on Asia or the rest of the world? Why don't you just say it: This is good! Hopefully
Trump's policies will prevent you from getting writers' cramp and being confusing--along with
the canon fodder. Or maybe you're worried about job security.
America is a super power, just like Russia. Just like England. However, whom the US
carries water for might change. Hope that's ok.
Trump is an empirial president, just like every other US president. In fact, that's what
the article is describing. MAGA depends upon imperialist domination. Trump and all of US
capitalism know that even if the brain-dead MAGA chumps don't.
Capitalism can't help but seek to rule the world. It is the result of pursuing
capitalism's all-important growth. If it's not US capitalism, it will be Chinese capitalism,
or Russian capitalism, or European capitalism that will rule the world.
The battle over global markets doesn't stop just because the US might decide not to play
anymore. Capitalism means that you're either the global power who is ******* the royal ****
out of everyone else, or you're the victim of being fucked up the *** by an imperialist
power.
The only thing which makes the US different from the rest of the world is its super
concentration of power, which in effect is a super concentration of corruption.
Another day and another ZeroHedge indictment of American capitalism.
And how refreshing that the article compares US capitalism to gangsterism. It's a most
appropriate comparison.
--------------------
Al Capone on Capitalism
It is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the
legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised
crime and capitalist accumulation before
on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided
to put it up on Histomat for you all.
In 1930, Cockburn, then a correspondent in America for the Times newspaper,
interviewed Al Capone at the Lexington Hotel in Chicago, when Capone was at the height of his
power. He recalls that except for 'the sub-machine gun...poking through the transom of a door
behind the desk, Capone's own room was nearly indistinguishable from that of, say, a "newly
arrived" Texan oil millionaire. Apart from the jowly young murderer on the far side of the
desk, what took the eye were a number of large, flattish, solid silver bowls upon the desk,
each filled with roses. They were nice to look at, and they had another purpose too, for
Capone when agitated stood up and dipped the tips of his fingers in the water in which
floated the roses.
I had been a little embarrassed as to how the interview was to be launched. Naturally the
nub of all such interviews is somehow to get round to the question "What makes you tick?" but
in the case of this millionaire killer the approach to this central question seemed mined
with dangerous impediments. However, on the way down to the Lexington Hotel I had had the
good fortune to see, I think in the Chicago Daily News , some statistics offered by an
insurance company which dealt with the average expectation of life of gangsters in Chicago. I
forget exactly what the average was, and also what the exact age of Capone at that time - I
think he was in his early thirties. The point was, however, that in any case he was four
years older than the upper limit considered by the insurance company to be the proper average
expectation of life for a Chicago gangster. This seemed to offer a more or less neutral and
academic line of approach, and after the ordinary greetings I asked Capone whether he had
read this piece of statistics in the paper. He said that he had. I asked him whether he
considered the estimate reasonably accurate. He said that he thought that the insurance
companies and the newspaper boys probably knew their stuff. "In that case", I asked him, "how
does it feel to be, say, four years over the age?"
He took the question quite seriously and spoke of the matter with neither more nor less
excitement or agitation than a man would who, let us say, had been asked whether he, as the
rear machine-gunner of a bomber, was aware of the average incidence of casualties in that
occupation. He apparently assumed that sooner or later he would be shot despite the elaborate
precautions which he regularly took. The idea that - as afterwards turned out to be the case
- he would be arrested by the Federal authorities for income-tax evasion had not, I think, at
that time so much as crossed his mind. And, after all, he said with a little bit of
corn-and-ham somewhere at the back of his throat, supposing he had not gone into this racket?
What would be have been doing? He would, he said, "have been selling newspapers barefoot on
the street in Brooklyn".
He stood as he spoke, cooling his finger-tips in the rose bowl in front of him. He sat
down again, brooding and sighing. Despite the ham-and-corn, what he said was probably true
and I said so, sympathetically. A little bit too sympathetically, as immediately emerged, for
as I spoke I saw him looking at me suspiciously, not to say censoriously. My remarks about
the harsh way the world treats barefoot boys in Brooklyn were interrupted by an urgent angry
waggle of his podgy hand.
"Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the
idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible
chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He
praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with
contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are
run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the
American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning
across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose
bowls.
"This American system of ours," he shouted, "call it Americanism, call it Capitalism, call
it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it
with both hands and make the most of it." He held out his hand towards me, the fingers
dripping a little, and stared at me sternly for a few seconds before reseating himself.
A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of
The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I
explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had
said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The
Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing
eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry
reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.'
This article was obviously written by someone who wants to maintain the status quo.
America would be much stronger if it were not trying to be an empire. The biggest lie ever
told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite
is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to
protect or favor the American people.
I truly believe that "America First" is not selfish. America before it went full ******
was the beacon of freedom and success that other countries tried to emulate and that changed
the world for the better.
America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other
countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work.
Empire is a contrivance, a vehicle for psychopathic powerlust. America was founded by
people who stood adamantly opposed to this. Here's hoping Trump holds their true spirit in
his heart.
If he doesn't, there's hundreds of millions of us who still do. We don't all live in
America...
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
JSBach1 called you a 'coward', for being EXACTLY LIKE THESE TRAITOROUS SPINELESS
VERMIN who simply just step outside just 'enough' the comfort zone to APPEAR 'real'. IMHO, I
concur with JSBach1 ...your're a coward indeed, when you should know better .....
shame you you indeed!
There is little evidence, Trump's propaganda aside (that he previously called Obama
dishonest for) that the US economy is improving. If anything, the exploding budget and trade
deficits indicate that the economy continues to weaken.
Correct. The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced
stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades
by the Predator Class...
the US can't even raise an army... even if enough young (men) were
dumb enough to volunteer there just aren't enough fit, healthy and mentally acute recruits
out there.
"... As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system, so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine. ..."
"... In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific. ..."
"... The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs ..."
"... With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the rest of the world complicit in its crimes. ..."
"... The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage ..."
Washington's imposition of sweeping new sanctions on Iran -- aimed at strangling its economy and precipitating regime change in
Tehran -- is roiling world geopolitics.
As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system,
so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine.
In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under
international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that was negotiated at the behest of Washington and under its duress, including
war threats.
All the other parties to the JCPOA (Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency,
which is charged with verifying Iranian compliance, are adamant that Iran has fulfilled its obligations under the accord to the letter.
This includes dismantling much of its civil nuclear program and curtailing the rest.
Yet, having reneged on its support for the JCPOA, Washington is now wielding the club of secondary sanctions to compel the rest
of the world into joining its illegal embargo and abetting its regime-change offensive. Companies and countries that trade with Iran
or even trade with those that do will be excluded from the US market and subject to massive fines and other penalties. Similarly,
banks and shipping insurers that have any dealings with companies that trade with Iran or even with other financial institutions
that facilitate trade with Iran will be subject to punishing US secondary sanctions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who like US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran and ordered
military strikes on Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard forces in Syria, has hailed the US sanctions as "historic." Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates, two other US client states, are pledging to ramp up oil production to make up for the shortfalls caused
by Washington's embargoing of Iranian oil exports.
But America's economic war against Iran is not just exacerbating tensions in the Middle East. It is also roiling relations between
the US and the other great powers, especially Europe.
On Friday, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and European Union Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini issued
a statement reaffirming their support for the JCPOA and vowing to circumvent and defy the US sanctions. "It is our aim," they declared,
"to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security
Council resolution 2231."
They declared their commitment to preserving "financial channels with" Iran, enabling it to continue exporting oil and gas, and
working with Russia, China and other countries "interested in supporting the JCPOA" to do so.
The statement emphasized the European powers' "unwavering collective resolve" to assert their right to "pursue legitimate trade"
and, toward that end, to proceed with the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will enable European businesses and
those of other countries, including potentially Russia and China, to conduct trade with Iran using the euro or some other non-US
dollar medium of exchange, outside the US-dominated world financial system.
Friday's statement was in response to a series of menacing pronouncements from Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other
top administration officials earlier the same day. These fleshed out the new US sanctions and reiterated Washington's resolve to
crash Iran's economy and aggressively sanction any company or country that fails to fall into line with the US sanctions.
In reply to a question about the European SPV, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said he had "no expectation" it will prove
to be a conduit for "significant" trade. "But if there are transactions that have the intent of evading our sanctions, we will aggressively
pursue our remedies."
Trump officials also served notice that they will sanction SWIFT, the Brussels-based network that facilitates secure inter-bank
communications, and the European bankers who comprise the majority of its directors if they do not expeditiously expel all Iranian
financial institutions from the network.
And in a step intended to demonstratively underscore Washington's disdain for the Europeans, the Trump administration included
no EU state among the eight countries that will be granted temporary waivers on the full application of the US embargo on oil imports.
Germany, Britain, France and the EU are no less rapacious than Washington. Europe's great powers are frantically rearming, have
helped spearhead NATO's war build-up against Russia. Over the past three decades they have waged numerous wars and neocolonial interventions
in the Middle East and North Africa, from Afghanistan and Libya to Mali.
But they resent and fear the consequences of the Trump administration's reckless and provocative offensive against Iran. They
resent it because Washington's scuttling of the nuclear deal has pulled the rug out from under European capital's plans to capture
a leading position in Iran's domestic market and exploit Iranian offers of massive oil and natural gas concessions. They fear it,
because the US confrontation with Iran threatens to ignite a war that would invariably set the entire Mideast ablaze, triggering
a new refugee crisis, a massive spike in oil prices and, last but not least, a repartition of the region under conditions where the
European powers as of yet lack the military means to independently determine the outcome.
To date, the Trump administration has taken a haughty, even cavalier, attitude to the European avowals of opposition to the US
sanctions. Trump and the other Iran war-hawks like Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton who lead the administration are
buoyed by the fact that numerous European businesses have voted with their feet and cut off ties with Iran, for fear of running afoul
of the US sanctions.
The Financial Times reported last week that due to fear of US reprisals, no European state has agreed to house the SPV,
which, according to the latest EU statements, will not even be operational until the new year.
The European difficulties and hesitations are real. But they also speak to the enormity and explosiveness of the geopolitical
shifts that are now underway.
Whilst European corporate leaders, whose focus is on maximizing market share and investor profit in the next few business quarters,
have bowed to the US sanctions threat, the political leaders, those charged with developing and implementing imperialist strategy,
have concluded that they must push back against Washington.
This is about Iran, but also about developing the means to prevent the US using unilateral sanctions to dictate Europe's foreign
policy, including potentially trying to thwart Nord Stream 2 (the pipeline project that will transport Russian natural gas to Germany
under the Baltic Sea and which Trump has repeatedly denounced.)
As Washington's ability to impose unilateral sanctions is bound up with the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency
and US domination of the world banking system, the European challenge to America's sanctions weapon necessarily involves a challenge
to these key elements of US global power.
The European imperialist powers are taking this road because they, like all the great powers, are locked in a frenzied struggle
for markets, profits and strategic advantage under conditions of a systemic breakdown of world capitalism. Finding themselves squeezed
between the rise of new powers and an America that is ever more reliant on war to counter the erosion of its economic might and that
is ruthlessly pursing its own interests at the expense of foe and ostensible friend alike, the Europeans, led by German imperialism,
are seeking to develop the economic and military means to assert their own predatory interests independently of, and when necessary
against, the United States.
Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific.
Speaking last month, only a few weeks after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker used his State of the EU address
to called for measures to ensure that the euro plays a greater global role, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire declared the "crisis
with Iran" to be "a chance for Europe to have its own independent financial institutions, so we can trade with whomever we want."
The SPV, adds French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Agnes Von der Muhl, "aims to create an economic sovereignty tool for the European
Union that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions."
The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran
policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs last month, former Obama administration official Elizabeth Rosenberg expressed grave
concerns that the Trump administration's unilateral sanctions are causing the EU to collaborate with Russia and China in defying
Washington, and are inciting a European challenge to US financial dominance. Under conditions where Russia and China are already
seeking to develop payments systems that bypass Western banks, and the future promises further challenges to dollar-supremacy and
the US-led global financial system, "it is worrying," laments Rosenberg, "that the United States is accelerating this trend."
With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs
of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the
rest of the world complicit in its crimes.
The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America
and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage...
Each year I choose a book to be the Globalization Book of the Year, i.e., the "Globie". The prize is strictly honorific and does
not come with a check. But I do like to single out books that are particularly insightful about some aspect of globalization. Previous
winners are listed at the bottom.
This year's choice is
Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the Worldby
Adam Tooze of Yale University . Tooze, an historian, traces the events leading up to the crisis and the subsequent ten years.
He points out in the introduction that this account is different from one he may have written several years ago. At that time Barak
Obama had won re-election in 2012 on the basis of a slow but steady recovery in the U.S. Europe was further behind, but the emerging
markets were growing rapidly, due to the demand for their commodities from a steadily-growing China as well as capital inflows searching
for higher returns than those available in the advanced economies.
But the economic recovery has brought new challenges, which have swept aside established politicians and parties. Obama was succeeded
by Donald Trump, who promised to restore America to some form of past greatness. His policy agenda includes trade disputes with a
broad range of countries, and he is particularly eager to impose trade tariffs on China. The current meltdown in stock prices follows
a rise in interest rates normal at this stage of the business cycle but also is based on fears of the consequences of the trade measures.
Europe has its own discontents. In the United Kingdom, voters have approved leaving the European Union. The European Commission
has expressed its disapproval of the Italian government's fiscal plans. Several east European governments have voiced opposition
to the governance norms of the West European nations. Angela Merkel's decision to step down as head of her party leaves Europe without
its most respected leader.
All these events are outcomes of the crisis, which Tooze emphasizes was a trans-Atlantic event. European banks had purchased held
large amounts of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that they financed with borrowed dollars. When liquidity in the markets disappeared,
the European banks faced the challenge of financing their obligations. Tooze explains how the Federal Reserve supported the European
banks using swap lines with the European Central Bank and other central banks, as well as including the domestic subsidiaries of
the foreign banks in their liquidity support operations in the U.S. As a result, Tooze claims:
"What happened in the fall of 2008 was not the relativization of the dollar, but the reverse, a dramatic reassertion of the pivotal
role of America's central bank. Far from withering away, the Fed's response gave an entirely new dimension to the global dollar"
(Tooze, p. 219)
The focused policies of U.S. policymakers stood in sharp contrast to those of their European counterparts. Ireland and Spain had
to deal with their own banking crises following the collapse of their housing bubbles, and Portugal suffered from anemic growth.
But Greece's sovereign debt posed the largest challenge, and exposed the fault line in the Eurozone between those who believed that
such crises required a national response and those who looked for a broader European resolution. As a result, Greece lurched from
one lending program to another. The IMF was treated as a junior partner by the European governments that sought to evade facing the
consequences of Greek insolvency, and the Fund's reputation suffered new blows due to its involvement with the various rescue operations.The
ECB only demonstrated a firm commitment to its stabilizing role in July 2012, when its President Mario Draghi announced that "Within
our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro."
China followed another route. The government there engaged in a surge of stimulus spending combined with expansionary monetary
policies. The result was continued growth that allowed the Chinese government to demonstrate its leadership capabilities at a time
when the U.S. was abandoning its obligations. But the ensuing credit boom was accompanied by a rise in private (mainly corporate)
lending that has left China with a total debt to GDP ratio of over 250%, a level usually followed by some form of financial collapse.
Chinese officials are well aware of the domestic challenge they face at the same time as their dispute with the U.S. intensifies.
Tooze demonstrates that the crisis has let loose a range of responses that continue to play out. He ends the book by pointing
to a similarity of recent events and those of 1914. He raises several questions: "How does a great moderation end? How do huge risks
build up that are little understood and barely controllable? How do great tectonic shifts in the global world order unload in sudden
earthquakes?" Ten years after a truly global crisis, we are still seeking answers to these questions.
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments
as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history
for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks
the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her
last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final
straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative
fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition
partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the
dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain
for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors,
Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal
in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated
her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey
to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed
her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within
the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have
left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question
of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has
"utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society)
and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were
rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject.
Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to
be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with
those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later,
she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male
asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at
the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as
"Merkel the Bold."
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, TheNew York Times
reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed
that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always
the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement
whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end
of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's
socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of
sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European
criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics),
she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim
world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants
during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself.
Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came
in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become
more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars
.
"... On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide. ..."
"... But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here). ..."
"... Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea. ..."
"... Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia. ..."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped down as the leader of the Christian Democratic
Union, the party she has led for nearly two decades. Yesterday's election in Hesse, normally a
CDU/SPD stronghold was abysmal for them.
She had to do something to quell the revolt brewing against her.
Merkel knew going in what the polls were showing. Unlike American and British polls, it
seems the German ones are mostly accurate with pre-election polls coming close to matching the
final results.
So, knowing what was coming for her and in the spirit of trying to maintain power for as
long as possible Merkel has been moving away from her staunch positions on unlimited
immigration and being in lock-step with the U.S. on Russia.
She's having to walk a tightrope on these two issues as the turmoil in U.S. political
circles is pulling her in, effectively, opposite directions.
The globalist Davos Crowd she works for wants the destruction of European culture and
individual national sovereignty ground into a paste and power consolidated under the rubric of
the European Union.
They also want Russia brought to heel.
On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that
furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever
forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S.
military establishment wants, Merkel must provide.
So, if she rejects that role and the chaos U.S. policy engenders, particularly Syria, she's
undermining the flow of migrants into Europe.
This is why it was so significant that she and French President Emmanuel Macron joined this
weekend's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan in Istanbul.
It ended with an agreement on Syria's future that lies in direct conflict with the U.S.'s
goals of the past seven years.
It was an admission that Assad has prevailed in Syria and the plan to atomize it into yet
another failed state has itself failed. Merkel has traded 'Assad must go' for 'no more
refugees.'
To President Trump's credit he then piggy-backed on that statement announcing that the U.S.
would be pulling out of Syria very soon now. And that tells me that he is still coordinating in
some way with Putin and other world leaders on the direction of his foreign policy in spite of
his opposition.
But the key point from the Istanbul statement was that Syria's rebuilding be prioritized to
reverse the flow of migrants so Syrians can go home. While
Gilbert Doctorow is unconvinced by France's position here , I think Merkel has to be
focused on assisting Putin in achieving his goal of returning Syria to Syrians.
Because, this is both a political necessity for Merkel as well as her trying to burnish her
crumbling political throne to maintain power.
The question is will Germans believe and/or forgive her enough for her to stay in power
through her now stated 'retirement' from politics in 2021?
I don't think so and it's obvious Davos Crowd boy-toy Macron is working overtime to salvage
what he can for them as Merkel continues to face up to the political realities across Europe,
which is that populism is a natural reaction to these insane policies.
Merkel's job of consolidating power under the EU is unfinished. They don't have financial
integration. The Grand Army of the EU is still not a popular idea. The euro-zone is a disaster
waiting to happen and its internal inconsistencies are adding fuel to an already pretty hot
political fire.
On this front, EU integration, she and Macron are on the same page. Because 'domestically'
from an EU perspective, Brexit still has to be dealt with and the showdown with the Italians is
only just beginning.
But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to
fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum
Lady, Theresa May here).
And Macron should stop looking in the mirror long enough to see he's standing on a quicksand
made of blasting powder.
This points to the next major election for Europe, that of the European Parliament in May
where all of Merkel's opposition are focused on wresting control of that body and removing
Jean-Claude Juncker or his hand-picked replacement (Merkel herself?) from power.
The obvious transition for Merkel is from German Chancellor to European Commission
President. She steps down as Chancellor in May after the EPP wins a majority then to take
Juncker's job. I'm sure that's been the plan all along. This way she can continue the work she started
without having to face the political backlash at home.
But, again, how close is Germany to snap elections if there is another migrant attack and
Chemnitz-like demonstrations. You can only go to the 'Nazi' well so many times, even in
Germany.
There comes a point where people will have simply had enough and their anger isn't born of
being intolerant but angry at having been betrayed by political leadership which doesn't speak
for them and imported crime, chaos and violence to their homes.
And the puppet German media will not be able to contain the story. The EU's speech rules
will not contain people who want to speak. The clamp down on hate speech, pioneered by Merkel
herself is a reaction to the growing tide against her.
And guess what? She can't stop it.
The problem is that Commies like Merkel and Soros don't believe in anything. They are
vampires and nihilists as I said over the
weekend suffused with a toxic view of humanity.
Oh sure, they give lip service to being inclusive and nice about it while they have
control over the levers of power, the State apparatus. But, the minute they lose control of
those levers, the sun goes down, the fangs come out and the bloodletting begins.
These people are vampires, sucking the life out of a society for their own ends. They are
evil in a way that proves John Barth's observation that "man can do no wrong." For they never
see themselves as the villain.
No. They see themselves as the savior of a fallen people. Nihilists to their very core
they only believe in power. And, since power is their religion, all activities are justified
in pursuit of their goals.
Their messianic view of themselves is indistinguishable to the Salafist head-chopping
animals people like Hillary empowered to sow chaos and death across the Middle East and North
Africa over the past decade.
Add to this Merkel herself who took Hillary's empowerment of these animals and gave them a
home across Europe. At least now Merkel has the good sense to see that this has cost her nearly
everything.
Even if she has little to no shame.
Hillary seems to think she can run for president again and win with the same schtick she
failed with twice before. Frankly, I welcome it like I welcome the sun in the morning, safe in
the knowledge that all is right with the world and she will go down in humiliating defeat yet
again.
Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing
for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European
electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea.
Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There
will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring
at a staggering pace in Russia.
Trump represents himself and expects the little people (IE, everyone except him and his
children) to exist only for him, the spoiled daddy-created globalist so-called billionaire
who doesn't have a clue WTF he's doing as POTUS besides infotaining and enflaming his racist
base, plus giving into the GOP party line on all substantive issues with the result being
more of the same as Barry-O, only worse.
Personally, I enjoy him from an infotainment perspective. We are all only infotaining
ourselves to death anyway, so Trump's just added comedic grist to enliven our time in hospice
care.
Did you expect or hope for another in the globalist class, maybe as slick as Barry-O,
who appealed to the edumacated coastal elites in his incredibly pompous and phony
addresses?
I expected a globalist (either Trump or Hillary) but hoped for Bernie.
Trump is not antithesis. This is where you are most mistaken. If he were the truth (as you
state), there would be stronger social security, Medicare and Medicaid for his base, no tax
cuts favouring corporations, LLCs and the very rich.
There would be newly created infrastructure and improved healthcare.
The trade war would already be won and the wealth equality gap would be well on the road
to closure.
The Pittsburgh attack was conveniently timed to distract US media from another murderous
onslaught by Israel on Gaza. The IDF targets included a Gaza hospital.
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists
have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against
criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would
include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were
coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point
because he was taken alive, but who knows.
Posted by: Pft | Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39 Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
If I understood correctly his attack was against the Jewish organisation that brings
immigrants. Because he sees that as the enemy action.
Not to worry. Brexit is rather a textbook example of the political/economic dichotomy to
which I speak @ 5.
There will be no Brexit in economic or political reality. It isn't even remotely possible,
even in the unlikely event the EU collapses in the short term. There may be a pseudo "Brexit"
for political face-saving purposes, true, which will consist of a similar sales effort as
Trump is making to hold onto his own age-depressed plebes in flyover USArya.
"Brexit is coming! Brexit is coming! Tariffs are easy! Tariffs are easy! Hold on a bit
longer, we are just trying to get it right for you little people not to suffer anymore."
Lol.
@6 "Sadly many left wing ppl prefer EU neoliberal anti democratic, corrupt rule over their
own sovereign democratic institutions."
I see it more as a neoliberal desire to belong to some vague bigger global entity. Plus
the fact that since WW2 nationalism has become equated with fascism.
Britain has never been totally part of Europe....geographically or politically.
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Oct 21, 2018 10:16:20 AM |
link
@dh-mtl: True that. Sadly many left wing ppl prefer EU neoliberal anti democratic, corrupt
rule over their own souvereign democratic institutions. It was the national state (with its
additional regional democratic institutions) that brought us democracy, not the neolibs EU.
But that truth hurts, and many prefer empty slogans against the evil national state over a
honest analysis.
@B: Inoreader cant find new feeds for some days, something is broken!
With Brexit, the U.K. is trying to save itself before it collapses to a state similar to
Greece.
The E.U., because it is essentially a financially based dictatorship, and is fatally
flawed, will break apart. And, in this sense, I agree with you that the U.K. is ahead of the
curve.
Abandoning nuclear treaty is just a diversion to steer away eyes off Khashoggi case, latter
being even more important as it wedges in the very depth of an internal US political
demise.
UK barks there on Russia to steer its own downfall into spotlight of an importance on a world
stage that is close to null. UK didn't even sign anything with Russia as basically nobody
else did from within NATO, so one can render that INF as outdated and stale.
Will they come up with a new one that suits all or we will just let it go and slip into
unilateral single polarity downfall of West? Answers are coming along real soon.
Right now US and a few vasal allies left are getting into dirty set of strategic games
opposing far more skilled opponents and it will come around at a really high price. EU has
lost many contracts lately in mid east due to America First, so a lots of sticks in US wheels
are coming up. It is going to be a real fun watching all that and reading b. and others on
MoA..
The UK will most likely crash out of the EU. Of course, one can't exclude that some
last minute holding action, temp. solution, or reversal can be found - but I doubt it.
Northern Ireland will break away. The analysis of the vote has been very poor, and based
on an 'identity politics' and slice-n-dice views. Pensioners afraid to lose their pension,
deplorables, victims of austerity, lack of young voter turnout, etc.
NI and Scotland are ruled by a tri-partite scheme: 'home rule', 'devolution' - Westminster
- and the EU. The two peripheral entities prefer belonging to and participating in the larger
group (see also! reasons historical and of enmity etc.) which has on the whole been good for
them. England prefers a return to some mythical sovereignity / nationalism, getting rid of
the super-ordinate power, a last desperate stab at Britannia (hm?) rules the waves or at
least some bloody thing like traffic on the Thames, labor law, etc. The UK had no business
running that referendum - by that I mean that in the UK pol. system Parliament rules supreme,
which is antithetical to the referendum approach (in any case the result is only advisory)
and running it was a signal of crack-up. By now, it is clear that the UK political / Gvmt.
system is not fit for handling problems in the years 2000.
Why NI and not Scotland (which might split as well ..)? From a geo-political pov, because
geography bats last - yes. And also because NI is the much weaker entity. EU has stated (Idk
about texts etc.): if and when a EU member conquers, annexes, brings into the fold some
'other' territory, it then in turn becomes part of the EU. Ex. If Andorra chose to join Spain
it would meld into Eurolandia, with time to adjust to all the rules. Perhaps Macron would no
longer be a Prince!
However, Catalonia *cannot* be allowed to split from Spain (affecting Spanish integrity
and the EU) and if it did it would crash out of the EU, loosing all, so that doesn't work.
Scotland is not Catalonia. NI has had a special status in many ways for a long time so it is
easier to tolerate and imagine alternatives. The EU will pay for NI...
The UK is losing power rapidly and indulging in its own form of 're-trenchment' (different
from the Trumpian desired one) - both are nostalgic, but the British one is more
suicidal.
The only alternative interpretation I can see (suggested by John Michael Greer) is that
the UK is ahead of the curve: a pre-emptive collapse (rather semi-collapse) now would put it
in a better position than others 20 years or so hence. That would also include a break-up
into parts.
"... Another year wouldn't be enough additional time to achieve a trade agreement unless the UK capitulated to EU terms. And a big motivation for this idea seemed to be to try to kick the Irish border can down the road. ..."
"... Theresa May is facing the most perilous week of her premiership after infuriating all sections of her party by making further concessions to Brussels. Her offer to extend the transition period after Brexit -- made without cabinet approval -- enraged Remain and Leave Tory MPs alike. ..."
"... DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds has rejected calls for the post-Brexit transition period to be extended, claiming it would cost the UK billions and not break the Irish border deadlock . ..."
"... Theresa May has conceded the Irish backstop cannot have an end date, risking the threat of fresh Cabinet resignations. The PM told Leo Varadkar she accepted Brussels' demands that any fallback border solution cannot be "time-limited". ..."
"... Merkel's effort at an intervention came off like a clueless CEO telling subordinates who have been handed a nearly-impossible task that they need to get more creative ..."
"... Emmanuel Macron, the French president, struck a more uncompromising tone. "It's not for the EU to make some concessions to deal with a British political issue. I can't be more clear on this," he said. "Now the key element for a final deal is on the British side, because the key element is a British political compromise." ..."
"... Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU) 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. ..."
"... It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements – an Assembly in Northern Ireland , a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland – are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other. ..."
Another year wouldn't be enough additional time to achieve
a trade agreement unless the UK capitulated to EU terms. And a big motivation for this idea
seemed to be to try to kick the Irish border can down the road.
As we'll get to later in this post, the press has filed more detailed reports on the EU's
reactions to May's "nothing new" speech at the European Council summit on Wednesday. The
reactions seem to be more sober; recall the first takes were relief that nothing bad happened
and at least everyone was trying to put their best foot forward. Merkel also pressed Ireland
and the EU to be more flexible over the Irish border question but Marcon took issue with her
position. However, they both
then went to a outdoor cafe and had beers for two hours .
May's longer transition scheme vehemently criticized across Tory factions and by the DUP .
Even pro-Remain Tories are opposed. The press had a field day.
From the Telegraph :
Theresa May was on Thursday evening increasingly isolated over her plan to keep Britain
tied to the EU for longer as she was savaged by both wings of her party and left in the cold
by EU leaders
The move enraged Brexiteers who said it would cost billions, and angered members of the
Cabinet who said they had not formally agreed the plan before she offered it up as a
bargaining chip. Mrs May also faced a potential mutiny from Tory MPs north of the border,
including David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, who said the proposal was "unacceptable"
because it would delay the UK's exit from the hated Common Fisheries Policy.
Theresa May is facing the most perilous week of her premiership after infuriating all
sections of her party by making further concessions to Brussels. Her offer to extend the
transition period after Brexit -- made without cabinet approval -- enraged Remain and Leave
Tory MPs alike.
DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds has rejected calls for the post-Brexit transition period
to be extended, claiming it would cost the UK billions and not break the Irish border
deadlock .
His comments came after Tory MPs on all wings of the party also rejected extending the
transition period.
Former minister Nick Boles, who campaigned for Remain in the 2016 referendum, told the
Today programme: "I'm afraid she's losing the confidence now of colleagues of all shades of
opinion – people who've been supportive of her throughout this process – they are
close to despair at the state of this negotiation."
Brexiteer MP Andrea Jenkyns tweeted: "Back in July, myself and 36 colleagues signed a
letter to the Prime Minister setting out our red lines – and that was one of them. It's
completely ridiculous."
Scottish Tories say they would veto an extension to the Brexit transition period in
support of their fisherman.
And members of the hard-core Brexit faction are also up in arms about May conceding that an
Irish border backstop can't be time limited. From The
Sun :
Theresa May has conceded the Irish backstop cannot have an end date, risking the
threat of fresh Cabinet resignations. The PM told Leo Varadkar she accepted Brussels' demands
that any fallback border solution cannot be "time-limited".
But a fudge could cost Mrs May two eurosceptic Cabinet ministers, with Esther McVey and
Andrea Leadsom threatening to resign if there's not a set end date.
Merkel pushes for more Brussels-Ireland flexibility while Macron disagrees . I am at risk of
seeming unduly wedded to my priors, but Merkel's effort at an intervention came off like a
clueless CEO telling subordinates who have been handed a nearly-impossible task that they need
to get more creative . While Merkel is correct to point out that no-deal = hard Irish
border, an outcome no one wants, she does not appear to comprehend that the "sea border," which
is politically fraught for the UK, is the only alternative that does not create ginormous
problems for the EU. Merkel's seeming lack of comprehension may reflect the fact that EU
nations don't handle trade negotiations. From the Financial Times
:
At an EU summit dinner and in later public remarks, the German chancellor expressed
concerns about the bloc's stand-off with the UK over the Irish "backstop", a fallback measure
intended to ensure no hard border divides Ireland if other solutions fail. This has become
the biggest outstanding issue in the talks.
Three diplomats said that at the Wednesday night dinner Ms Merkel indicated that the EU
and the Republic of Ireland should rethink their approach on Northern Ireland to avoid a
fundamental clash with London.
Ms Merkel also signaled her concerns in a press conference on Thursday, highlighting that
if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal a hard border for Northern Ireland could be
inevitable.
"If you don't have an agreement you don't have a satisfactory answer [to the border issue]
either," she said, noting that on Northern Ireland "we all need an answer" .
Diplomats said the German chancellor was more forceful about the issue at the Brexit
dinner, although some other leaders remained puzzled about the chancellor's intentions.
The Financial Times also said that the UK and Germany would meet Thursday to "discuss a way
out of the Brexit impasse." Given that Barnier has offered a lot of new ideas in last month, it
is hard to see how anything new could be cooked up, unless the UK hopes to sell Germany on its
already-rejected techno vaporware idea.
Macron made clear he was not on the same page. Again from the Financial Times:
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, struck a more uncompromising tone. "It's not
for the EU to make some concessions to deal with a British political issue. I can't be more
clear on this," he said. "Now the key element for a final deal is on the British side,
because the key element is a British political compromise."
Vardakar also made a statement after the dinner that reaffirmed the importance of the EU
affirming the principles of the single market. From
The Times :
The European Union would have "huge difficulties" in agreeing to extend the Northern Irish
backstop to the rest of the UK, the taoiseach has warned. Leo Varadkar said he did not think
"any country or union" would be asked to sign up to an agreement that would give the UK
access to the single market while also allowing it to "undercut" the EU across a range of
areas including state aid competition, labour laws and environmental standards.
"I would feel very strongly about this, as a European as well as an Irishman: you couldn't
have a situation whereby the UK had access to the single market -- which is our market -- and
at the same time was able to undercut us in terms of standards, whether they were
environmental standards, labour laws, or state aid competition. I don't think any country or
any union would be asked to accept that," Mr Varadkar said in Brussels.
Robert Peston deems odds of crash out high; sees only escape route as "customs union Brexit"
. Robert Peston, who is one of the UK's best connected political reporters, described in a new
piece at ITV how May has at best a narrow path to avoiding a disorderly Brexit, and that is
what he calls a "customs union" Brexit. I am sure if Richard North saw that, he'd be tearing
his hair, since he has been describing for months why a customs union does not solve the
problem that virtually everyone who talks in up in UK thinks it solves, namely, conferring
"frictionless trade".
One key point in his analysis is that the UK will also have to accept "a blind Brexit,"
meaning a very fuzzy statement of what the "future relationship" will be. The EU had offered
that in the last month or so, presumably as a fudge to allow May to get the various wings of
her coalition to agree to something. But Peston says it's too late to do anything else.
From ITV :
Hello from Brussels and the EU Council that promised a Brexit breakthrough and delivered
nothing.
So on the basis of conversations with well-placed sources, this is how I think the Brexit
talks are placed (WARNING: if you are fearful of a no-deal Brexit, or are of a nervous
disposition, stop reading now):
1) Forget about having any clue when we leave about the nature and structure of the UK's
future trading relationship with the EU. The government heads of the EU27 have rejected
Chequers. Wholesale. And they regard it as far too late to put in place the building blocks
of that future relationship before we leave on 29 March 2019. So any Political Declaration on
the future relationship will be waffly, vague and general. It will be what so many MPs
detest: a blind Brexit. The PM may say that won't happen. No one here (except perhaps her own
Downing St team) believes her.
Erm, that alone may be a deal killer. We quoted this section of a Politico article
on October
10 :
5. Future relationship – Blind Brexit
Opposed: Brexiteers, Tory Remainers, the Labour Party, Theresa May
I'll let our astute readers give their reactions to Peston's recommendation to May:
3) There is no chance of the EU abandoning its insistence that there should be a backstop
– with no expiry date – of Northern Ireland, but not Great Britain, remaining in
the Customs Union and the single market. That would involve the introduction of the
commercial border in the Irish Sea that May says must never be drawn.
4) All efforts therefore from the UK are aimed at putting in place other arrangements to
make it impossible for that backstop to be introduced.
5) Her ruse for doing this is the creation of another backstop that would involve the
whole of the UK staying in something that looks like the customs union.
6) But she feels cannot commit to keeping the UK in the customs union forever, because her
Brexiter MPs won't let her. So it does not work as a backstop. And anyway the Article 50
rules say that the Withdrawal Agreement must not contain provisions for a permanent trading
relationship between the whole of the UK and the EU. Which is a hideous Catch 22.
7) There is a solution. She could ignore her Brexiter critics and announce the UK wanted
written into the Political Declaration – not the Withdrawal Agreement – that we
would be staying permanently in the customs union. This is one bit of specificity the rest of
the EU would allow into the Political Declaration. And it could be nodded at in the
Withdrawal Agreement.
8) But if she announces we are staying in the Customs Union she would be crossing her
reddest of red lines because she would have to abandon her ambition of negotiating free trade
deals with non-EU countries. Liam Fox would be made redundant.
9) She knows, because her Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins has told her, that her best
chance – probably her only chance of securing a Brexit deal – is to sign up for
the customs union.
10) In its absence, no-deal Brexit is massively in play.
11) But a customs-union Brexit deal would see her Brexiter MPs become incandescent with
fury.
12) Labour of course would be on the spot, since its one practical Brexit policy is to
stay in the Customs Union.
13) This therefore is May's Robert Peel moment. She could agree a Customs Union Brexit and
get it through Parliament with Labour support – while simultaneously cleaving her own
party in two.
Finally, in an elegiac piece, Richard North contends that the UK didn't need to wind up
where it is:
A reader takes me to task for making comparisons between the Brexit negotiations and the
Allied invasion of Normandy
Yet it is precisely because Mrs May seems to have chosen an adversarial route rather than
a consensual process that I have projected her failings in militaristic terms..
In reality, it would have been best to approach the Brexit process not so much as the end
of a relationship as a redefinition, where the need to continue close cooperation continues,
even if it is to be structured on a different basis
Here, though, lies the essential problem. The EU, as a treaty-based organisation, does not
have the flexibility to change its own rules just to suit the needs of one member, and
especially one which is seeking to leave the Union. Yet, on the other hand, the UK government
has political constraints which prevent it making concessions which would allow the EU to
define a new relationship
But, having put herself in a position where she is demanding something that the EU cannot
give, she herself has no alternative but to adopt an adversarial stance – if for no
other reason than to show her own political allies and critics that she is doing her best to
resolve an impossible situation.
If there is a light at the end of this tunnel, it sure looks like the headlight of an
oncoming train, the Brexit end date bearing down on the principals.
I can't help but wonder whether the proposed time extension was proposed mischievously by
EU negotiators precisely to set off divisions among the Tories. While Barniers no.1 aim is a
deal, the close to no.2 aim must surely be to ensure that in the event of no deal (or a
clearly clapped together bad interim deal), 100% of the blame goes to London. So far, they
are doing a good job with that.
Its a little concerning that Merkel was so off-message, even though she is obviously
correct that a no-deal means a hard border, which is a failure by any standard. I'm pretty
sure we won't see any overt disagreements among the EU 27 as they won't want to give the UK
the satisfaction of having sown dissent. However, that doesn't mean there won't be frantic
background pressure from some (probably pushed by business) to do some sort of deal, even a
bad one. That will inevitable mean leaning heavily on Dublin, if it is seen as the last
obstacle. Any such pressure will be private, not public I'm sure.
The damage limitation is there, for sure, but it's always aimed on rest of the world (i.e.
all but the UK, where the EU will be target in any outcome). TBH, I'm not sure how much
that's needed now..
I wonder if the various negotiating teams are reminded of that nursery rhyme I learned as
a child -- "and the wheels on the bus go round and round ".
As line one of section one of Article 50 explicitly states (and would therefore be given
substantial weight in any reading of the Article itself):
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
The U.K. government cannot change the constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland
without the agreement of the people of the six counties and the Republic and the rest of the
U.K. "Nothing about us, without us" in popular parlance. And Republicans need to give their
consent for any change affecting devolved matters (which is enforceable via a Petition of
Concern). EU laws and directives are devolved matters. Constitutionally, no one can force
anything on anyone in the province.
What the EU is asking the U.K. to do is impossible.
What the U.K. is asking the EU to do is impossible.
A hard border is also impossible, both as an outcome of treaty obligations and also as a
practical matter.
Therefore a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. Therefore, so is a hard border. Which is an
impossibility -- politically and operationally.
No wonder this can got kicked down the road last December. But now we have, oh, look,
what's this here? Who left this can lying around?
I'm not sure. I had always read that sentence as meaning "in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements for withdrawing from treaties in general" ie much more narrowly
focused. Normally, any government has a sovereign right to withdraw from treaties, but it
could be the case, for example, that in some countries parliament has to be informed, debates
have to be held etc, and that's the case that's being covered here. Not to say that my
interpretation (if correct) makes the situation any easier.
I posted a long comment on the French media reporting of Wednesday's talks yesterday. If I
have a moment, I'll look to see if there's anything fresh today. One thing to look out for
will be signs of tension between Paris and Brussels.
I would need a lawyer well versed in international treaty interpretations to give a proper
opinion and ultimately a court to rule on this.
What the wording definitely does not say (we can all read it for ourselves) is anything
along the lines of " may initiate " or " may invoke its right to withdraw " or
suchlike followed by the bit about constitutional adherences. Thus the requirements to act
constitutionally must likely be expected to apply to Article 50 in their entirety. Apart from
any lawyerly parsing, this is also common sense.
The section says a Member State may withdraw and it has to (this is so stating the obvious
the treaty drafting must have had this specifically in mind to mention it) be constitutional
about it. The EU cannot ask a Member State to conduct its withdrawal unconstitutionally.
No, that's not what it means – what it means is that as far as EU law is concerned,
EU law ends there. It's wholly up to the withdrawing state to define and consider.
Yes, and the Member State can't act unconstitutionally in respect of its own withdrawal
proceedings. The EU is reserving the right not to accept any instruction in the matter of a
withdrawal from the EU from the said Member State which is unconstitutional
for that Member State. Nor can the EU foist unconstitutional acts onto a Member
State in respect of the withdrawal. Its a basic principle of any legal system and any law and
any jurisprudence that Party A cannot induce Party B to break the law as a result of an
agreement between them and for that agreement to then remain valid.
As a simpler example, I draw up an agreement that says you'll pay me £100 in a
week's time and you must get the money by whatever means possible. Fast forward a week and
you don't have the £100. I can't use our agreement as an excuse for you to commit an
unlawful act (say, go and steal someone's wallet) "because we've got an agreement you'll pay
me, so that makes it okay no matter what, so long as you give me the money". Nor can you use
your being party to the agreement to say "sorry, I don't have the money, but you can steal it
from my Aunt Flossie, she's never gonna know you took it".
I have a suspicion we are (nearly) saying the same thing. See the separate thread below. A
country that signs the Lisbon Treaty accepts that any decision to withdraw will have to be
taken according to its own constitutional arrangements. This is a national obligation, but I
don't see how the EU could refuse to accept the notification on the basis that it had been
unconstitutionally arrived at, or what standing they would have. I've never heard of anything
similar happening elsewhere.
To rephrase your example. My partner and I lend you £100 and you say that we can have
it back any time we want. I ask for it back, and you refuse to give it to me on the basis
that, in your view, this has to be a joint request from my partner and me.
I buy this only partially, as Scotland has some freedom to set taxes, and NI has also
diverged from other UK laws (the infamous abortion rights).
Of course, from that, to staying in single market is quite a jump, but one could argue
that since majority of the NI voted "remain" (by some margin) they clearly DO wish to stay in
the single market.
Also the "the rest of the UK" is dubious – it's really "without the say so from the
Westminster Parliament". See Scottish Indy referendum – I didn't notice they run it in
England as well? (if they did, I suspect Scots could have been independend by now).
That said, even the above can still be done by a single poll that NI republicans actually
already called for i.e. if there's a hard-border Brexit, NI should get a reunification
vote.
TBH, that's MY suggestion to the impasse. The backstop becomes a reunification referendum.
Not time limited – once the transition period is done, it's done, nor really
challengable. You want SM, you go European, or you stay within the UK. I'd like to see DUP to
froth on that..
It's stated right at the top of the Good Friday Agreement absolutely explicitly:
It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements –
an Assembly in Northern Ireland , a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies,
a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments
to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland – are interlocking and
interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South
Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the
other.
Treaty texts rarely get so unarguably clear.
This is why I suspect there was such a push in February to get Stormont up and running
again. Without it, everything was stuck in constitutional limbo and lacking any possibility
of constitutionally-authenticated approvals. Similar any possibility of a border poll.
Without a vote in the Assembly, how can the U.K. government have any pretence (that would
withstand a UKSC challenge) that it was responding to a democratic imperative issued by
NI?
Of course, the U.K. government could do whatever the heck it likes by a reintroduced
Direct Rule. At which point the Good Friday Agreement is toast (and the Republic would have
to explicitly buy-in to Direct Rule being initiated). This must be one of the DUP's main game
plans. They really don't care that much about borders in the Irish Sea if they can get rid of
the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP would be quite happy to paint the Garvaghy Road emerald
green from end to end if they could rip that up for good.
An additional complication to this though is the British
Irish Intergovernmental Conference , which explicitly gives the Irish government a say in
non-devolved matters, including the Common Travel area and EU matters. So at least in theory,
the British government must (if the Irish government insists on reconstituting the Council,
which they haven't so far) engage with the Irish government for any change – including
Brexit – to be constitutional.
Its been speculated here that Varadkar has not called for the BIIC to be held in order not
to inflame matters with the DUP.
Yes, I think this holds a lot of water. Especially since the Republic amended its
constitution to facilitate the GFA, it shows how seriously it took the matter. While
politically it may be gruesome for the U.K. to contemplate that it would not be possible to
leave the EU without as a minimum consulting the Republic, I too think there is at least a
possibility it was in fact legally obligated via the GFA to do exactly that.
I read that entirely differently again – my (completely laymans) interpretation is
that it means a countries request for withdrawal must be internally constitutionally based.
In other words, a rogue leader can't simply say 'I'm launching A.50' in defiance of his own
Parliament or courts. Or put another way – the EU can refuse to accept an A.50
application if it can be argued that it was not generated legally in the first place.
I think that's right, though most treaties like this contain some ambiguity in their
wording. Interestingly, the French text gives a slightly different impression.
"Tout État membre peut décider, conformément à ses règles
constitutionnelles, de se retirer de l'Union," which would be translated as "Any member state
may decide, in accordance with its constitutional provisions, to leave the Union." The commas
make it clear that, in French at least, the only decision that has to be taken
constitutionally under the Treaty, is the decision to leave (alinea 1). Once that decision is
taken the states has to inform the EU (alinea 2). Of course, there's a standing general
requirement on governments to behave constitutionally, but that would be a matter for the
domestic courts, not the EU. It must also be true that they should respect their
constitutional rules during the negotiation process. Interestingly, Art 46 of the Vienna
Convention on Treaties deals exactly with your point from the other end – what happens
if a state signs a treaty without going through the proper procedures. I've seen some
suggestions on specialist blogs that Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was inspired by the
arguments about this point.
Rubbish. The U.K. government had every right to hold a referendum. It was advisory of
course. But Parliament had every right to invoke A50 as a result of the result.
What the U.K. government had no right whatsoever to do was to pretend that the Good Friday
Agreement obligations could or should be fudged away. Nor that the EU or the Republic should
tolerate this or go along with it. The fact that they did is, well, their bad. I'm still
shaking my head as to why Barnier et al were dumb enough to go along with it at the time.
There's probably a good reason we're not privy to.
A year or so ago there was a little discussion of this in some parts of the Irish media.
The thinking seemed to be that the government at the time (pre-Varadkar) had calculated that
it was too divisive (in terms of the potential impact on NI politics) to be seen to be taking
too aggressive a stance over Brexit (with hindsight, this was very naive, the DUP don't need
outside help to be divisive).
FG was also very worried about giving any electoral help to Sinn Fein.
With hindsight, I think this was a major miscalculation on a number of levels – I
don't think they anticipated that the stupidity of the London government would force them to
take such a strong stance on the border issue, they thought it could be finessed by way of
taking a more neutral stance.
I think these are May's options:
1. Canada+++ with backstop – the DUP say NO! and she loses a vote of confidence.
2. EFTA + EEA without CU – she comes back in triumph – "No CU!" – but she
loses DUP and Ultras so needs Corbyn, who will probably cry "No CU!" with contrary
sentiment.
3. CU with backstop – Labour says it fails test #2 (at least), but she hopes their
remainers defy the whip.
Labour could help vote through a {blind brexit' with an extended Transition} in exchange
for a post-deal General Election. This could suit May in that it would be risky for the
Tories to change leaders in an election atmosphere. The British Public can then decide WHO
best can negotiate the future Trade relationship (though sadly not the WHAT as it must be
negotiated).
You wonder what is in it for May to stay in her job as Prime Minister. All indications are
that she is a perfect example of the Peter Principle which is how she ended up with the job.
You think too that she would be tempted to chuck the whole business and say "Here Boris
– it's all yours!" with all the joy of throwing a live grenade. Maybe, in the end, it
is like Milton had Satan say once – "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".
I don't believe it has occurred to May for one minute to resign or step aside. Power is
what drives people like her (i.e. almost all politicians). Its the nature of the beast.
Macron's official statement after the European Council is here Interestingly, only
about a third of the text was devoted to Brexit, and much of that was in turn a restatement
of EU priorities – especially unity and the Single Market – and confidence in
Barnier. All the technical solutions are known, said Macron, and it is for the UK to come up
with some new ideas for compromises. The hope was to reach an agreement in the next few
weeks, including "necessary guarantees for Ireland." The French media has essentially
confined itself to reporting what Macron said.
What this shows, I think, is an increasing irritation among European leaders that Brexit,
which should have been sorted out long ago, has been taking up the time that should really
have been devoted to more important subjects, like migration and the deepening of economic
and financial cooperation The British are regarded as a major irritant, incapable of behaving
like a great power, paralysed by internal political splits and capable of doing a lot of
collateral damage. The EU seems increasingly unwilling to devote any more time to Brexit
until the UK comes up with some genuinely useful ideas – hence the cancellation of the
November summit.
Thats probably true, but if so, its very shortsighted. If the UK crashes out, for several
months there will be nothing else on the plate of western Europe to deal with, there will be
deep implications certainly from Germany to Spain. And if it causes more wobbles in the
already very wobbly Italian banks, it'll be even more of a headache, to put it mildly.
I agree, but I think it's at least partly the UK's doing. A modicum of common sense and
political realism could have avoided this situation. The problem is that Brexit, as a
subject, has the nasty twin characteristics of being at once extremely complicated and
politically lunatic. I think EU leaders are focusing on the second, and in some ways May has
become almost light relief. But jokes stop being funny after a while, and I think Macron is
reflecting a wider belief among national leaders that only the UK can sort this out: you
broke it, you fix it.
If there were issues which, whilst difficult, were potentially fixable then I think a lot
more effort would have gone into the negotiations from EU leaders. But they must feel they
are trapped in some Ionesco farce or (to vary the metaphor) trying to negotiate with the
Keystone Cops.
Except the Keystone Cops happen to be playing with hand grenades. There's no doubt that
European leaders are taking a crash-out seriously (the French have published a draft bill
giving the government emergency powers to deal with such a situation) but I think there's a
also widespread sense of helplessness. What can the EU actually do that it hasn't already
done? All they can hope for is an outbreak of common sense in London, and I think we all know
how likely that is. In the circumstances, you might as well concentrate on subjects where
progress is actually possible.
At a minimum, it show that the EU's thumping of May at last month's Salzburg conference has
led to an uptick in activity, as the EU27 leaders set an earlier deadline for the UK to serve
up something realistic than the UK had previously thought it had (October versus November).
But it's far from clear that all the thrashing around and messaging amounts to progress. As
we'll discuss, some press reports claim the EU is showing more flexibility, but the changes
appear to be almost entirely cosmetic. If so, it would represent a cynical calculation that MPs
are so illiterate about technical details that adept repackaging will get the dog to eat the
dog food.
Another thing to keep in mind is that negotiators are always making progress until a deal is
dead. The appearance of momentum can create actual momentum, or at least buy time. But here,
time is running out, so the question is whether either side has made enough of a shift so as to
allow for a breakthough.
One thing that may have happened, and again this is speculative, is that more key players in
the EU are coming to realize that a crash out will inflict a lot of damage on the EU. A
transition period is actually much more beneficial to the EU than the UK. It would not only
allow the EU more time to prepare, but also enable it to better pick the UK clean of personnel
and business activities that can move to the Continent in relatively short order.
By contrast (and not enough people in the UK appear to have worked this out), the UK will
crash out with respect to the EU in either March 2019 or the end of December 2020. There's no
way the UK will have completed a trade deal with the EU by then, unless it accedes to every EU
demand. Recall that the comparatively uncomplicated Canada trade agreement took seven years to
negotiate and another year to obtain provisional approval. And Richard North points out another
impediment to negotiations: " .the Commission has to be re-appointed next year and, after
Brexit, it will not be fully in operation until the following November." Now there are still
some important advantages to securing a transition agreement, and they may be mainly political
(who wants to be caught holding that bag?) but the differences may not be as significant for
the EU as the UK. The UK will wind up having the dislocations somewhat spread out, first having
to contend with falling out of all the trade deals with third countries that it now has through
the EU in March 2019, and then losing its "single market" status with the EU at the end of
2020. But will the UK also be so preoccupied with trying to stitch up deals with the rest of
the world that it loses its already not great focus on what to do with the EU?
That isn't to say there won't be meaningful benefits to the UK if it can conclude a
Withdrawal Agreement with the EU and win a transition period. For instance, it has a dim hope
of being able to get its border IT systems upgraded so as to handle much greater transaction
volumes, a feat that seems pretty much unattainable by March 2019.
Two more cautionary note regarding these divergent news stories. The first is that we've
seen this sort of thing before and generally, the optimistic reports have not panned out.
However, they have generally ben from unnamed sources. While we do have a very thin BBC article with Jean-Claude
Junkcer saying the odds of a deal had improved and Tusk making cautiously optimistic noises,
Leo Vardarkar was more sober and the piece even admitted, "However, there is still no agreement
on some issues, including how to avoid new checks on the Irish border."
Second, they appear to be mainly about claimed progress or deadlocks on the trade front.
Recall that Article 50 makes only a passing reference to "the future relationship," which is
only a non-binding political declaration. However, these issue seems to have assumed more
importance than it should on the UK end, because it has become a forcing device for the
coalition to settle on what sort of Brexit it wants .and it remains fundamentally divided, as
demonstrated by last week's Conservative Party conference. By contrast, there seems to be
little news on the real sticking point, the Irish border.
First, recall that "Canada plus plus plus" has long been derided by the EU as yet another
way for the UK to try to cherry pick among the possible post-Brexit arrangements. Boris Johnson
nevertheless talked it up as a preferred option to May's too-soft Chequers scheme at the Tory
conference .
and May did not mention Chequers . Did EU pols take that to mean May had abandoned Chequers
to appease the Ultras?
However, as we read things (and we need to watch our for our priors), Donald Tusk appears to
be mouthing a pet UK expression to convey a different idea:
Tusk said the EU remained ready to offer the UK a "Canada-plus-plus-plus deal" – a
far-reaching trade accord with extra agreements on security and foreign policy.
That reads as a Canada style free trade agreement plus additional pacts on non-trade
matters. That is not what "Canada plus plus plus" signified on the UK side: it meant the UK
getting a free trade deal with other (typically not specified) goodies so as to make it
"special" and more important, reduce friction.
The Ultras were over the moon to have Tusk dignify Johnson's blather, even as the very next
paragraph of the Guardian story revealed the outtrade over what "Canada plus plus plus" stands
for:
Boris Johnson and other hard Brexit Tories seized on Tusk's remarks, arguing they showed
it was time for May to immediately switch tack and abandon her Chequers proposals for
remaining in a customs union for food and goods. "Tusk's Canada-plus-plus-plus offer shows
there is a superb way forward that can solve the Irish border problem and deliver a
free-trade-based partnership that works well for both sides of the channel," Johnson
said.
If you managed to get further into the story, it sounded more cautionary notes:
Some Brexiters overlook that the EU's version of a so-called Canada deal incorporates a
guarantee to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland, which would keep Northern
Ireland in the EU customs union and single market. "Canada plus-plus-plus" is also a fuzzy
concept that has no formal status in EU negotiating documents. Michel Barnier, the bloc's
chief negotiator, mentioned the idea in an interview with the Guardian and other papers last
year.
"I don't know what Canada-plus-plus-plus means, it is just a concept at this stage,"
Varadkar said, adding that it did not negate the need for a "legally binding backstop"
– a guarantee to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland if there is no agreement
on the future trading relationship.
EU to let UK super fudge on "future relationship." Another Guardian story reported that the
EU might let the UK sign an even less committal version of the "future relationship"
section , allowing the UK to "evolve" [gah] its position during the transition period.
Frankly, this seems to be allowing for a change in government. I don't see this as that
meaningful a concession, since this statement was never legally binding. However, given that
Parliament must ratify the final agreement, formally registering that that section isn't set in
stone probably would facilitate passage as well as any future change in direction. And if you
suspect this is a big dog whistle to Labour, you be right:
An EU source said: "The message to Labour is that the UK could move up Barnier's stairs if
the British government changes its position in the transition period. Voting in favour of the
deal now would not be the last word on it."
May whips Labour for Chequers . You thought May gave up on Chequers? Silly you! She just had
the good sense to go into her famed submarine mode while Boris was having yet another turn in
the limelight.
From the Telegraph :
Ministers are in talks with as many as 25 Labour MPs to force through Theresa May's
Chequers Brexit deal risking open warfare with the party's own MPs.
The Government's whips' office has spent recent months making contact with the MPs as a
back-up option for when Theresa May's Brexit deal is put to a vote in Parliament in early
December, The Daily Telegraph has been told.
News of the wooing operation has infuriated Eurosceptic Tory MPs who are now threatening
to vote against elements of the Budget and other "money bills" to force Mrs May to drop her
Chequers plan.
If true, this is very high stakes poker. Brexit Central says there are 34 Tory MPs who have
already declared they will oppose any "deal based on Chequers". And, to change metaphors, they
appear ready to go nuclear if they have to. From the Times:
Brexiteers have issued a last-ditch threat to vote down the budget and destroy the
government unless Theresa May takes a tougher line with Brussels -- amid signs that she is on
course to secure a deal with the European Union.
Leading members of the hardline European Research Group (ERG) last night vowed to vote
down government legislation after it was claimed the prime minister will use Labour MPs to
push her plan through the Commons.
Reporting of the key issue of our times gets more bizarre by the day. The latest
contribution to the cacophony is the Telegraph, telling us that Ministers are in talks with
as many as 25 Labour MPs "to force through Theresa May's Chequers Brexit deal".
That approaches are being made to Labour MPs is not news, but the idea that attempts to
sell them the Chequers deal confounds recent indications that the prime minister is preparing
to roll out "Chequers II", with enough concessions to all the Commission to conclude a
withdrawal agreement.
If we are looking at such a new deal, then it cannot be the case that anyone is attempting
to convince Labour MPs of the merits of the old deal. And, even if Ministers succeeded in
such a task, it would be to no avail. Chequers, as such, will never come to parliament for
approval because it will never form the basis of a deal that can be accepted by Brussels.
That should consign the Telegraph story to the dustbin now piled high with incoherent
speculation, joining the steady flow of reports which are struggling – and failing
– to bring sense to Brexit.
EU to announce "minimalist" no-deal emergency plans . Interestingly, the Financial Times has
not had any articles in the last few days on the state of UK/EU negotiations. It instead
depicted the EU as about to turn up the heat on the UK by publishing a set of "no deal" damage
containment plans. I've never understood the line of thought, which seems to be taken seriously
on both sides of the table, that acting like a responsible government and preparing for a
worst-case scenario was somehow an underhanded negotiation ploy. 1 The pink paper
nevertheless pushes that notion:
Brussels is planning to rattle the UK by unveiling tough contingency measures for a
no-deal Brexit that could force flight cancellations and leave exporters facing massive
disruption if Britain departs the EU without an exit agreement in March.
Subtext: it's the EU's fault all those bad things could happen .when it is the UK that is
suing for divorce. Back to the story:
Against expectations in London, the plan is likely to encompass a limited number of
initiatives over a maximum of eight months, diplomats who have seen the document told the
Financial Times.
Notably, the EU is not planning special arrangements for customs or road transport and
only limited provisions for financial services -- a decision that, if seen through, would
cause long queues and operational difficulties at ports and airports.
The minimalist emergency plan, designed to be rolled out should there be no breakthrough
in Brexit talks, would increase the pressure over already fraught negotiations between the UK
and the EU ahead of a summit on 17 October. EU plans would then be firmed up by December
.
The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit
for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit,
EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed
in time.
Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special
measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union
interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral
basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.
The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly
straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK
travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is
reciprocated
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles.
Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy.
Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20
articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at
https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/5606f710-c8ac-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9
The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit
for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit,
EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed
in time.
Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special
measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union
interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral
basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.
The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly
straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK
travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is
reciprocated.
Hopes of progress have been fuelled by expectations that Theresa May has come forward with
a compromise solution to the Irish border.
The PM will propose keeping the whole of the UK in a customs union as a final fallback but
allowing Northern Ireland to stick to EU regulations.
The EU has rejected having the UK collect EU customs post Brexit. Moreover, a customs union,
as we've said repeatedly, does not give the UK its keenly-sounght frictionless trade. Making
Northern Ireland subject to EU regulations means accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ, since
compliance is not a matter of having a dusty rule book, but of being part of the same
regulatory apparatus. Aside from the fact that this solution won't be acceptable to the DUP, it
would also result in a hard land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
So are we to take this as incomprehension on the part of the Sun's reporters, or that the
Government's negotiators continue to be as thick as a brick? Sadly,
the Guardian tells a similar tale :
Ministers expect to discuss Brexit in a week's time when some hope that officials will
have clarified how the UK proposes to handle cross-border regulatory checks if no progress is
made on agreeing a free trade deal with the EU.
There has been speculation that this solution could involve the whole of the UK agreeing
to be part of a common customs area with the EU in order to avoid the possibility of an
invisible border separating Northern Ireland from Great Britain, in the event that no
long-term deal is signed.
Richard North has the best take. He points the rumors from the UK side come from people who
present themselves as being on the inside but probably aren't, or not enough to have a good
feel, and
continues :
Yet nothing seems to be leaking from No.10, with officials saying merely that proposals
would emerge "soon". Says the Guardian, these are likely to form the basis of technical
negotiations with Brussels "as officials scramble to find a form of words for the withdrawal
agreement that the UK proposes to sign with the EU".
Any such timing will, of necessity, rule out any formal consideration by the October
European Council. Those who understand the detail will know that, before anything can be
considered by the European Council, it must first be agreed by the General Affairs Council,
meeting as 27.
Currently, this is scheduled for 16 October (Tuesday week) – a day before the
Article 50 European Council which starts its two-day session on the 17th. On the face of it,
there doesn't seem to be enough time to factor in any last-minute proposals from London,
especially as details must first be circulated to Member State capitals for comment.
This does nothing, though, but confirm that which we already know – that if there is
to be a final showdown, then it is going to come at the special meeting in November (if this
actually happens), or even the meeting scheduled for 13-14 December.
Even the rumor mills don't give much reason to think there is a solution to the Irish
border. If May really hasn't abandoned Chequers, all the fudging to come up with a content-free
"future relationship" section will be to the detriment of UK citizens, since the Government
will keep holding on to a Brexit plan that the EU will never accept. But the best interests of
ordinary people have gotten short shrift all along.
I left the United States
because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in
New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to
being without the normal help she gets from the Danish
system. We...
(more)
Loading
I left the United States
because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in
New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to
being without the normal help she gets from the Danish
system. We made the move a few years ago, and right
away our lives started to improve dramatically.
Now I am working in IT,
making a great money, with private health insurance.
Yes I pay high taxes, but the benefits outweigh the
costs. The other things is that the Danish people
trust in the government and trust in each other. There
is no need for #metoo or blacklivesmatter, because the
people already treat each other with respect.
While I now enjoy an easier
life in Denmark, I sit back and watch the country I
fiercely love continue to fall to pieces because of
divisive rhetoric and the corporate greed buying out
our government.
Trump is just a symptom of
the problem. If people could live in the US as they
did 50 years ago, when a single person could take care
of their entire family, and an education didn't cost
so much, there would be no need for this revolution.
But wages have been stagnant since the 70's and the
wealth has shifted upwards from the middle class to
the top .001 percent. This has been decades in the
making. You can't blame Obama or Trump for this.
Meanwhile, I sit in Denmark
watching conservatives blame liberalism, immigrants,
poor people, and socialism, while Democrats blame
rednecks, crony capitalism, and republican greed.
Everything is now "fake news". Whether it be CNN or
FOX, no one knows who to trust anymore. Everything has
become a conspiracy. Our own president doesn't even
trust his own FBI or CIA. And he pushes conspiracy
theories to mobilize his base. I am glad to be away
from all that, and living in a much healthier
environment, where people aren't constantly attacking
one another.
Maybe if the US can get it's
healthcare and education systems together, I would
consider moving back one day. But it would also be
nice if people learned to trust one another, and trust
in the system again. Until then, I prefer to be around
emotionally intelligent people, who are objective, and
don't fall for every piece of propaganda. Not much of
that happening in America these days. The left has
gone off the deep end playing identity politics and
focusing way too much on implementing government
mandated Social Justice. Meanwhile the conservatives
are using any propaganda and lying necessary to push
their corporate backed agenda. This is all at the cost
of our environment, our free trade agreements, peace
treaties, and our European allies. Despite how much I
love my country, I breaks my heart to say, I don't see
myself returning any time soon I'm afraid.
"... The vote for Brexit and the election of protectionist Donald Trump to the US presidency – two momentous markers of the ongoing pushback against globalization – led some to question the rationality of voters. This column presents a framework that demonstrates how the populist backlash against globalisation is actually a rational voter response when the economy is strong and inequality is high. It highlights the fragility of globalization in a democratic society that values equality. ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites rather than compassion for the poor. ..."
Posted on September 28,
2018 by Yves
Smith Yves here. Haha, Lambert's volatility voters thesis confirmed! They are voting
against inequality and globalization. This important post also explains how financialization
drives populist rebellions.
By Lubos Pastor, Charles P. McQuaid Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth
School of Business and Pietro Veronesi, Roman Family Professor of Finance, University of
Chicago Booth School of Business. Originally published at VoxEU
The vote for Brexit and the election of protectionist Donald Trump to the US presidency
– two momentous markers of the ongoing pushback against globalization – led some to
question the rationality of voters. This column presents a framework that demonstrates how the
populist backlash against globalisation is actually a rational voter response when the economy
is strong and inequality is high. It highlights the fragility of globalization in a democratic
society that values equality.
The ongoing pushback against globalization in the West is a defining phenomenon of this
decade. This pushback is best exemplified by two momentous 2016 votes: the British vote to
leave the EU ('Brexit') and the election of a protectionist, Donald Trump, to the US
presidency. In both cases, rich-country electorates voted to take a step back from the
long-standing process of global integration. "Today, globalization is going through a major
crisis" (Macron 2018).
Some commentators question the wisdom of the voters responsible for this pushback. They
suggest Brexit and Trump supporters have been confused by misleading campaigns and foreign
hackers. They joke about turkeys voting for Christmas. They call for another Brexit referendum,
which would allow the Leavers to correct their mistakes.
Rational Voters
We take a different perspective. In a recent paper, we develop a theory in which a backlash
against globalization happens while all voters are perfectly rational (Pastor and Veronesi
2018). We do not, of course, claim that all voters are rational; we simply argue that
explaining the backlash does not require irrationality. Not only can the backlash happen in our
theory; it is inevitable.
We build a heterogeneous-agent equilibrium model in which a backlash against globalization
emerges as the optimal response of rational voters to rising inequality. A rise in inequality
has been observed throughout the West in recent decades (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2011). In our
model, rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth. Over time, global growth
exacerbates inequality, which eventually leads to a pushback against globalization.
Who Dislike Inequality
Agents in our model like consumption but dislike inequality. Individuals may prefer equality
for various reasons. Equality helps prevent crime and preserve social stability. Inequality
causes status anxiety at all income levels, which leads to health and social problems
(Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, 2018). In surveys, people facing less inequality report being
happier (e.g. Morawetz et al. 1977, Alesina et al. 2004, Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Ramos 2014).
Experimental results also point to egalitarian preferences (e.g. Dawes et al. 2007).
We measure inequality by the variance of consumption shares across agents. Given our other
modelling assumptions, equilibrium consumption develops a right-skewed distribution across
agents. As a result, inequality is driven by the high consumption of the rich rather than the
low consumption of the poor. Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites
rather than compassion for the poor.
Besides inequality aversion, our model features heterogeneity in risk aversion. This
heterogeneity generates rising inequality in a growing economy because less risk-averse agents
consume a growing share of total output. We employ individual-level differences in risk
aversion to capture the fact that some individuals benefit more from global growth than others.
In addition, we interpret country-level differences in risk aversion as differences in
financial development. We consider two 'countries': the US and the rest of the world. We assume
that US agents are less risk-averse than rest-of-the-world agents, capturing the idea that the
US is more financially developed than the rest of the world.
At the outset, the two countries are financially integrated – there are no barriers to
trade and risk is shared globally. At a given time, both countries hold elections featuring two
candidates. The 'mainstream' candidate promises to preserve globalization, whereas the
'populist' candidate promises to end it. If either country elects a populist, a move to autarky
takes place and cross-border trading stops. Elections are decided by the median voter.
Global risk sharing exacerbates US inequality. Given their low risk aversion, US agents
insure the agents of the rest of the world by holding aggressive and disperse portfolio
positions. The agents holding the most aggressive positions benefit disproportionately from
global growth. The resulting inequality leads some US voters, those who feel left behind by
globalization, to vote populist.
Why Vote Populist?
When deciding whether to vote mainstream or populist, US agents face a
consumption-inequality trade-off. If elected, the populist delivers lower consumption but also
lower inequality to US agents. After a move to autarky, US agents can no longer borrow from the
rest of the world to finance their excess consumption. But their inequality drops too, because
the absence of cross-border leverage makes their portfolio positions less disperse.
As output grows, the marginal utility of consumption declines, and US agents become
increasingly willing to sacrifice consumption in exchange for more equality. When output grows
large enough -- see the vertical line in the figure below -- more than half of US agents prefer
autarky and the populist wins the US election. This is our main result: in a growing economy,
the populist eventually gets elected. In a democratic society that values equality,
globalization cannot survive in the long run.
Figure 1 Vote share of the populist candidate
Equality Is a Luxury Good
Equality can be interpreted as a luxury good in that society demands more of it as it
becomes wealthier. Voters might also treat culture, traditions, and other nonpecuniary values
as luxury goods. Consistent with this argument, the recent rise in populism appears
predominantly in rich countries. In poor countries, agents are not willing to sacrifice
consumption in exchange for nonpecuniary values.
Globalization would survive under a social planner. Our competitive market solution differs
from the social planner solution due to the negative externality that the elites impose on
others through their high consumption. To see if globalization can be saved by redistribution,
we analyse redistributive policies that transfer wealth from low risk-aversion agents, who
benefit the most from globalization, to high risk-aversion agents, who benefit the least. We
show that such policies can delay the populist's victory, but cannot prevent it from happening
eventually.
Which Countries Are Populist?
Our model predicts that support for populism should be stronger in countries that are more
financially developed, more unequal, and running current account deficits. Looking across 29
developed countries, we find evidence supporting these predictions.
Figure 2 Vote share of populist parties in recent elections
The US and the UK are good examples. Both have high financial development, large inequality,
and current account deficits. It is thus no coincidence, in the context of our model, that
these countries led the populist wave in 2016. In contrast, Germany is less financially
developed, less unequal, and it runs a sizable current account surplus. Populism has been
relatively subdued in Germany, as our model predicts. The model emphasises the dark side of
financial development – it spurs the growth of inequality, which eventually leads to a
populist backlash.
Who are the Populist Voters?
The model also makes predictions about the characteristics of populist voters. Compared to
mainstream voters, populist voters should be more inequality-averse (i.e. more anti-elite) and
more risk-averse (i.e. better insured against consumption fluctuations). Like highly
risk-averse agents, poorer and less-educated agents have less to lose from the end of
globalization. The model thus predicts that these agents are more likely to vote populist. That
is indeed what we find when we examine the characteristics of the voters who supported Brexit
in the 2016 EU referendum and Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
The model's predictions for asset prices are also interesting. The global market share of US
stocks should rise in anticipation of the populist's victory. Indeed, the US share of the
global stock market rose steadily before the 2016 Trump election. The US bond yields should be
unusually low before the populist's victory. Indeed, bond yields in the West were low when the
populist wave began.
Backlash in a booming economy
In our model, a populist backlash occurs when the economy is strong because that is when
inequality is high. The model helps us understand why the backlash is occurring now, as the US
economy is booming. The economy is going through one of its longest macroeconomic expansions
ever, having been growing steadily for almost a decade since the 2008 crisis.
This study relates to our prior work at the intersection of finance and political economy.
Here, we exploit the cross-sectional variation in risk aversion, whereas in our 2017 paper, we
analyse its time variation (Pastor and Veronesi 2017). In the latter model, time-varying risk
aversion generates political cycles in which Democrats and Republicans alternate in power, with
higher stock returns under Democrats. Our previous work also explores links between risk
aversion and inequality (Pastor and Veronesi 2016).
Conclusions
We highlight the fragility of globalization in a democratic society that values equality. In
our model, a pushback against globalization arises as a rational voter response. When a country
grows rich enough, it becomes willing to sacrifice consumption in exchange for a more equal
society. Redistribution is of limited value in our frictionless, complete-markets model. Our
formal model supports the narrative of Rodrik (1997, 2000), who argues that we cannot have all
three of global economic integration, the nation state, and democratic politics.
If policymakers want to save globalization, they need to make the world look different from
our model. One attractive policy option is to improve the financial systems of less-developed
countries. Smaller cross-country differences in financial development would mitigate the uneven
effects of cross-border risk sharing. More balanced global risk sharing would result in lower
current account deficits and, eventually, lower inequality in the rich world.
"rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth. " For which definition of
growth? Or maybe, observing that cancer is the very model of growth, for any definition?
Nice model and graphs, though.
What kind of political economy is to be discerned, and how is one to effectuate it with
systems that would have to be so very different to have a prayer of providing lasting
homeostatic functions?
The global overclass can hardly wait too. They think they are in position to guide the
change to their desired outcome. Targeted applied Jackpot Engineering, you know.
At some point if the majority dont think they get any benefit from the economy, they will
put a stake through it, and replace it with some thing that works?now that could be some
thing very different, but it will happen
I had the same thought – growth as defined in the current, neoliberal model. There
is nothing inevitable about inequality – it is caused by political choices.
It is painful to find these assumptions accepted at NC.
"the economy is strong"
Not from my perspective. Or from the perspectives of the work force or the industrial base
replacing themselves. Or the perspective of a 4 to 5 trillion dollar shortfall in
infrastructure funding.
"In our model, rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth."
Well, that simply did not happen 1946 to 1971.
"populist delivers lower consumption but also lower inequality to US agents."
REALLY? Consumption of WHAT? Designer handbags and jeans? What about consumption of mass
public transit and health care services? I'm very confident that a populist government that
found a way to put a muzzle on Wall Street and the banksters would increase consumption of
things I prefer while also lessening inequality.
Reading through this summary of modeling, it occurred to me that the operative variable
was not inequality so much as "high financial development."
Yes and also, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. These days, just saying
that globalisation leads to inequality and people act rationally, when they push back –
even though choices are limited – is pretty revolutionary. We need other analyses along
those lines, maybe with a few corrections. Thanks for posting!
" In our model, a populist backlash occurs when the economy is strong because that is when
inequality is high. "
Yes to the above comments. This sentence really stuck in my throat. A strong economy to me
is one that achieves balanced equality. Somehow this article avoids the manner in which the
current economy became "strong". Perhaps a better word is "corrupt". (No 'perhaps' really;
I'm just being polite.)
I also didn't like that the anti-neoliberalists are being portrayed as not having sympathy
for the poor. Gosh, we are a hard-hearted lot, only interested in our own come-uppance and
risk-adversity.
A "strong" economy is one that is growing as measured by GDP – full stop. Inequality
looks to me like a feature of our global economic value system, not a bug.
I only read these articles to see what the enemy is thinking. The vast majority of
economists are nothing more than cheerleaders for capitalism. I imagine anybody who strays
too far from neoliberal orthodoxy is ignored.
the Trump/Brexit populist thinking has nothing to do with equality. it has do do with who
should get preferential treatment and why -- it's about drawing a tight circle on who get's
to be considered "equal".
not sure how you can pull a desire for equality from this (except through statistics,
which can be used to "prove" anything).
I'm confused – so the evidence of statistics should be discounted, in favor of more
persuasive evidence? Consisting of your own authoritative statements about the motives of
other people?
In the future, please try to think about what sorts of arguments are likely to be
persuasive to people who don't already agree with you.
If you consider yourself an "environmentalist," then you have to be against
globalization.
(From the easiest to universally agree upon) the multi-continental supply chain for
everything from tube socks to cobalt to frozen fish is unsustainable, barring Star Trek-type
transport tech breakthroughs.
(to the less easily to universally agree upon) the population of the entire developed
(even in the US) would be stablized/falling/barely rising, but for migration.
mass migration-fueled population growth/higher fertility rates of migrants in the
developed world and increased resource footprint is bad for both the developed world and
developing world.
The long, narrow, and manifold supply lines which characterize our present systems of
globalization make the world much more fragile. The supply chains are fraught with single
points of systemic failure. At the same time Climate Disruption increases the risk that a
disaster can affect these single points of failure. I fear that the level of instability in
the world systems is approaching the point where multiple local disasters could have
catastrophic effects at a scale orders of magnitude greater than the scale of the triggering
events -- like the Mr. Science demonstration of a chain-reaction where he tosses a single
ping pong ball into a room full of mousetraps set with ping pong balls. You have to be
against globalization if you're against instability.
The entire system of globalization is completely dependent on a continuous supply of cheap
fuel to power the ships, trains, and trucks moving goods around the world. That supply of
cheap fuel has its own fragile supply lines upon which the very life of our great cities
depends. Little food is grown where the most food is eaten -- this reflects the distributed
nature of our supply chains greatly fostered by globalization.
Globalization increases the power and control Corporate Cartels have over their workers.
It further increases the power large firms have over smaller firms as the costs and
complexities of globalized trade constitute a relatively larger overhead for smaller firms.
Small producers of goods find themselves flooded with cheaper foreign knock-offs and
counterfeits of any of their designs that find a place in the market. It adds uncertainty and
risk to employment and small ventures. Globalization magnifies the power of the very large
and very rich over producers and consumers.
I believe the so-called populist voters and their backlash in a "booming" economy are
small indications of a broad unrest growing much faster than our "booming" economies. That
unrest is one more risk to add to the growing list of risks to an increasingly fragile
system. The world is configured for a collapse that will be unprecedented in its speed and
scope.
Actually, the way I see it – if one considers oneself an environmentalist, one has
to be against capitalism, not just globalization. Capitalism is built on constant growth
– but on a planet, with limited resources, that simply cannot work. Not long term
unless we're prepared to dig up and/or pave over everything. Only very limited-scale,
mom-and-pop kind of capitalism can try to work long term – but the problem is, it would
not stay that way because greed gets in the way every time and there's no limiting greed.
(Greed as a concept was limited in the socialist system – but some folks did not like
that.)
" Given their low risk aversion, US agents insure the agents of the rest of the world by
holding aggressive and disperse portfolio positions."
That low risk aversion could be driven by the willingness of the US government to provide
military/diplomatic/trade assistance to US businesses around the word. The risk inherent in
moving factories, doing resource extraction and conducting business overseas is always there,
but if one's government lessens the risk via force projection and control of local
governments, a US agent could appear to be "less risk averse" because the US taxpayer has
"got their back".
This paper closes with
"If policymakers want to save globalization, they need to make the world look different
from our model. One attractive policy option is to improve the financial systems of
less-developed countries. Smaller cross-country differences in financial development would
mitigate the uneven effects of cross-border risk sharing. More balanced global risk sharing
would result in lower current account deficits and, eventually, lower inequality in the rich
world."
Ah yes, to EVENTUALLY lower inequality, the USA needs to "improve the financial systems of
less-well developed countries"
Perhaps the USA needs to improve its OWN financial system first?
Paul Woolley has suggested, the US and UK financial systems are 2 to 3 times they should
be.
And the USA's various financial industry driven bubbles, the ZIRP rescue of the financial
industry, and mortgage security fraud seem all connected back to the USA financial
industry.
Inequality did not improve in the aftermath of these events as the USA helped preserve the
elite class.
Maybe the authors have overlooked a massive home field opportunity?
That being that the USA should consider "improving" its own financial system to help
inequality.
I'm glad to see that issues and views discussed pretty regularly here in more or less
understandable English have been translated into Academese. Being a high risk averse plebe,
who will not starve for lack of trade with China, but may have to pay a bit more for
strawberries for lack of cheap immigrant labor, I count myself among the redistributionist
economic nationalists.
Right now I'm making raisins from the grapes harvested here at home .. enough to last for
a year, or maybe two. Sure, it's laborous to some extent, but the supply chain is very short
.. the cost, compared to buying the same amount at retait rates, is minuscule, and they're as
'organic' as can be. The point I'm trying to make is that wth some personal effort, we can
all live lighter, live slower, and be, for the most part, contented.
Might as well step into collapse, gracefully, and avoid the rush, as per J. M. Greer's
mantra.
The UK had become somewhat dependent on Switzerland for wristwatches prior to WW2, and all
of the sudden France falls and that's all she wrote for imports.
Must've been a mad scramble to resurrect the business, or outsource elsewhere.
My wife and I were talking about what would happen if say the reign of error pushes us
into war with China, and thanks to our just in time way of life, the goods on the shelves of
most every retailer, would be plundered by consumers, and maybe they could be restocked a few
times, but that's it.
I recently purchased a cabinet/shelf for 20 tubmans, from a repurposing/recycling
business, and, after putting a couple of hundred moar tubmans into it .. some of which
included recycled latex paints and hardware .. transformed it into a fabulous stand-alone
kitchen storage unit. If I were to purchase such at retail, it would most likely go for close
to $800- $1000.00 easy !!
With care, this 'renewed' polecat heirloom will certainly outlive it's recreator, and pass on
for generations henceforth.
Yes, thank goodness there was no mention of Canada's failure to negotiate a trade treaty
with our best friend. All of a sudden, Canadians seem to be the target of a lot of ill will
in other articles.
I think it's just ill- informed jealousy. Us US mopes think Canadians are much better off
than we Yanks, health care and such. You who live there have your own insights, of course.
Trudeau and the Ford family and tar sands and other bits.
And some of us are peeved that you don't want us migrating to take advantage of your more
beneficent milieu.
It's a different vibe up over, their housing bubble crested and is sinking, as the road to
HELOC was played with the best intentions even more furiously than here in the heat of the
bubble.
Can Canada bail itself out as we did in the aftermath, and keep the charade going?
Feel free to fill out that 8 inch high pile of Canadian immigration documentation, so
ya'all can come on up and join the party. Or just jump on your pony and ride North into the
Land of the Grandmother. Trudeau wants more people and has failed to offer proper sacrifice
to the god Terminus, the god of borders, so .
Just don't move to "Van" unless you have a few million to drop on a "reno'ed" crack shack.
When the god Pluto crawls back into the earth, the housing bubble will burst, and it's not
going to be pretty.
That's funny as our dam here is called the Terminus Reservoir, if the name fits
I'm just looking for an ancestral way out of what might prove to be a messy scene down
under, i'd gladly shack up in one of many of my relatives basements if Max Mad breaks out
here.
Great article, interesting data points, but besides placing tariffs on Chinese imports
there is nothing populist about Trump, just empty rhetoric. Highly regressive tax cuts for
the wealthy, further deregulation, wanton environmental destruction, extremist right-wing
ideologues as judges, a cabinet full of Wall Street finance guys, more boiler-plate Neo-Lib
policies as far as I can tell.
I fear Trump and the Brexiters are giving populism a bad name. A functioning democracy
should always elect populists. A government of elected officials who do not represent the
public will is not really a democracy.
Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites rather than
compassion for the poor.
That's ridiculous. Indeed, the Brexit campaign was all about othering the poor and
powerless immigrants, as well as the cultural, artistic, urban and academic elites, never the
the moneyed elites, not the 1%. The campaign involved no dicussion what's so ever of the
actual numbers of wealth inequality.
When deciding whether to vote mainstream or populist, US agents face a
consumption-inequality trade-off. If elected, the populist delivers lower consumption but
also lower inequality to US agents.
How can anyone possibly write such a thing? The multi-trillion tax cut from Donald Trump
represents a massive long time rise in inequality. Vis-à-vis Brexit, the entire
campaign support for that mad endeavor came from free-trader fundamentalists who want to be
free to compete with both hands in the global race-to-the-bottom while the EU is (barely)
restraining them.
Trump and Brexit voters truly are irrational turkeys (that's saying a lot for anyone who's
met an actual turkey) voting for Christmas.
Some of us mopes who voted for Trump did so as a least-bad alternative to HER, just to try
to kick the hornet's nest and get something to fly out: So your judgment is that those folks
are "irrational turkeys," bearing in mind how mindless the Christmas and Thansgiving turkeys
have been bred to be?
Better to arm up, get out in the street, and start marching and chanting and ready to
confront the militarized police? I'd say, face it: as people here have noted there is a
system in place, the "choices" are frauds to distract us every couple of years, and the
vectors all point down into some pretty ugly terrain.
Bless those who have stepped off the conveyor, found little places where they can live
"autarkically," more or less, and are waiting out the Ragnarok/Gotterdammerung/Mad Max
anomie, hoping not to be spotted by the warbands that will form up and roam the terrain
looking for bits of food and fuel and slaves and such. Like one survivalist I spotted
recently says as his tag-line, "If you have stuff, you're a target. If you have knowledge.
you have a chance–" this in a youtube video on how to revive a defunct nickel-cadmium
drill battery by zapping it with a stick welder. (It works, by the way.)He's a chain smoker
and his BMI must be close to 100, but he's got knowledge
The papers's framing of the issues is curious: the populace has 'envy' of the well-off;
and populism (read envy) rises when the economy is strong and inequality rises (read where's
my yaht?).
The paper lacks acknowledgement of the corruption, fraud, and rigging of policy that rises
when an overly financialized economy is 'good.' This contributes to inequality. Inequality is
not just unequal, but extremely disproportionate distributions which cause real suffering and
impoverishment of the producers. It follows (but not to the writer of this paper) that the
citizens take offense at and objection to the disproprtionate takings of some and the meager
receipts of the many. It's this that contributes to populism.
And the kicker: to save globalization, let's financialize the less developed economies to
mitigate cross-border inequalities. Huh? Was not the discussion about developed nations'
voters to rising inequality in face of globalization? The problem is not cross-border 'envy.'
It's globalization instrinsically and how it is gamed.
I'm with Olga. It's good to see that voting "wrong" taken seriously, and seen as
economically rational. Opposing globalization makes sense, even in the idiosyncratic usage of
economics.
The trouble, of course, is that the world of economics is not the world we live in.
Why does the immigrant cross the border? Is it only for "pecuniary interests," only for
the money? Then why do so many send most of it back across the border, in remittances?
If people in poor countries aren't willing to sacrifice for "luxuries," like a dignified
human life, who was Simon Bolivar, Che Guevara, or more recently, Berta Cáceres?
Seems to be a weakness of economic models in general: it's inconceivable that people do
things for other than pecuniary interests. In the reductionist terms of natural science,
we're social primates, not mechanical information engines.
If this model were a back patio cart, like the one I'm building right now, I wouldn't set
my beer on it. Looks like a cart from a distance, though, esp when you're looking for
one.
To the extent that the backlash has irrational aspects in the way it manifests, I would
suspect that it relates to the refusal of the self-styled responsible people to participate
in opening more rational paths to solutions, or even to acknowledge the existence of a
problem. When the allegedly responsible and knowledgeable actors refuse to act, or even see a
need to act, it's hardly surprising that the snake oil vendors grow in influence.
I'm always leery of t-test values being cited without the requisite sample size being
noted. You need that to determine effect size. While the slope looks ominously valid for the
regression model, effects could be weak and fail to show whether current account deficits are
the true source. Financialization seems purposely left out of the model.
"... Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the American cultural mainstream. ..."
"... First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by migration: they have. ..."
"... Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S. Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order. ..."
Why Not a Merit-Based Immigration System?Reihan Salam's latest book makes the
case for an overhaul along Trumpian lines.
It's hard to imagine a more needed contribution to America's immigration debate than Reihan
Salam's civil, sober, and penetrating Melting Pot or Civil War? At a moment when the
major dueling discourses revolve around lurid depictions of immigrant crime by one side, and
appeals to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and accusations of racism by the other,
Salam's data-driven argument about the future consequences of today's immigration choices could
not be more timely.
While Salam is the child of middle-class professionals from Bangladesh who settled in New
York at a time when there were virtually no Bengali speakers in the city (there are now tens of
thousands), apart from a few personal anecdotes, his book could have been written by an author
of any ethnicity. Yet in our increasingly racialized debate, an argument made by a "son of
immigrants" (as the book's subtitle announces) may be less likely to face summary dismissal
from the centrist liberals and moderates who are its most important audience.
Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly
similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing
the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing
the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic
plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the
American cultural mainstream. This would put the U.S. more in line with the generally
politically popular systems in place in Canada and Australia. The proposal is tempered, or
balanced, by measures to shore up the condition of the American working poor and an amnesty
giving long-term resident illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, as well as ambitious
measures to enhance economic development in the Third World.
But the meat of Melting Pot or Civil War? is not in the proposal but in the getting
to it -- a route which passes through numerous nuggets gleaned from contemporary research and a
depressing if persuasive analysis of the consequences if America stays on its present
course.
First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families
are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by
migration: they have. A low-skilled job in the United States pays several times better than
such work in many countries, so low-skilled migration is, without a doubt, a benefit to
low-skilled migrants. Recent immigrants grateful for the opportunity to live in America may
accept living in poverty, though Salam is right to remind us of the miserable conditions,
redolent of the teeming tenements of the early 20th century, in which their lives often unfold.
He makes the subtle point that part of the current appeal of America's major cities to upper
middle-class professionals is the presence of a politically docile service class of low-skilled
immigrants, many of them undocumented.
But the families such immigrants form tend to be poor as well: today's immigrants face
headwinds to upward mobility that the storied Ellis Island generations did not. There was much
more need in 1900 for unskilled labor than there is now, and no substantive gap then existed in
education level between the immigrants and the general American population. The data Salam
deploys is not overly dramatic but decisive nonetheless: children of immigrants now make up 30
percent of all low-income children (where they are 24 percent of the whole); roughly half of
immigrant families have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line; nearly a third of
immigrant children grow up in families headed by someone without a high school diploma; the
average Mexican immigrant has 9.4 years of schooling, rising to 12 in the second generation but
flatlining after that.
As the gap between the earnings of American college graduates and others has grown in the
past two generations, this means that the social problem of the intergenerational transmission
of poverty is being intensified by the ever continuing flow of poor, unskilled immigrants, both
legal and illegal. And while such immigrants may well be politically quiescent, their children
are unlikely to be.
These somber facts are balanced, and in many ways veiled, by the immigrant success stories
which Americans rightly celebrate. But while it may be unkind to say so, immigrants don't
arrive as blank slates, mysteriously sorted out upon reaching these shores so that some become
doctors and software entrepreneurs.
As Salam makes clear, successful immigrants tend to come from relatively rich and urbanized
societies. The parents of Google founder Sergey Brin were accomplished scholars. An astounding
45 percent of immigrants from India -- who make up the latest version of a high-achieving
"model minority" -- are Brahmins, members of the tiny Indian hereditary upper caste. Indians
who come here tend to be "triple selected": most enter the country by way of high-skilled
worker visas, which means they are products of India's highly competitive education system,
which serves only a fraction of India's population. Similarly, Chinese immigrants tend to come
from that country's college-educated elite.
Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family
ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given
country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S.
Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it
is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order.
One might conceive of this as a stable system -- after all, there are many jobs for
low-skilled immigrants. But of course immigrants have children, at rates far higher than the
native born, and the children of lower-skilled immigrants make up a continually growing share
of Americans at or near the poverty level. "The children of elite immigrants make their way
into America's elite, where they add a much needed dash of superficial diversity, enough to
make us forget their inconvenient working class counterparts." The result, of which there is
already ample evidence among the Millennial cohort of immigrant children, is a growing
population which has grown up in poverty, isn't doing especially well in income or education,
and perceives the American dream cynically, as a kind of whites-only sham. This divide will
influence our politics for the foreseeable future. The question is how much.
♦♦♦
While much of Salam's analysis is a deep dive into statistics of intergenerational poverty,
educational outcomes, and the growing achievement gap, he doesn't shy from the ominous
implications of the racialization of the immigration debate. There is ample evidence that
college-educated Americans of all ethnicities marry one another at reasonable and growing
rates, producing a fair number of mixed-race people who feel themselves part of the cultural
mainstream. As scholars have long reminded us, "white" is a broad and fungible category in
American history, and there is a fair prospect that the college-educated and middle classes
will intermarry enough to produce a 21st-century version of the storied melting pot.
But that isn't the case with poorer immigrants, even as their children learn English.
Current family unification statutes encourage poor, non-white immigrant communities to
continually replenish their new arrivals. Thus there are two competing processes going on --
amalgamation, in which more educated immigrant families are joining the middle-class
mainstream, intermarrying with whites and with one another, and racialization, in which a new
immigrant group finds itself ghettoized and cut out of the mainstream. This latter phenomenon
is most pronounced in some Mexican-American communities, which are demographically the largest
immigrant groups, but exists in many immigrant communities.
It is in this subset, for example, where ISIS has found recruits, and where -- on a less
dramatic level -- the Marxist Left is able to make inroads. As America's demography grows less
white, the political salience of radical immigrants of color is likely to grow. While Salam
exercises great restraint describing the phenomenon, his foreboding is unmistakable: "The
danger, as I see it, is that as the logic of the melting pot fails to take hold, and as more
newcomers are incorporated into disadvantaged groups, the level of interethnic tension will
skyrocket, and we'll look back wistfully on the halcyon politics of the Trump years." Or again,
"Imagine an America in which wealthy whites and Asians wall themselves off from the rest of
society and low wage immigrants and their offspring constitute a new underclass."
Of course it is not merely racial minority immigrants who are tempted by political
radicalism. The current extremist white backlash is widely noted by scholars and journalists.
But among the liberal establishment it is viewed not as problem to be alleviated but a social
development to be crushed. Salam observes immigration scholars who are scrupulous about
reporting the ways immigration is making America less united, threatening social cohesion,
"leading to greater divisions and tensions," while never considering reducing or reforming
immigration (with greater emphasis on skills) as a possible answer to the problems. They hope
-- against considerable social science evidence that political instability is endemic to
multicultural societies -- that greater diversity will somehow bury ethnic conflict. This Salam
calls the Backlash Paradox: while mass immigration contributes to bigotry and polarization, the
only acceptable option among elites is to double down and hope the storm passes, as slowing the
pace of immigration is considered a "callow surrender to bigotry."
I have focused on the social and political elements, but Salam's argument also relies a
great deal on economics, much of it focused on economic choices molded by a relatively
high-skilled or low-skilled labor force. His major point is that labor shortages spur
technological innovation, while loose labor markets discourage it. Labor scarcity, Salam
observes, has been the historical secret to American prosperity, spurring one labor-saving
innovation after another. A high-immigration economy, with a completely elastic number of
workers willing to work for a minimum wage or less, is an economy under a completely different
calculus. There is no question we should prefer the first.
♦♦♦
I have only minor caveats with this outstanding book. It might be a necessary concession to
the immigrationist lobby to maintain the raw number of immigrants as high as it is at present,
but it seems likely that lowering it to, say, half a million a year, roughly the number urged
by the Clinton administration's task force on immigration, would break the fever more quickly
and lead to far more rapid assimilation of recent immigrants.
I find Salam's earnest plea for the United States to dramatically raise its spending to
accelerate economic development in the Third World well intended, but likely futile. An answer
which comes to mind is one that diplomat George F. Kennan suggested a quarter of a century ago,
that the single greatest benefit the United States can deliver to the world's poor is to
maintain itself as a relatively high civilization able to inspire by example, and provide help
and insight to others seeking answers to their problems.
And though it is a subject in itself, I wish Salam had directly addressed the new leftist
ideology built around the fighting of "white privilege" -- which now includes under its rubric
everything from getting rid of standardized tests to delegitimizing police departments, railing
against the First Amendment to ripping down statues of long-admired white Americans. This
largely white-led phenomenon does far more to intensify nativist dread about being reduced to
minority status than any racist agitation leveled against immigrants of color, however
lamentable the latter might be.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon:
Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
"UK Prime Minister Theresa May suffered political humiliation in Salzburg, when European
Union (EU) leaders rebuffed her appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers
proposal for a "soft Brexit."
May was given only 10 minutes to address EU heads of state Wednesday, after dinner at the
informal summit, during which she appealed to her audience, "You are participants in our
debate, not just observers."
She said she had counted on at least supportive noises for her "serious and workable"
plan, given that she was seeking to head off a potential challenge from the
"hard-Brexit"/Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. She warned that the UK could be
torn apart -- with respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as by social tensions;
that if her government fell, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party could win a general election; and
cited the potential damage to the EU itself of lost trade, investment and military support
from the UK.
Instead, her address was met with silence and her implied threats were stonewalled, as the
main players within the EU combined the next day to declare her proposals to be
"unworkable.
No matter how these conflicts play out, Britain and the whole of Europe face a worsening
crisis that threatens to tear the EU apart. The growth of both inter-imperialist and social
antagonisms found dramatic form in Brexit, which the dominant sections of the City of London,
big business, all the major parties and Britain's allies in the US and Europe all opposed.
Yet two years later, May is fighting a desperate struggle against her anti-EU "hard-Brexit"
faction, the US is led by a president who has declared his support for the breakup of the EU,
and numerous far-right governments have taken power in part by exploiting popular hostility
to EU-dictated austerity."
"worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU-(and hence NATO)- apart. " .
"... Popularity of National Socialism in capitalist country like Germany was exactly due to that process of corruption of working class who embassy stoped to question system as long as provided them with goods. ..."
"... Henceforth, most goods manufactured for US consumption were to be produced abroad, from Mexico to China. Once US based multinationals started down this road, European and even Japanese ones followed. This did not mean an increase in productive forces but a substitution of one labour force for another. ..."
"... Thus the rise of Chinese industry was as much a part of this process as the deindustrialisation of formerly prosperous parts of the US and the UK. This has nothing to do with the evolution of our species and everything to do with the evolution of capitalism. This is what I mean by globalisation. ..."
"... It has not eradicated national borders but is a major factor in the recent development of far right nationalism in Europe. It is a strong contributor to the restructuring of western economies so that only a minority of British workers have full time permanent jobs. It is also used as leverage to drive down wages in western economies. ..."
"... I do not believe what I mean by globalisation is progressive at all. It has been pushed by the most reactionary political forces in western societies as an integral part of what the WSWS calls a social counter revolution. As the WSWS again points out it makes the preservation of national welfare states or a decent standard of living for working class people impossible. I am not calling for this to be reversed under capitalism. ..."
"... "...globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing countries." ..."
"... As if domestic production were not the same thing. The author is essentially arguing for "lesser evil" exploitation in the interests of society as a whole. Reformists always do. ..."
"... "The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the capitalist order -- that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a whole." - Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers ..."
"... "Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if followed, would make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people." ..."
"... The most important theoretical source of his thinking is his own work "The General Theory of Employment, Money and Interest" which is available to read or download free online. ..."
"... The US wants to reinforce it's declining global hegemonic position at any cost. Now they started with economic war against countries they see as not cooperating to their demands, but under current conditions this could easily transform into Global war at some point in future. ..."
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis ten years ago, the leaders of the world's
major powers pledged that never again would they go down the road of protectionism which had
such disastrous consequences in the 1930s -- deepening the Great Depression and contributing
to the outbreak of world war in 1939.
Yesterday US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese
goods in what the Washington Post described as "one of the most severe economic
restrictions ever imposed by a US president."
A levy of 10 percent will be imposed starting from September 24 and will be escalated to
25 percent in 2019 if the US does not receive what it considers to be a satisfactory
agreement. The new tariffs, which will cover more than 1,000 goods, come on top of the 25
percent tariff already imposed on $50 billion worth of industrial products. Trump has
threatened further measures on the remaining Chinese exports to the US totalling more than
$250 billion.
China has threatened retaliatory action including tariffs and other, as yet unspecified
measures, against the US, meaning that the world's number one and number two economies are
locked into a rapidly escalating trade war that will have global consequences.
Announcing the decision, Trump called on China to take "swift action" to end what he
called its "unfair trade practices" and expressed the hope that the trade conflict would be
resolved.
But there is little prospect of such an outcome because, while the US is demanding that
the trade deficit with China be reduced, the conflict does not merely centre on that issue.
China has made offers to increase its imports from the US, all of which have been rejected.
The key US demand is that the Chinese government completely abandon its program of economic
development and remain subservient to the US in high-tech economic sectors.
As the position paper issued by Washington in May put it: "China will cease providing
market-distorting subsidies and other types of government support that can contribute to the
creation or maintenance of excess capacity in industries targeted by the Made in China 2025
industrial plan."
In other words, China must completely scrap the foundational structures of its economy so
that it presents no threat to the economic dominance of US capitalism, a dominance which the
US intends to maintain, if it considers necessary, by military means. This was made clear
earlier this year when Washington designated China as a "strategic competitor," that is, a
potential military enemy. This is the inherent, objective, logic of the latest trade war
measures.
Their full significance can only be grasped when viewed with the framework of the
historical development of the global capitalist economy.
After the disastrous decade of the 1930s, and as the world plunged into war, leading
figures within the Roosevelt administration recognised that this situation was due in no
small measure to the division of the world into rival trade and economic blocs which tariff
and other trade restrictions had played a major role in creating.
Post-war planning centred on trying to overcome this contradiction between the global
economy and its division into rival great powers and blocs through the development of a
mechanism that ensured the expansion of world trade. This was the basis of the series of
measures set in place in the immediate aftermath of the war: the Bretton Woods monetary
system which tied major currencies to the dollar in fixed exchange rates, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that sought to bring down tariff barriers and the
establishment of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to ensure international
economic collaboration.
These measures, however, did not overcome the inherent contradictions of capitalism, above
all between the global economy and the nation-state system. Rather, they sought to contain
and mitigate them within a system based on the overwhelming economic dominance of the US.
But the growth of the world capitalist economy and the strengthening of the other major
powers undermined the very foundations on which they were based -- the absolute dominance of
the US. Within the space of a generation, the weakening of the US position was revealed in
August 1971 when it scrapped the Bretton Woods monetary system declaring that the dollar
would no longer be redeemable for gold.
The period since then has seen the ongoing weakening of the position of the US, which was
graphically revealed in the financial meltdown ten years ago when the US financial system was
shown to be a house of cards based on rampant speculation and outright criminal activity.
This situation has continued in the subsequent decade, threatening, another, even more
disastrous, financial crisis.
The US is now not only confronted with the economic power of its European rivals but a
major new one in the form of China. It is striving to reverse this situation. As Leon Trotsky
explained some eighty years ago, the hegemony of the US would assert itself most powerfully
not in conditions of boom but above all in a crisis when it would use every means -- economic
and military -- against all rivals to maintain its position.
The trade war measures against China are only one expression of this process. The US has
already carried out protectionist measures against Europe and Japan through the imposition of
tariffs on steel and aluminium and has threatened tariffs on cars and auto parts, which will
be invoked unless they join its push on China.
And as the China tariffs are imposed, top officials of the European Union are meeting to
discuss how they might overcome the financial sanctions the US will impose against European
companies if they maintain economic ties with Iran after November 4 following the unilateral
abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal.
The deal was not overturned because Iran had breached the agreement -- international
agencies found that it had fully complied. Rather, the United States unilaterally abrogated
the treaty in order to strengthen the strategic position of the US in the Middle East by
countering the influence of Iran, and because European corporations stood to benefit from the
opening up of new economic opportunities in that country at the expense of their US
rivals.
Now the State Department has warned that European companies are "on the railroad tracks"
if they defy US sanctions and firms that deal with the "enemy" will be barred from access to
the US financial system.
Writing in the 1930s, Leon Trotsky explained that the interdependence of every country in
the global economy meant that the program of economic nationalism, of the kind now being
practised by the Trump administration, was a reactionary "utopia" insofar as it set itself
the task of harmonious national economic development on the basis of private property.
"But it is a menacing reality insofar as it is a question of concentrating all the
economic forces of the nation for the preparation of a new war," he wrote five years before
the outbreak of World War II.
This "menacing reality" is now once again expressed in the fact that the trade war
measures against China, as well as those against Europe and Japan, have all been invoked on
"national security" grounds. Just as the US prepares for war, so too do all the other major
powers. This drive does not arise from the heads of the capitalist politicians -- their
actions are only the translation into politics of the objective logic and irresolvable
contradictions of the capitalist system over which they preside.
But there is another more powerful logic at work. The very development of globalised
production, which has raised the contradiction of the outmoded nation-state system with its
rival great powers to a new peak of intensity, has laid the foundations for a planned world
socialist economy. And it has created in the international working class, unified at an
unprecedented level, the social force to carry it out.
The latest Trump trade war measures underscore the urgency for the political and
theoretical arming of the working class with the program of world socialist revolution,
fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International, if civilisation is to
go forward and the plunge into barbarism averted.
Beams excellent piece included:
"As the position paper issued by Washington in May put it: "China will
cease providing market-distorting subsidies and other types of government support that can
contribute to the creation or maintenance of excess capacity in industries targeted by the
Made in China 2025 industrial plan."
This issue of "government support" in China is reflected in the U.S. but in a different
way. Nashville and Tennessee governments alone have given hundreds of millions of dollars
in "tax incentives," payment for worker training and outright "grants" to corporations in
"government support."
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) got millions for, of all things, furniture for new
offices which included thousands of dollars for a guitar-shaped table.
Gaylord's Opryland Resort got almost $14 million from the city to build a $90 million hotel
Waterpark that would only be open to hotel guests!
The state and its capitol are prepared to give Amazon more than $1.5 billion to have the
corporation move is second U.S. headquarters here.
Like the Chinese government and oligarchs, neither state nor city will reveal the details
or total amount.
As the WSWS has so correctly observed before, "the hypocrisy is breathtaking."
I should say I do not agree that globalised production is a beneficial or positive economic
development. I accept that as a by product there is a positive political result namely the
creation and expansion of the international working class. But the only reason for
globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing countries. If
the cost of labour, taking into account currency exchange rates as well as wage levels,
were the same in every country and region, there would be no advantage in producing most
commodities in Asia for sale in North America or Europe (or vice versa). Also, I do not
accept that free trade is in everyone's interest. The only argument ever advanced in it's
favour by economists, the comparative advantage argument, is spurious. Even its
originators, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, accepted that the benefits would only apply if
capital was immobile across national boundaries, which hardly applies today. The US
economy's industrial growth, though the result of several factors, was only possible
because the US rejected free trade in favour of protective tariffs which protected its
infant industries from foreign competition. What is the central fallacy in the comparative
advantage argument is that the prosperity of the majority of a country's citizens under
capitalism depends on a strong, capital intensive, manufacturing sector, but which also
requires a large labour input. Only those jobs can pay a sufficiently high wage to workers.
Their spending power also invigorates the whole economy.
Thy major point about this issue global or local is often completely missed namely that
this dispute have nothing to do with Workers Socialist Revolution but to perhaps see ways
how to save capitalism in a way of sharing more wealth with working class, how to suppress
class struggle with Bread and Games or War, an old Roman method of divide and conquer.
Hence, capital controls, tarrifs , barriers, subsidies are instruments of having any
possibility of real social policies in capitalism system making it more livable and longer
lasting than in case of intensified pressure on working class and class struggle of
globalism versus nationalism.
Popularity of National Socialism in capitalist country like Germany was exactly due
to that process of corruption of working class who embassy stoped to question system as
long as provided them with goods.
Little did they know, that they were in 1930 confronted with no permanent political
solution to their class issues via improvement of standard of living and importance of
their labor on the propaganda spectrum,but with dead end politics of submission to one
political sellouts or another since their forced unity was just subordinated to capitalist
imperative of ufettered economic and military growth via extreme exploitation.
And that is what's wrong with nationalism namely it is shutting down paths of class
struggle toward class liberation, as it neuters this struggle.
There is a difference between the growth of global productive capacity and globalisation.
Prior to the latter process, manufacturing capacity was increased including by western
investment in developing countries, especially in Latin America. But production in those
countries was for local regional and national markets.
The US accepted competition from the German economy as a price to be paid for avoiding
the postwar threat of socialism. But the Japanese export driven model of growth was
eventually unacceptable. The US demanded the Japanese destroy this model by raising their
own currency to a level which made their exports much less competitive. The Japanese rich
were given financial opportunities in the US as compensation.
However, when the South Koreans and other nations copied the Japanese model, the US
government and US multinationals radically changed their economic policy. A conscious
choice was made by the Reagon administration to export manufacturing jobs en masse to
developing countries as well as attacking the incomes of US workers who had jobs.
Henceforth, most goods manufactured for US consumption were to be produced abroad,
from Mexico to China. Once US based multinationals started down this road, European and
even Japanese ones followed. This did not mean an increase in productive forces but a
substitution of one labour force for another.
Thus the rise of Chinese industry was as much a part of this process as the
deindustrialisation of formerly prosperous parts of the US and the UK. This has nothing to
do with the evolution of our species and everything to do with the evolution of capitalism.
This is what I mean by globalisation.
It has not eradicated national borders but is a major factor in the recent
development of far right nationalism in Europe. It is a strong contributor to the
restructuring of western economies so that only a minority of British workers have full
time permanent jobs. It is also used as leverage to drive down wages in western
economies.
Of course in recent years the Chinese and Indian economies have grown under these
policies so that there is now an increase of global capacity. Nor do I believe this process
has led to a genuinely more efficient system of production and distribution. To produce
products in one part of the world for distribution to another part half way around the
world is very inefficient, if the product could be made nearer to the point where it would
be used. It however becomes profitable if the labour used to produce it is much cheaper
than that available where the the object is to be sold.
I do not believe what I mean by globalisation is progressive at all. It has been
pushed by the most reactionary political forces in western societies as an integral part of
what the WSWS calls a social counter revolution. As the WSWS again points out it makes the
preservation of national welfare states or a decent standard of living for working class
people impossible. I am not calling for this to be reversed under capitalism.
That seems impossible. Only the overthrow of capitalism offers the possibility of
positive change. But under international socialism, globalised production chains will
finally be seen for what they are, an unnecessary and inefficient encumbrance on
humanity.
I think you are largely confusing globalisation with imperialism. I think you are also
misunderstanding the wsws position. The wsws does not call for xenophobic or nationalist
policies to close borders and keep workers imprisoned in their home countries to be used as
a captive labor force by the domestic bourgeoisie. The wsws calls for an internationalist
and proletarian socialist movement in conformity with that advocated by the workers
movement ever since the publication of the communist manifesto.
I really could not care less what you call it. I just want people to start treating each
other better. What makes those with sticky fingers think that they are so G.D. better than
everyone else that they can condemn whole segments to poverty and even death, all for the
sake of their bits of imaginary ego-boosts?
ALL of the "isms" in the world have never worked out a justification for greed and the
lust for power. No matter what the system, crooked people always try to exploit others, and
blamejustify it all on their "good genes". (edited)
Capitalism is no better or worse because it just doesn't matter what the system is, the
crooks will always cheat that system to get more than everyone else.
An interesting theory to describe what is essentially creation of a world customs union
based on the model that created Germany in 1871, the Zollverein. Spreading the customs
union (Zollverein) worldwide was the reason for the two world wars--instead of maintaining
a world federation politically and economically. The United Nations was designed to be a
federation, but under post-1945 changes in the USA and subsequent pressures on the UN and
its member states, it began developing into a union, not a federation. This was accompanied
with creation of a global Zollverein, tariff free borders and free trade.
The difference politically between a union and a federation is that in a federation the
member states award limited operating powers to a central coordinating body which does what
the members want; in a union the central body holds all the powers and tells the members
what to do.
The United Nations "holds all the powers and tells the members what to do" ? That's news to
me. As far as I can tell, the members do what they damn well please. The UN is more like a
fractured federation with a nearly impotent central body - the so-called "Security Council"
- which issues edicts but has no enforcement power. Same with the World Court.
The UN was designed by the victors of WWII to be "crippled", mere window-dressing as a
calming salve for the developing nations. From the start, it was meant to be largely
ineffective as the world's policeman and justice system .
All the nation states with any significant power are still more interested in preserving
as much their own power and hegemonic control as possible.
"...globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing
countries."
As if domestic production were not the same thing. The author is essentially arguing
for "lesser evil" exploitation in the interests of society as a whole. Reformists always
do.
"The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the
capitalist order -- that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation
committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a
whole." - Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers
"However my fundamental advocacy of policy would be that of international socialism the
result of which would be the handing of power to the working class to be exercised
democratically ."
The "handing of power" from whom exactly?
As it is now, the minority holds the power. So it's reasonable to think you mean they
would hand the power over to the majority.
Which would be silly. But whether or not that was your meaning, "the handing of power to
the working class to be exercised democratically" besides being exactly backwards, is an
opportunist "understanding" of Marxism. It implies a perspective where the state does not
need to be destroyed.
"The crucial question for Marx was what was the social material force -- the class --
created by capitalist society itself, which would be the agency, the driving force, of this
transformation." - A promotion of the "life-style" politics of the pseudo-left
It's a version of the frequently and historically repeated goal of replacing one petty
bourgeoisie minority with another, betraying the material interests of the working class
and the revolution every time.
It seems like you might have just mentioned that phrase as an aside but it might
indicate the deeper problem.
Before you start analyzing which policies might be recommended (which seems to be mainly
what interests you) you have to understand the class nature of the problem. That doesn't
come down only to understanding that there are two classes in struggle in society
and then applying your everyday petty bourgeois thinking to it.
Have you read David North's Lenin, Trotsky and the Marxism of the October
Revolution ? It was written back in March yet it's still posted on the wsws main
page--for a reason.
It provides a concise explanation of some of the fundamental ideas and way of thinking
you have to understand if you want to have any kind of intelligent conversation
about socialism.
Nick Beams did not say that "globalised production chains employed represent a genuinely
beneficial development in some deep sense." He said that such an outcome is impossible
under capitalism and the system of competing nation-states.
The only "deep sense" is that he said it would be possible for globalization to
have a positive effect for humanity if the international working class were able to abolish
capitalism, the pursuit of private profit, warring nation-states, and institute
socialism.
Thank you comrade Nick Beams. US's century is 20th and a bygone one. You finely point out
on the basis of Trotskysm the mortal danger that humanity faces resulting from the
inter-imperialist rivalry that is escalating by the day.
Besides, the US's taking up of its rival China, the second biggest economy, in trade war
pose a military confrontation to which Russia could be attracted on to China side.
Also Russia has been taken up by American imperialism independently as a target. Brexit
hard or soft would also confound economic nationalism that is gathering momentum hugely. US
sanctions on Iran is bound to sharpen the conflict between European imperialists. Also
India appears to be in crisis on whether to abide by US dictats as per its Iranian economic
connection especially on oil purchase. US's increasing protectionism has already gone out
of control as per its implications to global polity and military activity. In view of this
critical situation the role of the working class, national and international, should
determine the future of humanity. Role of the revolutionary triumvirate, ICFI/SEP/IYSSE, is
of paramount importance. I appeal to national working classes to build SEP as your national
party of the socialist revolution. I appeal to youth and students to build your national
chapters of the IYSSE in schools, universities etc. as quickly as possible. World war is
haunting. Very existannce of the humanity on this palnet is uncertain, if we unitedly as
workers, youth and students fail to empower the party of the world revolution, ICFI.
Victory to international socialist revolution. Death to protectionism whose major advocate
is US capitalism/imperialism. Down with the psudo left and the trade unions.
Keynes, who designed the Bretton Woods system, also proposed an international banking
system and currency (called the Bancor). The purpose was to prevent the kind of unbalanced
world trade which now dominates the global economy. Under his proposed system, countries
with chronic trade surpluses would be penalised, thus preventing a situation like the
present with some nations being massive exporters and others massive importers. Instead,
all countries would hover around balanced trade where their imports equaled their exports
in value. The US government told Keynes to shut up about this plan or they would cancel
their promised postwar loans to the UK. The reason was that at the time the US planned to
be a net exporter. Incidentally, Keynes warned that if the system of managed currency
exchange rates were abandoned, the financial markets would become a "virtual senate" which
would have the power to dictate economic policies to nation states.
"Keynes, who designed the Bretton Woods system, also proposed an international banking
system and currency (called the Bancor). The purpose was to prevent the kind of
unbalanced world trade which now dominates the global economy."
Perpetually caught in a "lesser evil" loop of some variety or another from which the
reformist never escapes, applying the same failed (ruling class) logic over, and over and
over and over...
"But this solves nothing because, as Marx's analysis showed, the crises of capitalism
cannot be overcome by reforms to the monetary system because, while they necessarily
express themselves there, they were rooted in the very foundations of the capitalist
economy, in its DNA so to speak -- that is, in the social relations based on profit and the
market system." -Ten years after Lehman: New financial crises in the making
Keynes' suggestion would have "solved" or rather prevented one problem, but not every
problem of capitalism. Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if
followed, would make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people.
He was consciously trying to save capitalism from itself and said so. But you rightly
point out there is a major problem with this thinking, namely that it ignores the self
interest of governments and capitalists alike, who ignore such concepts of "enlightened"
self interest in favour of short term advantage.
Political reality intruded in Keynes' well-intentioned designs immediately as I've
mentioned and the whole Bretton Woods edifice was knocked down as soon as it proved
inconvenient for US interests.
Similarly, I strongly suspect Keynes would have disapproved of financial deregulation,
but the underlying development of US capitalism led to unstoppable political pressure for
its implementation.
"Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if followed, would
make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people."
For the life of me I can't figure why you'd praise a policy that more effectively
persuades or controls the masses to their own detriment and to the economic benefit of a
minority--other than to conclude that like Keynes and the rest of the petty bourgeoisie,
you're a reformist.
The most important theoretical source of his thinking is his own work "The General
Theory of Employment, Money and Interest" which is available to read or download free
online.
I only recently learned of his Bancor proposal in an article by George Monbiot
originally published in the Guardian. I read it on the Znet website, but I can't remember
when.
As for his quote about the financial markets becoming a virtual senate, I read that in
some article about finance but don't remember the source. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
There could be other books on his theories but he is somewhat unfashionable as mainstream
economics has mostly reverted to a more ideologically driven right wing position.
"In January, while Trump was requesting Congress to allocate funds for the US-Mexico border
wall, China sent delegates to Chile, inviting Latin American leaders to participate in the
Belt and Road Initiative. Months later, as Trump bullied US allies at the NATO summit,
China was wrapping up the "16+1 summit" in Bulgaria, where Chinese investment and
diplomatic relations were marketed to Central and Eastern European leaders. And most
recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping wrapped up his travels throughout Africa, where he
was visiting with heads of state and deepening China's relationships with the continent of
the future, while America picks a one-sided trade fight with Rwanda."
The US "makes war" while China makes business deals. Pick your poison--two capitalists
countries controlled by oligarchs which can only offer the working-class continued
exploitation.
An Excellent piece of article that explains clearly the trajectory that got us into
US-China trade war, and what this means for the Global Capitalist System going forward. If
we remember when trade war topic was first brought into picture Trump administration
officials were saying imposing tariffs on China and Europe were the only way to correct the
unfair trade balances. However, as the months progressed it quickly became known that US
officials were using unfair trade practices of China as a scapegoat to demand further
concessions from the Chinese authorities. These concessions include complete dismantlement
of Made in China 2025 program and put a hold to their Silk Road initiative. In other words,
Donald Trump and the entire American ruling circles see China as an existential long term
threat and they are using trade war as a weapon to contain China's rising political and
economical ambitions.
For now Trump is increasing the tariffs so as to force the Chinese leadership to
acquiesce to his conditions. Of course, I would expect in the coming days Chinese
authorities to rebuff this latest round of sanctions and that they would retaliate their
own tariffs.
On the other hand, the Trump administration has put Iran under severe sanctions, and
they also warned all big European Multinational corporations like Total and others to stop
doing business with Iran after November. So as we can see we are in a very precarious
Global situation right now due to rising contradictions between the needs of Global economy
and nation states.
The US wants to reinforce it's declining global hegemonic position at any cost. Now
they started with economic war against countries they see as not cooperating to their
demands, but under current conditions this could easily transform into Global war at some
point in future.
A confidential report by Belgian investigators confirms that British intelligence services
hacked state-owned Belgian telecom giant Belgacom on behalf of Washington, it was revealed on
Thursday (20 September).
The report, which summarises a five-year judicial inquiry, is almost complete and was
submitted to the office of Justice Minister Koen Geens, a source close to the case told AFP,
confirming Belgian press reports
The matter will now be discussed within Belgium's National Security Council, which
includes the Belgian Prime Minister with top security ministers and officials.
Contacted by AFP, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office and the cabinet of Minister
Geens refused to comment .
####
NO. Shit. Sherlock.
So the real question is that if this has known since 2013, why now? BREXIT?
"... The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a great success. ..."
"... The EU has brought peace to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). ..."
"... You're funny. The EU makes war by other means. The burden of disease in Greece, health loss, risk factors, and health financing, 2000–16: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(18)30130-0.pdf ..."
"... The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing out French and German banks through the backdoor. ..."
"... I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and the US imperium. ..."
"... The NATO establishment is about "making war," ..."
"... All of which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers. ..."
"... In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way ..."
"... The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of Shelling and Bombing. ..."
"... I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it. ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum. ..."
"... Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something. ..."
"... Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is – spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration of east-european workers. ..."
"... The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway). ..."
"... The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence vote the instant May's feet are on British soil. ..."
"... I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them only insofar as she could deliver a deal. ..."
"... I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave. This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other, they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer. ..."
"... But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem. ..."
"... A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave, precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically . ..."
"... British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to bow down and accept the British proposal. ..."
"... Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU / the member states. ..."
"... As a Scot can I point out that it is English politicians who are responsible for this mess? ..."
Posted on
September 20, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. While the
specific observations in this post will be very familiar to readers (you've said the same
things in comments!), I beg to differ with calling the Government's Brexit negotiating stance a
strategy. It's bad habit plus lack of preparation and analysis.
And the UK's lack of calculation and self-awareness about how it is operating means it will
be unable to change course.
By Benjamin Martill, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Dahrendorf Forum where he focuses on
Europe after Brexit. He is based at LSE IDEAS, the London School of Economics's foreign policy
think tank. The Dahrendorf Forum is a joint research venture between LSE and the Hertie School
of Governance in Berlin. Originally published at
openDemocracy
But is this the best strategy for advancing British interests? Here is the argument based on
the findings of a recent Dahrendorf
Forum working paper .
All eyes in British politics are on the negotiations between the UK and the EU over the
terms of the forthcoming British withdrawal from the Union, or Brexit. Surprisingly, questions
of bargaining strategy – once the preserve of diplomats and niche academic journals
– have become some of the most defining issues in contemporary British politics.
The New Politics of Bargaining
Cabinet disagreements over the conduct of the negotiations led to the resignation of David
Davis and Boris Johnson in early July 2018 and the issue continues to divide the ruling
Conservative party. Theresa May's most recent statements have all addressed the question of how
hard she has pushed Brussels in the talks.
But is the hard bargaining strategy appropriate, or will it ultimately harm the UK? The
salience of this question should occasion deeper analysis of the fundamentals of international
bargaining, given the extent to which the course of British politics will be determined by the
government's performance (or perceived performance) in the Brexit talks.
Driving a Hard Bargain
A hard-bargaining strategy isn't necessarily a poor one. To the extent it is workable, it
may even represent the sensible option for the UK.
Hard bargaining is characterised by negative representations of negotiating partners,
unwillingness to make concessions, issuance of unrealistic demands, threats to damage the
partner or exit the negotiations, representations of the talks in zero-sum terms, failure to
provide argumentation and evidence, and withholding of information. From diplomats' portrayal
of the EU as an uncooperative and bullying negotiating partner to a set of demands recognised
as unrealistic in Brussels and Britain alike, the UK's approach to the Brexit negotiations
scores highly on each of these measures.
The consensus in the academic literature is generally that hard bargaining works only
where a given party has a relative advantage . Powerful states have an incentive to engage
in hard bargaining, since by doing so they will be able to extract greater concessions from
weaker partners and maximise the chance of achieving an agreement on beneficial terms.
But weaker actors have less incentive to engage in hard bargaining, since they stand to lose
more materially if talks break down and reputationally if they're seen as not being backed by
sufficient power,
So which is Britain?
Power Distribution
The success of hard bargaining depends on the balance of power. But even a cursory
examination would seem to confirm that the UK does not hold the upper hand in the negotiations.
Consider three standard measures of
bargaining power: a country's economic and military capabilities, the available alternatives to
making a deal, and the degree of constraint emanating from the public.
When it comes to capabilities, the UK is a powerful state with considerable economic clout
and greater military resources than its size would typically warrant. It is the second-largest
economy in the EU (behind Germany) and its GDP is equal to that of the smallest 19 member
states. And yet in relative terms, the combined economic and military power of the EU27 dwarves
that of the UK: the EU economy is five times the size of the UK's.
Next, consider the alternatives. A 'no deal' scenario would be damaging for both the UK and
the EU, but the impact would be more diffuse for the EU member states. They would each lose one
trading partner, whereas the UK would lose all of its regional trading partners. Moreover, the
other powers and regional blocs often cited as alternative trading partners (the US, China, the
Commonwealth, ASEAN) are not as open as the EU economy to participation by external parties,
nor are they geographically proximate (the greatest determinant of trade flows), nor will any
deal be able to replicate the common regulatory structure in place in the EU. This asymmetric
interdependence strongly suggests that the UK is in greater need of a deal than the EU.
Finally, consider the extent of domestic constraints. Constraint enhances power by
credibly preventing a leader from offering too generous a deal to the other side. On the EU
side the constraints are clear: Barnier receives his mandate from the European Council (i.e.
the member states) to whom he reports frequently. When asked to go off-piste in the
negotiations, he has replied that he does not have the mandate to do so. On the UK side, by
contrast, there is no such mandate. British negotiators continually cite Eurosceptic opposition
to the EU's proposals in the cabinet, the Conservative party, and the public, but they are
unable to guarantee any agreement will receive legislative assent, and cannot cite any unified
position.
Perceptions of Power
But the real power distribution is not the only thing that matters. While the EU is the more
powerful actor on objective criteria, a number of key assumptions and claims made by the
Brexiteers have served to reinforce the perception that Britain has the upper hand.
First, on the question of capabilities, the discourse of British greatness (often based on
past notions of power and prestige) belies the UK's status as a middle power (at best) and
raises unrealistic expectations of what Britain's economic and military resources amount to.
Second, on the question of alternatives, the oft-repeated emphasis on 'global Britain' and the
UK's stated aim to build bridges with its friends and allies around the globe understates the
UK's reliance on Europe, the (low) demand for relations with an independent Britain abroad, and
the value of free trade agreements or other such arrangements with third countries for the UK.
Third, on the question of domestic constraint, the post-referendum discourse of an indivisible
people whose wishes will be fulfilled only through the implementation of the Brexit mandate
belies the lack of consensus in British politics and the absence of a stable majority for
either of the potential Brexit options, including the 'no deal', 'hard', or 'soft' variants of
Brexit. Invoking 'the people' as a constraint on international action, in such circumstances,
is simply not credible.
Conclusion
Assumptions about Britain's status as a global power, the myriad alternatives in the wider
world, and the unity of the public mandate for Brexit, have contributed to the overstatement of
the UK's bargaining power and the (false) belief that hard bargaining will prove a winning
strategy.
Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits of the UK's
bargaining power. This is not 'treasonous', as ardent Brexiteers have labelled similar nods to
reality, but is rather the only way to ensure that strategies designed to protect the national
interest actually serve this purpose. Power is a finite resource that cannot be talked into
existence. Like a deflating puffer fish, the UK's weakness will eventually become plain to see.
The risk is that before this occurs, all bridges will be burned, all avenues exhausted, and all
feathers ruffled.
The opinions expressed in this blog contribution are entirely those of the author and do
not represent the positions of the Dahrendorf Forum or its hosts Hertie School of Governance
and London School of Economics and Political Science or its funder Stiftung Mercator.
I tend to agree that there is no real strategy on the UK's part. May resembles a broken
record, where she says much the same thing over and over again, seemingly expecting a
different response each time. Although Einstein said that he probably never made the claim
about what insanity consists of, it is often attributed to him -- doing the same thing over
and over expecting different results is the very definition of insanity. How the government
expects that this sort of behavior will bring desirable results is beyond me.
Both UK and EU politicians are talking past each other. Neither side understands there are
two key issues. Firstly, not understanding the economic effects stemming from the failure to
understand how money is created and how it can be manipulated for global trading advantage.
Secondly, that the UK is high up the list for "cultural tightness" and the reasons for
this.
The other element of course of a negotiation is getting potential allies to roll up behind
you. At the start of this the UK had a series of potential 'friends' it could call on –
eurosceptics governments in Eastern Europe, close historic friends and political like minded
governments in Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. And of course non-EU countries
like India or the US with historic links.
They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those though its heavy handed
negotiations or laughable lack of political empathy.
It must be emphasised that the current Irish government is ideologically and instinctively
very pro-London. And yet, today RTE is
reporting about the latest meeting between May and Varadkar:
The source said there was "an open exchange of views" between both sides, with the Irish
delegation emphasising that the time was short and "we need to get to the stage where we
can consider a legal text" on the backstop.
The source described British proposals so far as "only an outline, and we haven't seen
specific proposals from the British side."
This can only be translated as 'what the hell are they playing at?'
The Indians of course were amusedly baffled by the British assumption that they would
welcome open trade (without lots of new visas for Indian immigrants). Trump just smelt the
blood of a wounded animal. The Russians are well
The British cited the EU's inability to conclude a free-trade agreement with India as one
example of the EU's failings a revitalized Global Britain would no longer be shackled by.
That's quite rich considering the FTA was torpedoed when the British Home Secretary vetoed
increased visas for the Indians. Her name was Theresa May.
They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those
Somehow?
The brits basically said: We are special people, much, much better, richer and stronger
than you sorry lot of Peons to Brussels(tm), so now you shall see sense and give us what we
want this week; you can call it your tribute if you like (because we don't care what you like
:)
Half the Danes are fed up with the whole thing and the other half would be egging on a
hard Brexit if only they could – knowing it will likely take out at least some of the
worst and most overleveraged (and gorged with tax-paid subsidies) Anti-Environmentalist
Danish industrial farmers, their bankers too. And diminish the power of their lobbyists:
"Landbrug & Fødevarer"!
The good part is that: the British and the Danish governments have managed to make "being
ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels" look like a pretty much OK & decent deal,
considering the alternative options: Being ruled by our local crazies, straight-up nutters
and odious nincompoops (a word i like), half of whom, to top it up, are probably mere
soulless proxies for those ghouls that are running Washington DC.
It seems more and more to me, that never ending class warfare, and its current emphasis on
austerity, leaves us unable to envision alternate routes to economic health.
The neo-liberal consensus mandates that our ruling class never questions its own tactics,
ie dog-whistle racism to distract and divide the lower classes to enable all the looting.
So on both sides of the Atlantic, the rulers of English speakers stir up resentment
amongst those at the bottom in order to secure votes, and maintain power, while never
intending to follow through on promises to provide tangible material benefits to their
constituents.
The looting goes on, the trail of broken promises grows longer, and the misery
deepens.
The issue being ignored is that the folks at the bottom have reached the limit of their
ability to maintain life and limb in the face of downward economic pressure.
We've finally reached the end game, we in America have been driven to Trumpism, and in
Britain they've been driven to Brexit by the clueless efforts of pols to maintain power in
the face of electorates who have decided they have had enough, and will absolutely not take
the SOS anymore.
So we have the nonsensical situation of pols on both sides of the Atlantic flirting with
economic collapse, and even civil war rather than moderate their irrational fixation on
making the insanely rich even richer.
In both cases we have a cast of alternating villains robbing and beating us while waving
flags and loudly complaining that we aren't showing the proper level of enthusiasm.
Which leaves me with one question for those villains;
Why no one, especially the punditocracy seems to realize this, is astonishing.
I also cannot believe the Old Gray Lady killing millions of trees in its shrill efforts to
prove the Russians cost Hilary the election and nary a word about how totally fed up and
voiceless (with the exception of a single presidential vote) are those in the Great
Flyover.
Also find it amazing that the Beeb with rudimentary linguistic forensic analysis
identified Mike Pence as almost certainly the author of the scathing anti-Trump memo the NYT
published anonymously, without a single mention of this now widely-known fact.
On a related note, while this was about the tactics of leaving, there has been some
movement on the end state front, though not by the UK. Rather it seems that the EU has made
up it's mind, and in my mind definitively scrapped the EEA option.
Several EU leaders (Pms of Malta and the Czech republic) have clearly stated that they wish
to see a new referendum, and Macron said the following:
"Brexit is the choice of the British people pushed by those who predicted easy solutions.
Those people are liars. They left the next day so they didn't have to manage it," Macron said
on Thursday, vowing to "never" accept any Brexit deal, which would put the EU's integrity at
risk.
I think the bridges have been burned, now it's surrender or revocation that's left to the
UK, or stepping off the cliff edge.
It is astonishing to see that the UK still does not accept that the EU doesn't want it to
go on principle more than for practical reasons. May and the others cling to the notion that
without Great Britain, the EU will collapse or something. This is the same nation that has
been foot-dragging on everything about Europe and slagging off the continent at every turn
while pretending they are a Great Power and the BFF of the US. Trump does not care about
Great Britain unless he needs some sort of zoning permission for his gold course, in which
case he will cut a deal on trade or arms with May.
The Irish Border, assuming it remains open, is a massive concession and likely to lead to
future problems as other EU nations try to have open borders or trade with their pet
countries.
Brits on the Continent are worried about many things ranging from driver's licenses to
residency visas! Not every Brit wants to live on that damp little island! Some like the sun
and Continental cuisine.
Is the EU a Great Idea to be Protected and Advanced, one that will inexorably result in
ever greater benefits for the common people of the fainting nations that have been cat-herded
into submitting to the "political union" that many very personally interested parties are
always working toward? Like NATO is a Great Idea, not just a mechanism for global mischief
and chaos? NATO gives "warfighters" a place to sit and play their games. Brussels gives
"rules," at least some of which are sort of for public benefit, until the regulatory
capturers work their magic. Profit and impunity, always for the few.
What is the organizing principle in all this? Likely can't be stated. Just a lot of
interested parties squabbling over gobbets from the carcass torn from the planet
Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all? If one looks in "A Distant
Mirror" at it, given where humanity seems to be, on the increasingly fleshed-out timeline of
collapse?
OF course, one can always summon up the demoness TINA, to trump any efforts to take
different paths
NATO was created to make war. The EU was created to make peace and prosperity. Comparing
one to the other is unjust.
The EU is not some sacrosanct construct that must be worshiped, but it has brought peace
to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). It
has also promoted trade and prosperity. Europe has been even farther ahead of economic and
regulatory integration than the US (phones and credit cards come to mind). Free movement of
labor and travel have dropped costs for businesses and individuals immensely.
Now, whether or not human foibles enter into it is really another discussion. Is Brussels
at times a giant Interest Machine and Bureaucratic Nightmare? Yes, but that is the negative
face we see portrayed by anti-Europeans like the Brexiteers. The EU does a terrible job of
self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU contributes to their lives. Perhaps
the EU is afraid of drawing attention to itself. But the people making up the EU are not
extraterrestrials; they are Europeans who make the same mistakes and commit the same fraud on
a national level.
Many Americans criticize Europe while vaunting their own Federation. Why should California
and Alabama share a currency, a passport and a Congress? There are more differences between
those states than between France and Belgium or Italy and Spain.
The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a
great success.
The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and
Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing
out French and German banks through the backdoor.
If you want to start accounting for economic death by economic war, we can look at the US
as recently as the financial crisis, though I doubt there are studies on the Homeland of this
sort. Or US embargoes of vital medication and food in Iraq which led to hundreds of thousands
of deaths. And so on.
My point is not that the EU is perfect, but there has not been a war in Western Europe since
1945. You are welcome to spin and fiddle and search for anything you like (Gosh, all that
free travel led to increases in traffic deaths! Ban the EU!). Of course, we would also need
to examine what the EU has done for Europe and how many lives have been saved by improved
infrastructure and exchange of information.
I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile
and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how
wonderful life would be without it. Let's see how Great Britain does and then we can discuss
this in a few years.
I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and
such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I
recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and
the US imperium.
The NATO establishment is about "making war," largely now displaced to other Woggish and Hajji places where the huge number of refugees that are moving into Eurospace are
coming from (as a result of the largely economically driven (oil and other extraction
interests) and Israeli and Saudi-enhanced large scale destabilizing war prosecution.
All of
which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of
weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers.
Yes, the EU notion of reducing the conflict generators of the past seems to be a good one.
But surprise! In practice, you got your German hegemon and your French strutters and now of
course the British bomb throwers pointing out, along with the renascent nationalism triggered
in part by the hegemon's bleeding of other nations via Brussels and EU institutions, like
Greece and Spain and Italy and so forth.
And of course the warring that the seamless
economies of the EU (that includes their particpation in NATO) foster and participate in that
drives the exodus of mopes from the Mideast and Africa. And how about the fun and games, with
possible nuclear war consequences, that are playing out with EU and NATO and of course US
Imperial Interests activity in Ukraine? And I see that the Krupp Werks has delivered a bunch
of warships to various places (hasn't that happened a couple of times in the past? Thinking
how particularly of Dolphin-class submarines paid for by Uncle Sucker, as in the US, and
delivered to the Israel -ites who have equipped them with many nuclear-warhead cruise
missiles? And thanks to the French, of course, and other Great Nations, the Israelis have
nuclear weapons in the first place.
It's nice that the science parts of the EU structure are sort of working to keep US-made
toxins and genetically modified crap and other bad stuff out of the Holy EU Empire. But hey,
how many VW diesel vehicles on the road (thanks to some combination of corruption and
incompetence on the part of the EU?) equals how much glyphosate and stacked-GM organisms
barred by EU regulations? Lots of argument possible around the margins and into the core of
the political economy/ies that make up the EU/NATO, and the Dead Empire across the Channel,
and of course the wonderful inputs from the empire I was born into.
I guess the best bet
would be to program some AI device to create a value structure (to be democratically studied
and voted on, somehow?) and measure all the goods and bads of the EU, according to some kind
of standard of Goodness to Mope-kind? Naw, power trumps all that of course, and "interests"
now very largely denominated and dominated by supranational corporations that piss on the EU
when not using its institutions as a means to legitimize their looting behaviors that sure
look to me like an expression of a death wish from the human species.
There are always winners and losers in any human game, because at anything larger than the
smallest scale, we do not appear wired to work from comity and commensalism. You sound from
the little one can see of you from your comment as a person among the winners. Which is fine,
all well and good, because of that "winners and losers" thing. Until either the mass vectors
of human behavior strip the livability out of the biosphere, or some provocation or mischance
leads to a more compendious and quicker, maybe nuclear, endpoint. Or maybe, despite the
activities of the Panopticon and the various powers with forces in the polity to tamp it
down, maybe there will be a Versailles moment, and "Aux Armes, Citoyens" will eventuate.
In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and
nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are
going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way
I suggest you read up on your recent European history. Czechoslovakia split entirely
peacefully and it had exactly zero to do with either NATO or USA.
Yugoslavia had its problems ever since it was Yugoslavia in early 20th century – all
Tito managed was to postpone it, and once he was gone, it was just a question of when, and
how violent it would be. Serbian apologistas like to blame NATO, conveniently ignoring any
pre-existing tensions between Croats and Serbs (not to mention ex-Yugoslavian muslims). Did
NATO help? No. But saying it was the cause of the Serbo-Croat war and all the Yugoslavian
fallout is ignorance.
What gets my goat is when someone blames everything on CIA, USA, NATO (or Russia and China
for the matter), denying the small peoples any agency. Especially when that someone tends to
have about zilch understanding of the regions in question, except from a selective
reading.
Yep, CIA and NATO and the Illuminati (and Putin, to put it on both sides) are the
all-powerful, all seeing, all-capable forces. Everyone else is a puppet. Right.
The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace
since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to
appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of
Shelling and Bombing. From your lofty armchair, they might be the same but then again,
perhaps you blame the socialists when your caramel latte is cold.
Lofty armchair? I actually volunteered and got the opportunity to go be a soldier in an
actual war, the Vietnam one. So I have a darn good idea what War is in actuality and from
unpleasant personal experience. And I don't have either the taste or the wealth for lattes.
And forgive my aging failure of typing Czech instead of Yugo -- my point, too, is that the
nations and sets of "peoples" living and involved in United Europe do in fact have "agency,"
and that is part of the fractiousness that the proponents of a federated Europe (seemingly
under mostly German lead) are working steadily at suppressing. Not as effectively as a
Federalist might want, of course.
TheScream wrote: I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending
the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter
fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it.
Wake up. I'm talking about what the European elite in the real world deliberately
chose to do.
They chose to do a backdoor bailout of German and French banks specifically so
Merkel, Sarkozy and Hollande and the governments they led didn't have to go to their
electorates and tell them the truth. Thereby, they maintained themselves in power, and German
and French wealth structures -- the frickin', frackin banks -- as they were. And they did
this in the real world knowing that innocent people in Greece would die in
substantial numbers consequently.
This is not a counterfactual. This happened.
There's a technical term for people who plan and execute policies where many thousands of
people die so they themselves can benefit. That term is 'scum.'
Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU
elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could
maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum.
Don't get me started on people who defend such scum with threadbare waffle about 'I am not
defending poor governance per blah blah it is facile and fun to criticize blah blah.' Nor
interested in whataboutery about US elites, who as the main instigators of this 21st century
model of finance as warfare are also scum.
Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil
specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or
unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something.
My point is not that EU leaders are charming people working exclusively for the good of the
people. My point is that the EU is not as bad as most of you believe and no worse than most
other governments. It is simply an easy target because it is extra or supra-national. We can
get all frothy at the mouth blaming Nazis and Frogs for our woes and ignore our personal
failures.
I would love to insult you personally as you have insulted me, but I sense you are just
ranting out of frustration. You hate the EU (are you even European or just some right-wing
nutcase from America involving yourself in other's business?) and take it out on me. Go for
it. Your arguments are irrelevant and completely miss the point of my comments.
The EU does a terrible job of self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU
contributes to their live
The EU is, very simplistically, set up like a shared Civil Service. Civil Services are to
be seen rarely and never heard, less they take shine and glamour from the Government they
serve.
What "Bruxelles" can do is to advise and create Directives, which are instructions to
local government to create and enforce local legislation. The idea is that the legislation
and enforcement will be similar in all EU member states.
Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that
especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is
– spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this
terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration
of east-european workers.
The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced
to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever
for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving
government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a
toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway).
"Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all?"
Hopefully sarcastic?
Dude -- black plague! 75 to 200 million dead! At a tie with a world population of 400
million, and 40 million of those may as well have been on Mars! China, ME, North Africa and
Europe depopulated!
Time to really reconsider one's assumptions when one wonders whether the 14th century was
"that bad".
Dude, yes, sarcastic. And ironic. Doesn't change the horribleness of the present, does it
now? Or the coming horrors (say some of us) that may have been inevitably priced in to the
Great Global Market, does it
Donald Tusk, the European council president, has ratcheted up the pressure on Theresa
May by rejecting the Chequers plan and warning of a breakdown in the Brexit talks unless
she delivers a solution for the Irish border by October – a deadline the British
prime minister had already said she will not be able to meet.
The stark threat to unravel the talks came as the French president, Emmanuel Macron,
broke with diplomatic niceties and accused those of backing Brexit of being liars. "Those
who explain that we can easily live without Europe, that everything is going to be all
right, and that it's going to bring a lot of money home are liars," he said.
"It's even more true since they left the day after so as not to have to deal with it."
The comments came at the end of a leaders' summit in Salzburg, where May had appealed
for the EU to compromise to avoid a no-deal scenario. She had been hoping to take warm
words over Chequers into Conservative party conference.
Tusk, who moments before his comments had a short meeting with the prime minister, told
reporters that he also wanted to wrap up successful talks in a special summit in
mid-November.
But, in a step designed to pile pressure on the prime minister, he said this would not
happen unless the British government came through on its commitment to finding a "precise
and clear" so-called backstop solution that would under any future circumstances avoid a
hard border on the island of Ireland.
"Without an October grand finale, in a positive sense of this word, there is no reason
to organise a special meeting in November," Tusk said. "This is the only condition when it
comes to this possible November summit."
It seems the EU leaders aren't even pretending anymore. Its pretty clear they have run out
of patience, and May has run out of options. I wonder if they'll even bother with having the
November summit.
If there's no November summit (which would make no-deal Brexit almost certainty), then the
game becomes fast a and furious, as sterling will drop like a stone – with all sorts of
repercussions. TBH, that can already be clear after the Tory party conference, it's entirely
possible that that one will make any October Brexit discussions entirely irrelevant.
I think that EU overestimated May in terms of sensibility, and now accept that there's no
difference between May and Johnson (in fact, with Johnson or someone like that, they will get
certainy, so more time to get all ducks in row. Entirely cynically, clear no-deal Brexit
Johnson would be better for EU than May where one has no idea what's going to happen).
Either way, this crop of politicians will make history books. Not sure in the way they
would like to though.
Announced post-summit in Salzburg: no November summit absent a binding exit deal on the
table by the end of October. So no: no November dealing.
I don't know that EU politicos overestimated May. She is what they had, and all they had,
so they did their absolute best to prop up Rag Sack Terry as a negotiating partner, hoping
that they could coax her to toddle over their red lines with enough willingness to listen to
her hopeless twaddle first. She just shuffled and circled in place. So they've given up on
her ability to deliver anything of value to them. One could see this coming in June, when she
couldn't even get the sound of one hand clapping to her chipper nonsense over dinner.
I think that deciding heads in Europe have accepted the probability that crashout is
coming. That was clear also in June. If something better happens, I suppose that they would
leap at it. Nothing in the last two years engenders any hope in that regard, so hard heads
are readying the winches to hoist the drawbridge on We're Dead to You Day.
If the Tories fall, which I think and have long thought is probable, it would be up to a
'unity government' to either initial a settlement surrender and keep the sham going, or
flinch. My bet has been on pulling together some kind of flinch mechanism on aborting exit.
It's the kind of year, as I model these, where wild swings of such kind are possible, but I
couldn't predict the outcome anymore than anyone else.
My feeling for a while is that the government would never fall, whatever happened, simply
because the Tories (and DUP) fear a Corbyn government too much, so would never, ever pull the
trigger, no matter how bad things got. But if May falls at the Party Conference and is
replaced with a hard Brexiter, I don't think its impossible that there may be a temptation
that to see if they could whip up a nationalistic mood for a snap election. Some of them are
gamblers by instinct. Anything could happen then.
I think Tory Remainers bolt, choosing keeping their own wallets rather than handing those
over to the worst of their lot with everything else. But they would find a unity coalition
more palatable than passing the microphone to Jerry the Red, yeah, so that's a bit sticky. A
snap election is the worst kind of crazy town, and wolldn't improve negotiating or decision
outcomes in the slightest -- so of course that may be the likeliest near term course! Won't
get settled in a few weeks. Probably not until 20 March 2019.
This is just wowsers. Tusk, Macron, and Merkel baldly state that Chequers is mated --
"unacceptable" -- and furthermore gave the Tories a drop-dead date of 31 October to initial
the divorce settlement. The process is a flat abandonment of Theresa May, concluding the
obvious, that she and her government are incapable of negotiating exit. Going over her head
to Parliament and public, in fact if not in pre-consisdered intent. -- And about time. I was
worried that the EU would eat fudge in November with the Brits again on another
pretend-to-agree accord like that of December 2017, which, as we have seen did nothing to
induce the Tories to negotiate a viable outcome.
What was May's reaction? That she's perfectly prepared to lead Britain over the crashout
cliff if the EU doesn't see fit to capitulate. I'd roll on the floor laughing but I can't
catch my breath.
The next two weeks are going to be lively times in Britain indeed. I can't see how
'Suicide Terry's' government can survive this situation. -- And about high time. Put the poor
brute out of her misery; she's delusional, can't they see how she's suffering? Push has come,
so it's time to shove. Crashout or Flinch, those are the outcomes, now plainer than ever. All
May can do is thrash and fabulate, so time to bag the body and swear in another fool; lesser
or greater, we shall see.
Yes, I wonder was that planned, or (as is suggested in the
latest Guardian articl e), motivated by anger at Mays criticism of Barnier?
EU sources said the move had been made on the bidding of Macron, who urged taking a hard
line over lunch. The French president had been infuriated by May's warning earlier in the
day to Varadkar that she believed a solution on the issue could not be found by October,
despite previous promises to the contrary.
The tone of the prime minister's address to the EU leaders on Wednesday night, during
which she attacked Michel Barnier, is also said by sources to have been the cause of
irritation.
This obviously makes her very vulnerable at the party conference. Its hard to see what she
can do now. She is toast I think.
I can only think of two reasons that they've closed the door firmly in her face. Either
they have simply lost patience and now accept there is nothing can be salvaged, or they have
lost patience with May personally, and hope that a new leader might do a deal out of
desperation. The latter seems highly unlikely – a sudden Tory challenge is more likely
to bring a hardliner into power.
Whichever way you look at it, things look certain to come to a head very soon now. The EU
may have a hope that the UK will blink when staring into the abyss and agree to the backstop,
but I don't see how politically this a capitulation is possible, at least with the Tories in
power.
The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly
between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other
parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence
vote the instant May's feet are on British soil.
I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of
state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them
only insofar as she could deliver a deal. Macron looked at his watch and the date said, non on that. Just looking at his ambitions and how he operates, I would think he
wanted to go this route quite some time ago, but the 'softly, softly' set such as the Dutch
and Merkel wouldn't back that, and he was too smart to break ranks alone. That the Germans
have given up on May is all one really needs to know. This was May's no confidence vote by
the European Council, and she lost it over lunch.
I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today
it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to
help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the
December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave.
This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other,
they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer.
But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any
type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if
the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes
absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK
goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem.
At this point it might actually be a blessing if that happened. There is likely to be a
great deal of practical difference between a no-deal Brexit with six months of planning and
preparation and a no-deal Brexit that takes everyone by surprise at the very last minute.
(Yes, they will both be a nightmare, but some nightmares are worse than others). All this
pretense that the other side is bluffing and will roll over at the 11th hour is starting to
look like a convenient excuse for not facing reality. I don't think either side is
bluffing.
Comments like "Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits
of the UK's bargaining power" might very well be true, but they're also irrelevant at this
point. Certainly it would have been very useful if it had happened two years ago. Right now
it's time to break out the life jackets.
Most Brits don't seem capable of mentally accepting how irrelevant they actually are
internationally. They are NOT a 'power' in any other respect than that they have nuclear
weapons under their launch authority (which they are never going to use). They have no
weight. The City is, really other people's money that predominantly foreign nationals at
trading desks play with, loose, steal, hide, and occasionally pay out. The UK economy isn't
of any international consequence. Brits are embedded in the international diplomatic
process, in a dead language speakers kind of way, which makes them seem important. But they
are not.
So there was never going to be a reassessment of the weaknesses of Britain's negotiating
position, nor will there be now exactly, because most in Britain cannot get their heads
around the essential premise to such a discussion, the Britain is now essentially trivial on
the power scale rather than of any real consequence. The Kingdom of Saud has more real power.
Turkey is a more consequential actor. Mexico has more people. &etc.
If one is to accept the convictions of master bloviator Niall Ferguson and other
Brexiteers, the issue is issue. Brexit is about immigration, period. The EU claims it will
not bend on free movement of people, Brexiteers will not accept anything less. There was such
a huge outcry when May mentioned the possibility of 'preferential' treatment for EU citizens
back in July she threatened any further public dissent in the party would result in sackings.
The EU insists there can be no trade deals, no freed movement of goods without free movement
of people, for good reasons. Hard to imagine them climbing down.
There's about as many reasons why people voted Brexit as there's different Brexits they
wanted. Immigration is just one of the convenient scapegoats peddled by both sides, although
for different reasons.
If you want a better (but still not complete) reason, try decreasing real income.
I'd like to know what those "many different reasons" are. Sovereignty? Well, that rolls
off the tongue more easily than "immigration" which, leavers know, sounds a bit racist.
"Control of borders" works for leavers like Nigell, although he went on at great length about
how it's all about immigration, after talking to all the 'real' folks in the provinces.
My Irish/Brit family's Own Private Brexit: the grandparents are entitled to naturalisation
and voted Leave, the children are subjects/citizens and voted Remain (and almost all vote
Tory), the grandchildren are compromised subjects/citizens and didn't have a vote. Everyone's
happy to be entitled to an EU passport. The Pakistan offshoot has a less complex variation
(fewer rights), but I believe their family voted Leave on balance. Life.
A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave,
precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united
Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically .
Majority of the drop in real income is NOT driven by immigration. You may find it
surprising, but there were times with large (relatively speaking) immigration and the real
incomes going up.
I don't believe it is either, you seem to think these views are my own. I am speculating,
with some basis, that a majority of leavers think so. Anti-immigration attitudes are
entrenched and growing. Just the other day a teacher, no less, spouted off about how
immigrants were causing crime and stealing jobs. This is in a blue city in a blue state. I
was shocked.
People come up with fantasy explanations when they've been reduced from realistic
assessments to fantastic ideologies. If there's a clear answer but you are ideologically
constrained from considering it, you need to invent some answer, the nuttier the better.
I think a major part of the problem is that British politicians and media seem to believe
that Brexit is mainly (or exclusively) a British topic.
One British politician publishes one proposal, another British politician shoots it down.
With the British media reporting about it gleefully for days. Newspaper articles, opinion
pieces. Without even mentioning what the EU might think about it. The EU seems to not exist
in this bubble.
Just remember the more than 60 "notices to stakeholders" published by the EU months ago.
And freely available for reading on the Internet. I´ve read British media online for a
long time now but somehow these notices never made any impact. It was only when the first
British impact assessments were published (not that long ago) that British media started to
report about possible problems after a no-deal Brexit. Problems / consequences that were
mentioned in the EU notices months ago.
It´s almost unbelievable. It looks like if something isn´t coming from London (or
Westminster) then it doesn´t exist in the British media.
And it´s the same with British politicians.
David Davis and the back-stop deal in late 2017?. He agreed with it during the negotiations,
returned home and then said that it wasn´t binding, just a letter of intent. Or Michael
Gove a few days ago? Regardless of what agreement PM T. May negotiates now with the EU, a new
PM can simply scrap it and negotiate a new deal? Or send government members to the EU member
states to try and undermine Barnier as reported in British media? How exactly is that
building trust?
Have they never heard about the Internet? And that today even foreigners might read British
media?
Brexit supporter Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the MP for the 18th century but surely they know
that today there are faster methods for messages than using pigeons?
What about foreign investment in the UK? The gateway to the EU? Japanese car
companies?
The drop in foreign investment was reported, to be sure. But after a few days it was
immediately forgotten.
T. May according to British media articles apparently developed her Brexit strategy (and
her red lines) together with her two closest political advisers back in late 2016 / early
2017. No cabinet meeting to discuss the strategy, no ordering of impact assessments which
might have influenced the strategy (and the goals). And apparently – in my opinion
– no detailed briefing on how the EU actually works. What might be realistically
possible and what not.
The resignation of Ivan Rogers seems to support my speculations. Plus the newspaper
articles in early 2017 which mentioned that visitors to certain British government ministries
were warned not to criticize Brexit or warn about negative consequences. Such warnings would
result in no longer being invited to visit said ministry and minister.
If they actually went through with that policy they created an echo chamber with no
dissenting voices allowed.
Which might explain why they had no plan to deal with the EU.
British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once
they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to
bow down and accept the British proposal.
And now when the EU hasn´t followed the script they don´t know what to do?
I´m not an expert but it was pretty clear to me that the Chequers deal would never
work. It was pretty obvious even when EU politicians were somewhat polite about it when T.
May proposed it.
It might have been a good starting point for negotiations if she had introduced it in 2017.
But in July 2018? Just a few months before negotiations were supposed to be concluded? And
then claiming it´s the only realistic proposal? It´s my way or the highway?
It was obvious.
Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a
serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU
/ the member states.
I really think the EU member states have finally concluded that T. May is incapable of
producing (and getting a majority in the House of Commons) for any realistic solution.
Therefore helping her with statements to keep her politically alive doesn´t make sense
any longer. The EU would probably really, really like a solution that gives them at least the
transition period. Another 21 months to prepare for Brexit. But fudging things only get you
that far .
The UK apparently never understood that it´s one thing to bend rules or fudge things to
get the agreement of a member state. It´s quite another thing with a soon -to-be
ex-member state.
I am a German citizen, living in Germany.
The (German weekly printed newspaper) Zeit Online website did have three articles about
Brexit in the last few days. Which is noteworthy since they normally have 1-2 articles per
month.
And the comments were noteworthy too.
Almost all of them now favor a hard-line approach by the EU.
The UK lost a lot of sympathy and support in the last two years. Not because of the
referendum result itself but because of the actions and speeches of British politicians
afterwards.
The UK had a rebate, opt-outs and excemptions. All because successive British governments
pointed to their EU-sceptic opposition. Now the population voted for Brexit the British want
a deal that gives them all (or most) of the advantages of EU membership without any of the
obligations. To reduce the economic consequences of their decision.
No longer.
Actions have consequences.
And if it means we´ll have to support Ireland, we´ll do it.
The German commentators quite obviously have lost their patience with the UK.
This is the first article that I have seen that talks about power. The ability to
influence or outright control the behavior of people. Money has power. It is needed to eat,
heal and shelter in the West. But, it is never talked about. This is because it would raise
inconvenient truths. The wealthy are accumulating it and everyone else in the West is losing
it. The neo-liberal/neo-conservative ideologies are the foundation of this exploitation. It
is the belief that markets balance and there is no society. "Greed is good. Might is right."
Plutocrats rule the west. Democracy died. There are two versions of similar corporate
political parties in the USA. The little people matter not. Politicians are servants of the
oligarchs. Global trade is intertwined and not redundant. What will happen will be to the
benefit of the very few in power. Donald Trump is raising the price of all Chinese goods
shipped into the USA and sold at Walmart and Amazon. A Brexit crash seems inevitable.
Amen! It is ALWAYS about power. And the only way to deal with the elites is "Lord of the
Rings" style:
their money must be cast into a financial version of Mount Doom, breaking their power once
and for all. You folks in the UK need to make douchebag Brexiteers like Nigel Farrage suffer
total loss of power for forcing this disaster on you.
There is a huge source of wealth that UK monopolises from Treasure Islands that operate
the City's tax havens. That money goes straight back to City banks and flows into the market
economy, independently of trade and commerce. It underwrites the derivatives biz that keeps
the market economy afloat, paying pensions and profits and Directors' options.
Leaving the EU might have an effect but not a big one. Is that why UK seems so blithely
unconcerned?
The offshore wealth is certainly why the core hard Brexiters are unconcerned, because
thats where they store their cash. They don't care if the UK goes down.
But in the longer term, they are under threat – within the EU the UK consistently
vetoed any attempts to crack down on internal tax havens. The internal political balance of
the EU is now much more firmly anti tax avoidance with the UK gone, so there would be little
to stop a series of Directives choking off the Channel Island/Isle of Man option for money
flows.
Split Brain Syndrome: They seem think that the EU is Lucifer's Army Incarnate and then
they apparently also think at the same time, that "The Army of Darkness" once unleashed from
the responsible British leadership into the hands of those per-definition also demonic French
and Germans will still "play cricket" and not come after their tax-havens ASAP, like in 2020
or so.
May now demanding that the EU respect Great Britain. We are back to the beginning again.
May has no leverage beyond the EU wanting Britain to stay in . But if Britain goes out, then
it's out. The only way for May to get any concessions would be to offer to stay in! And even
then I am not sure the EU would accept since it would simply open the way for any member to
have a tantrum and demand better terms.
GB should leave, wallow in their loneliness a while and then ask to come back. I suspect
that the EU would reinstate them fully without the usual processes. Check back here in 24-36
months.
Dr. Hart's book is invaluable because it highlights some of the basic truths about America
that modern-day histories simply conceal. For example, he writes: "America is much younger than
most European
nations . It did not exist at all prior to 1600 AD but was created
in the ' colonial era .'"
Dr. Hart provides a basic history of America's development, including highlighting specific
incidents that ultimately proved critical to the future of the polity. One of the more
interesting was the Zenger
trial, a
colonial case in which a journalist criticized the local governor
and was charged with libel. A grand jury refused to indict Zenger, accepting his defense that
the things he printed were true. Thanks to this case, Americans can claim truth as an absolute
defense in libel cases, something
our British cousins lack .
A highlight of Dr. Hart's history is his careful attention to demographic issues. For
example, he scoffs at the claim sometimes heard within the
dimmer quarters of the
American Conservative Movement that the Constitution was a "miracle." Instead, Dr. Hart
shows that the authors of America's governing document shared linguistic, cultural, racial, and
experiential factors that
allowed them to work together. (Contemporary American statesmen possess no such unanimity.)
Dr. Hart is also not blind to the Constitution's faults, especially its failure to designate
how and who has the power to interpret it -- specifically, not necessarily the Kritarchs on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Hart is also clearsighted regarding immigration. He does not accept the now de
rigueur analysis that immigration from widely disparate regions was always a feature of
American life. "Before 1849,
immigrants to the Untied States came mostly from the Protestant
regions of northwest Europe, including Holland , Sweden, Norway , Germany and Great
Britain," he observes. He also provides an honest assessment of the difficulties Irish immigration
presented for 19 th century America and argues that despite speaking English, "they
assimilated very slowly."
Dr. Hart argues the "Golden Age" of the United States extended from 1865 to 1991. "During
that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its
unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries," he argues. Indeed, one
of the best parts of the book is when Dr. Hart recounts the numerous inventions and scientific
advances America has given to the world.
However, Dr. Hart's most invaluable contribution is in detailing what he sees as the
symptoms of America's decline after the Cold War. America's indebtedness, relatively poor military
performance , loss of Constitutional liberties, and collapse of artistic standards are all
covered. Two other issues highly relevant to immigration patriots are what Dr. Hart calls
"political problems" and "loss of confidence and national pride."
Dr. Hart details how Democratic politicians have diligently opposed any efforts to
implement common-sense voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Media bias is another major
political problem, one an increasing number of Americans are awakening to. Finally, Dr. Hart
identifies the "increase in racial hostilities" as both a symptom and a cause of America's
increasing political problems. "Black hostility towards whites is constantly being stirred up
by 'race hustlers' such as
Al Sharpton , who deny any good faith on the part of whites," he writes. "Many people deny
that any progress has been made in the status and treatment of black Americans -- a blatant
untruth which increases black suspicions and hostilities."
Similarly, the decline in national pride is partially a product of how the charge of
"racism" has delegitimized our entire national history. "According to many of these critics,
our Constitution was produced by a group of 'Dead White European Males' (DWEMs, for short) who
do not deserve any respect," he writes. As a result of internalizing this poisonous attack on
America's heritage, some advocate Open Borders as a kind of historical reparations of
punishment for a "racist" country.
Dr. Hart writes:
One result of these attitudes is that many Americans find it unreasonable for the United
States to defend its borders. (After all, since we stole the country from the Indians, we
have no real claim on our land.) Sometimes these views lead to people suggesting that
non-citizens should be permitted to vote in American elections. In any disagreement or
conflict between the United States and a foreign group, many of these critics tend to blame
America first. Many of these critics do not even pretend to be patriotic.
Dr. Hart identifies a host of causes to explain the emergence of these symptoms. Though they
are too many to cover here, two very much worth mentioning are
Dr. Hart points out that for all the talk about white racism, the vast majority of
interracial crime is committed by blacks against whites. Hatred of whites is not only
mainstream but cultivated by the Main Stream Media, the education system, and even some
Democratic politicians -- a coalition that Dr. Hart judges is too powerful to break.
Similarly, Dr. Hart details the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act and
explicitly calls for its repeal, but he is pessimistic about the prospects for doing so.
The most explosive part of the book is its concluding chapter, in which Dr. Hart discusses
the various scenarios by which the United States could "fall," either by breaking up, being
extinguished, or losing its political independence and being subsumed into a larger polity. All
of these terrible scenarios have vastly increased in likelihood because of the destabilizing
and destructive effects of mass immigration.
The "fall" of the United States may even occur without most people even noticing it at the
time. "Without any foreign conquest, and without any sharp break, the USA might be transformed
into a multinational state without any loyalty to our English origin," he writes. "In fact,
such a process may already be in process."
During his discussion of causes for American decline, Dr. Hart identifies the most important
"by far" as the "loss of pride and confidence." He blames this on the relentless hate campaign
waged against "our ancestors" by educators and the Main Stream Media, leading to a situation in
which Americans feel "ashamed of their country." In other words, Dr. Hart is really talking
about a loss of identity.
With his history of the United States, and his frank discussion of the issues endangering
its existence, Dr. Hart has performed a valuable service for Americans seeking to reclaim their
national identity. For anyone curious about their country's past and concerned about its
future, The Rise And
Fall Of The United States (full disclosure: A VDARE book -- who else would
publish it?) is well worth purchasing.
If/when America does break apart, it will not be a result of conventional war. The
attack/upheaval will come from within.
Ironically, the trillions spent by Washington on our global MIC will not, in the end,
protect the American people from what is now our greatest threat: internal treason against
Historic America and its core people.
Ironically, instead of returning home to protect US borders when the cold war ended,
American troops were dispersed around the world to fight phantom threats and protect
non-essential foreign entities and extra-national interests.
This ongoing waste of US resources abroad continues to serve the interests of globalists,
militarists, and Zionists. Meanwhile, our domestic security, our Main Street economy, and the
continuity of white, European-derived culture and people inside America gets short shrift.
This glaring disconnect may be our nation's undoing.
The 'proposition nation' concept was a fraud from the start since it ignores the vital
significance of race, culture, language, and IQ.
The engine for America's coming implosion is demographic: uninterrupted, illegal,
non-white immigration by Third World refugees. Hostile elites who now dominate America are
also key. They refuse to acknowledge the perils of 'diversity'. Many want America changed,
irreversibly so.
Meanwhile, white identity and white cohesion have been demonized in our schools as well as
by our dominant mass media. This campaign has undermined white identity, white cohesion and
white interests in general.
Numerous, politically-correct expressions of anti-white hatred are now in wide
circulation. These hate-terms are, ironically, protected from criticism even though they are
applied selectively to target whites. Those few who contest these double-standards (including
Pres. Trump) are routinely defamed by comparisons to 'Hitler' or references to the KKK. The
basic translation comes down to this: Shut up.
This unhealthy and insidious paradigm is here by design. It is used to not only justify
anti-white animus, but to legitimize anti-white violence whenever and wherever whites try to
assemble and express their grievances and/or aspirations. This very sinister double-standard
has taken deep root. It is nurtured by biased reporting and coverage. It has spawned
'antifa'.
Modern speech rules and penalties favor privileged 'minorities' just as they cleary
disfavor and penalize white advocacy.
Among the popular terms that lend support to anti-white bigotry are: 'racist', 'nativist',
'white supremacy', 'Islamophobia', and 'anti-Semitism'.
These shame-inducing memes have 1) contaminated the American mind and 2) empowered our
race-conscious adversaries. They must be deconstructed and deligimized if we are to protect
our interests and preserve America's demographic core.
Resistance, cohesion and self-defense are not fascistic sentiments. They are legitimate
expressions of democratic self-determination.
the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and
capital throughout the Union. Open borders. That is the essence of the European Union, the
dogma of the Free Market.
The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn't know where to stop. Or it
doesn't stop anywhere. When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were
welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all
sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied
to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders. Given German clout, Open Borders
became the essential "European common value", and welcoming immigrants the essence of human
rights.
Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of
Open Borders. To name a few:
This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in
every country. Notably not in Hungary.
It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million
inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with
peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. As one of the
losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to
Romania. The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass
immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be
attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from
radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change.
But for now, that is how they vote.
In particular, they recently voted massively to re
Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional
framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a
planetary project. Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for
the first, "openness" for the second. Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may
not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity. All this can sound good, but such ideals
become methods of manipulation. Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn
resistance.
There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of
democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion
and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented
by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on
citizens who are denounced as "populists" if they disagree. Under communism, dissidents were
called "enemies of the people". For the liberal globalists, they are "populists" – that
is, the people. If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates
mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.
Orban's reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense
conflict with Hungarian-born financier George Soros
And not only Soros, of course:
'I know that this battle is difficult for everyone. I understand if some of us are also
afraid. This is understandable, because we must fight against an opponent which is different
from us. Their faces are not visible, but are hidden from view; they do not fight directly,
but by stealth; they are not honourable, but unprincipled; they are not national, but
international; they do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland,
but feel that the whole world is theirs.' --
Viktor Orbán
Watch the great Hungarian foreign minister repel attacks by the BBCs arrogant open borders
propagandist, rudely treating him like an ignorant child and calling him a racist for
defending his nation.
Economic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant
workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.
Not gonna happen. Their 80 IQ skills are uncompetitive and useless in Europe even before
Automation erases those low-skilled positions in the coming decade or two. Meanwhile, (real)
European youth unemployment rate is 20%. Young Europeans are not making babies because they
don't have a stable future. This can only get worse as the hostile invaders get preferential,
Affirmative Action treatment, in schools and workplaces. None of this is accidental.
There are, in my opinion, two reasons for letting the mass immigration happen:
- the Brussels belief, expressed in a 2009 official document, not secret, that the EU needs
60 million immigrants.
- a Merkel belief dat the Germans are bad, they caused two world wars and perpetrated the
holocaust, so the German people must be changed through mass immigration.
The Brussels belief seems to be based mainly on the increasing average age in the EU.
It is incomprehensible to me, at the same time fear that robots slowly will do all simple
jobs.
The Merkel belief, on the other side of the Atlantic, where few understand German, and
cannot or do not watch German tv, I wonder how many understand that the 20th century
propaganda of the victors still is decisive in German daily life and politics.
The danger of neonazi's and fascism is everywhere.
Nationalism, the equivalent of building gas chambers.
The EU also is based on the 20th century fairy tales, only the EU prevented wars in Europe
after WWII.
The idea that Germans were victims in two world wars, and, until Hitler became power in 1933,
also between the world wars, in unthinkable.
The idea that Endlösung meant deportation to Madagaskar, even more unthinkable.
That jews, as one Rothschild wrote to another around 1890, have and had but one enemy,
themselves, the world unthinkable is too weak.
Yet
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
explains it, things as 'close economic cooperation, intermarriage, ostentious behaviour'.
In this respect
'Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry', Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York
University press
also is a very interesting book, after jews in the thirties had been banned from many
intellectual professions not a single Hungarian newspaper could be published any more.
Soros trying to force Muslim immigrants on deeply catholic Hungary, he was born in
Hungary, experienced anti semitism, revenge ?
I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most
beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost
non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a
very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would
like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country.
Viszlát! -- John
When the fort of folly that Globalism is finally falls, Diana Johnstone's article will be
cited as exemplary in exposing its hidden grammar. That fall cannot be far off now given that
psy-ops can only work if people are ignorant of the manipulation afoot.
Great opening, Diana. For forty years the presstitude media have leaned on the use of
implication as argument to have the ninety-nine percent buy what they are selling. What was
not pointed out very well until now, is that their implications are all false. Now, only a
dummy among the dumbed-down cannot see it.
For those who have the patience to read the English subtitles, here is an excellent speech
given by Orbán in July. Here he outlines his thinking on the issues facing Hungary and
the world.
Viktor Orbán is a very intelligent leader, and he has the vast majority of the
Hungarian people behind him. History has taught those people many things, and they have had
enough. They are not fools. Look to them as an example for all of us.
@John Siman I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It
is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration
projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those
of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA)
population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of
the country. Viszlát! -- John Wherever US influence is not yet overwhelming (and such
places are becoming fewer every day, unfortunately), you will still find "old-fashioned" ways
of interaction, few fatties, and decent food and drink.
People may become fat for many reasons, but most fatties these days in the Anglosphere
belong to the underclass. These wretches get fat from eating expensive trash at McDonald's
and other fast food outlets, and drinking Coca Cola and similar sugar-saturated garbage.
Their behavior may seem strange because their brains have largely withered away through
endless TV watching (mainly US or US-inspired visual trash), their hearing impaired by ear-
and mind numbing noise passing for music.
I am afraid the way out of that prison is long and tortuous for all victims of US
neoliberalism.
The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years,
although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a
far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points
out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's
tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as
colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the
latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with
the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether
they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected.
The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The
(according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a
resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something
attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the
European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as
always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be
unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a
dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It
never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of
Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much
for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost
hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban
is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has
been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least
14 years!).
@Michael Kenny The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at
least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to
claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out!
However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is
between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the
ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have
for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader.
Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are
stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual
claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its
political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament
has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does
something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked
for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions,
as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be
unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a
dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It
never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of
Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much
for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost
hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban
is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has
been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least
14 years!). Judging by your name, you are not a European, but an Englishman, or from
somewhere else in the Anglosphere. It is a good thing for England and especially the English
to be leaving the EuSSR, which is more of a prison than commonly realized. Ruled by a greedy
class of corrupt and, to make it worse, utterly mediocre, politicians, incompetent and stupid
bureaucrats (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) in the exclusive interest of ruthless big
corporations, human rights do not exist in the EuSSR.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe has seen a wave of privatizations on a scale
only comparable to what happened in the former USSR. Nevertheless, taxation has increased to
a point where today, the average EuSSR "citizen" pays between 75% and 80% taxes on every Euro
he earns. The middle class is on its way to extinction. The judiciary is a joke, education
has been dismantled or stupidified, health care is a disaster, save in Southern Europe where
many doctors and nurses still have a sense of humanity.
The piece by Mrs. Johnstone may not be flawless, but it says what needs to be said.
70 years ago the Democrat party in the American South was the party of regular working
class White Southerners and promoted Southern heritage and Southern history including
Confederate history.
Then things change.
Now the national Democrat party and the Democrat party in the South hates Whites
Southerners, hates Southern heritage and Southern history and are promoting the desecration
of Confederate monuments and confederate graves.
60 years ago Hungarian was under Soviet Communist domination and Hungarian patriots looked
to the West – especially American and Great Britain to help them achieve some personal
freedom from Communism.
Now things have completely changed. It's the Wester (EU) UK BBC, American mass media that
restricts freedom and National Christianity in Hungary and pretty much everywhere else.
Russia is once again a health European Christian nation. Nobody in Hungary, Eastern Europe or
Russia wants to allow their countries to be invaded by millions of 3rd world Muslim
rapists.
So I living in Chicago IL (Obama was my neighbor) look to Hungary, Poland, Russia and
Eastern Europe for any small dose of freedom.
Not Pepe's best sauce, but always worth a read. He's best when he's reporting from the
field. His armchair geopolitics aren't that much better than anyone else's.
That said, Eurasian integration, Western Hemispheric energy independence, the populist
revolt against forced globalization/sovereignty elimination/kleptocracy and the outbreak of
global peace are all changing the chessboard profoundly. Most of the premises of traditional
imperialist power politics are simply blown away. Instead, a new 'Chinese Peace with Russian
Muscle' is the de facto hegemony in the vast bulk of the world, including parts of South
American and most of Africa. With the Brits and French too slow and stupid to react, the
Germans as weaselly and venal as ever, and the Japanese comatose, the hulk known as the G7 is
heeling over into full capsize mode. And, good riddance.
Now the G20 has to either stand up or collapse. Much depends on which outcome
develops.
However it works out, we can all stand and cheer that it is not a US dependent historical
course any more. We've ceded our moral and military leadership. Perhaps we can reform, even
if by bloody revolution, and re-emerge with something to give the rest of the world. Free
markets, liberty, democracy, freedom of thought......the future is now really a question of
whether any of these ideas will have a chance in a remade global order dominated, so far, by
dictatorship, corruption, and moral crime.
So, we tend to our own house now. Anyone got a pack of matches?
** We've ceded our moral and military leadership **
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, NATO expansion, the
Clintoons, the Bush dynasty of mediocrity, our open border, offshoring, Muslim ass kissing,
free-ranging Antifa filth, media monopoly and lies, foreigners taking university slots,
sexual confusion, ass kissing homosexuals, groveling before bat shit crazy feminists,
destruction of our basic legal document through judicial usurpation, diseased leftists
spouting lies and delusion, excusing black dysfunction, fiscal incontinence, unaddressd
monopolies, attacks on free speech, criminal immunity for elites, a president who won't
exercise his authority and tolerates insubordination, an unaccountable bureaucracy, a loose
cannon prosecutor, Jewish political domination, slobbering over Israel as though Jerusalem is
our capitol not Washington, denigration of the white majority culture, celebration of
miscegenation, degradation of marriage, our diseased educational establishment, rampant vote
fraud, illegal and unconstitutional wars, chest beating about "exceptionalism," and a
generally crap culture all say you're right.
There will be no sudden and dramatic collapse. There will only be a slow, painful,
never-ending, degrading decay into nothingness, a death from one million pundits, a process
readily apparent (literally) all around us. Tune in to CNN, see for yourself.
I see your point, but I am not convinced bankers work independently. Bankers do not have a
monopoly on psychotics. The psychotics in gov have as much greed and craving for power as the
bankers and I believe they work around, with, and against each other for various reasons just
like everything else in the world works. Thus a one dimensional theory will not be complete -
and maybe that is what you are arguing: to include bankers in geopolitics. I agree the
bankers are a big part of the rotten problem but like when I am overseas - I watch the guys
with the guns.
Most of the planet has put up with a lot of shit from America It's good that it's finally
coming to an end.
"We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... Our real task
in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain
this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to
be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction... We should
cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the
living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the
better."
George Kennan, State Department memo, 1948
America never gave up on the idealistic slogans -- the figleaf for the Empire of Chaos.
Finally shutting the fuck up after the game is over will be welcome.
"... No wonder one of the side effects of progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to "democratic" neoliberalism. ..."
Alastair Crooke took a great
shot at deconstructing why Western global elites are terrified of the Russian
conceptualization of Eurasia.
It's because "they 'scent' a stealth reversion to the old, pre-Socratic values: for the
Ancients the very notion of 'man', in that way, did not exist. There were only men: Greeks,
Romans, barbarians, Syrians, and so on. This stands in obvious opposition to universal,
cosmopolitan 'man'."
So it's Heraclitus versus Voltaire – even as "humanism" as we inherited it from the
Enlightenment, is de facto over.
Whatever is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on
the irascible mood swings of the Goddess of the Market.
No wonder one of the side effects of
progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to
"democratic" neoliberalism.
What we have now is also a remastered version of sea power versus land powers. Relentless
Russophobia is paired with supreme fear of a Russia-Germany rapprochement – as Bismarck
wanted, and as Putin
and Merkel recently hinted at. The supreme nightmare for the U.S. is in fact a truly
Eurasian Beijing-Berlin-Moscow partnership.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has not even begun; according to the official Beijing
timetable, we're still in the planning phase. Implementation starts next year. The horizon is
2039.
"... " One of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together – with the big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin – okay? And, I mean [that] where we [the US] have the strength. I don't think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well." ..."
"... Art of the Deal ..."
"... Identify a big goal (tax cuts, balanced trade, the wall, etc.). ..."
"... Identify your leverage points versus anyone who stands in your way (elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.). ..."
"... Announce some extreme threat against your opponent that uses your leverage. ..."
"... If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory and go home with a win. ..."
"... If the opponent fires back, double down. If Trump declares tariffs on $50 billion of good from China,and China shoots back with tariffs on $50 billion of goods from the U.S., Trump doubles down with tariffs on $100 billion of goods, etc. Trump will keep escalating until he wins." ..."
"... Eventually, the escalation process can lead to negotiations with at least the perception of a victory for Trump (North Korea) -- even if the victory is more visual than real. ..."
"... "The position of Europe is clear. It isn't a coincidence that Trump, while enumerating the enemies of the US (the EU, China, and Russia), made it clear that he considers Russia to be a smaller problem [than the EU], because there are practically no economic contradictions ("Nord Stream-2" doesn't count) with it. It's not China, with which the US has the biggest negative trade balance, but the EU, which Trump fairly defined as the main trade competitor, receiving unjustified economic benefits from political agreements with the US, and which is the main 'foe' of the US. ..."
"... "[Thus Trump] resolves his military-political contradictions with Russia, [and consequently] reduces the value of the EU as an ally for Washington, to zero Europe was accustomed to (and hoped to continue to use) its role of a springboard for the fight against Russia as [the primordial] argument that was supposed to keep Trump away from making the last step (complete separation with the EU). ..."
"... In recent days, Merkel, after the NATO summit, started talking literally [that Trump's hostility towards Europe is unjustified], because Europe battles with Russia for the interests of the US. ..."
"... "For the EU it was crucial that this argument continued to work. Otherwise, Washington indeed, would have more common ground with Moscow than with Brussels. And Europe isn't ready for a sharp confrontation with the US. Having rested on its laurels [i.e. on its conviction that it occupied, as it were, some 'moral high ground of values']. Europe wasn't engaged (in difference, for example, from China), in the diversification of economic ties and appeared to be strongly dependent on access to the American market. ..."
"... "Without having risked to be ahead of Trump in the question of normalising relations with Russia, EU leaders were fatally afraid that Trump and Putin, despite all difficulties, will do the impossible and reach an agreement, especially as both proved to be people who are ready to instantly make decisions that change the destiny of the world. ..."
"... "The position taken by the EU raised the value of the summit for Russia too. Moscow can wait until Washington is ready for reconciliation. But, taking into account the obvious intention of Europe to manoeuvre between Russia and the US, trying to preserve the geopolitical configuration that is profitable for itself, but doesn't suit either Trump nor Putin, Russia was also interested in showing to the whole world the success of the summit and good prospects for achieving definitive and comprehensive agreements." ..."
"... The latent hatred for Russia is unmistakeably revealed. This animosity will not be a surprise to Putin – though the extremity of the elite language used towards Trump will make Russians aware of their ..."
"... What does such language portend? The roots of American Russo-phobia go deep. It starts with American Trotskyist activists' on ground participation in the initial Trotskyist Bolshevik revolution – largely financed, and orchestrated by Wall Street. ..."
"... Of course, what rankles most in America, and amongst European liberal elites, is the apparent according of moral equivalence of Putin to America, and to America's intelligence capabilities. America believes it WON – it won the Cold War culturally, and in terms of its systems of government and economics. ..."
"... The western Establishment anger stems ultimately from Russia's refusal to acquiesce to their merited 'defeatism' (in this view): Putin rejected to merge Russia into the American-led global order, preferring Russia to remain somehow 'Russian', in its own Russian cultural way. ..."
"... And for Trump? The 'smart money' says that he will be indicted, or impeached, after the midterms. I doubt it. For all John Brennan's talk of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (the precise legal language of impeachment), there is no crime. If any, crimes per se ..."
Maybe we are misreading things. Not a small number of commentaries have suggested
that President Trump intended for Helsinki to re-set the Kissinger-esque triangulation
between the US, Russia and China. And there are good grounds for making such
a hypothesis. At a 2015 press conference, Trump, himself, took the Kissinger
line -- that the US should always try to keep Russia and China divided, and
never allied together against America):
" One of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when
Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together – with the
big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's
a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of
incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin
– okay? And, I mean [that] where we [the US] have the strength. I don't
think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very
well."
This makes a lot of sense, but maybe in Helsinki Trump was doing something
a little less strategic and more down-to-earth – something more in line with
his Art of the Deal philosophy.
We have, over the decades, developed a fairly precise mental model of how
"Presidents are supposed to behave; and how the policymaking process is supposed
to be carried out. Obviously, Trump does not fit their model", Jim Rickards
writes . "[GW] Bush and Obama were totally process-driven. You could see
events coming a mile away as they wound their way through the West Wing and
Capitol Hill deliberative processes." With Trump, Rickards continues, "there
is a process, but it does not adhere to a timeline or existing template. Trump
seems to be the only process participant most of the time. No one else in Washington
thinks this way. Washington insiders try to avoid confrontation, avoid escalation,
compromise from the beginning, and finesse their way through any policy process."
"Here's the Trump process:
Identify a big goal (tax cuts, balanced trade, the wall, etc.).
Identify your leverage points versus anyone who stands in your way
(elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.).
Announce some extreme threat against your opponent that uses your
leverage.
If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory
and go home with a win.
If the opponent fires back, double down. If Trump declares tariffs
on $50 billion of good from China,and China shoots back with tariffs on
$50 billion of goods from the U.S., Trump doubles down with tariffs on $100
billion of goods, etc. Trump will keep escalating until he wins."
Eventually, the escalation process can lead to negotiations with at least
the perception of a victory for Trump (North Korea) -- even if the victory is
more visual than real.
So, if we reframe the Helsinki meeting through this Art of the Deal lens,
what do we get? Seeing that thedivergencies of vision between Russia and the
US are so substantial, and the common ground is so small, there is very little
prospect for a 'strategic global deal'. In fact, President Trump has little
that he can offer Russia: sanctions relief is not in his gift (it is in the
maw of Congress), and he could not – at this stage – relinquish Ukraine, even
if Trump understands that the US and Europe bought a 'pig in a poke' with its
Maidan coup in Kiev.
"So", as Russian commentator, Rostislav Ishchenko, writes (in Russian, translation
here ): "We have a situation where both parties even prior to negotiations,
knew that they wouldn't be able to come to some arrangement, and they didn't
even prepare for such a thing (it wasn't planned to sign anything following
the results of negotiations). At the same time, both parties needed the event
to be successful". Ishchenko continues: "Trump obviously blackmails the European
Union with a possible agreement with Russia. But Putin also needs to show Europe
that there are other fish in the sea besides them."
"The position of Europe is clear. It isn't a coincidence that Trump,
while enumerating the enemies of the US (the EU, China, and Russia), made
it clear that he considers Russia to be a smaller problem [than the EU],
because there are practically no economic contradictions ("Nord Stream-2"
doesn't count) with it. It's not China, with which the US has the biggest
negative trade balance, but the EU, which Trump fairly defined as the main
trade competitor, receiving unjustified economic benefits from political
agreements with the US, and which is the main 'foe' of the US.
"[Thus Trump] resolves his military-political contradictions with
Russia, [and consequently] reduces the value of the EU as an ally for Washington,
to zero Europe was accustomed to (and hoped to continue to use) its role
of a springboard for the fight against Russia as [the primordial] argument
that was supposed to keep Trump away from making the last step (complete
separation with the EU).
In recent days, Merkel, after the NATO summit, started talking literally
[that Trump's hostility towards Europe is unjustified], because Europe battles
with Russia for the interests of the US.
"For the EU it was crucial that this argument continued to work.
Otherwise, Washington indeed, would have more common ground with Moscow
than with Brussels. And Europe isn't ready for a sharp confrontation with
the US. Having rested on its laurels [i.e. on its conviction that it occupied,
as it were, some 'moral high ground of values']. Europe wasn't engaged (in
difference, for example, from China), in the diversification of economic
ties and appeared to be strongly dependent on access to the American market.
"Without having risked to be ahead of Trump in the question of normalising
relations with Russia, EU leaders were fatally afraid that Trump and Putin,
despite all difficulties, will do the impossible and reach an agreement,
especially as both proved to be people who are ready to instantly make decisions
that change the destiny of the world.
"The position taken by the EU raised the value of the summit for
Russia too. Moscow can wait until Washington is ready for reconciliation.
But, taking into account the obvious intention of Europe to manoeuvre between
Russia and the US, trying to preserve the geopolitical configuration that
is profitable for itself, but doesn't suit either Trump nor Putin, Russia
was also interested in showing to the whole world the success of the summit
and good prospects for achieving definitive and comprehensive agreements."
In short, Trump was using Helsinki to leverage "an extreme threat against
your opponent" (Europe), by voiding the European 'card' of its 'usefulness'
to America through its constant battling against Russia. Indeed the recent
NATO final comunique, reads almost precisely as an legal indictment of Russia
and its behavior.
Both Trump and Putin took a big political risk by staging this 'end
to Cold War – coup de théâtre'. Trump has unleashed extraordinary hysteria in
parts of the US, provoking numerous Washington Post op-eds to language such
as characterising Trump's words (at the press conference) as 'apostasy' and
'a cancer amongst us'. (Apostasy is the language used by violent jihadists against
non-believers.)
The latent hatred for Russia is unmistakeably revealed. This animosity will
not be a surprise to Putin – though the extremity of the elite language used
towards Trump will make Russians aware of their risks – what
might ensue were Trump somehow be removed from office?
What does such language portend? The roots of American Russo-phobia go deep.
It starts with American Trotskyist activists' on ground participation in the
initial Trotskyist Bolshevik revolution –
largely financed, and orchestrated by Wall Street.
Not only did New York
bankers provide money, they also facilitated safe passage to Russia for revolutionaries
such as Trotsky and others. Stalin's ultimate killing of the Trotskyist killers
in the 1930s (and many others) is at the root of the Russian 'thuggery' language
still circulating in US (even if some have forgotten its origins). Stalin's
cleansing has never been forgiven by certain circles in the US.
Of course, what rankles most in America, and amongst European liberal elites,
is the apparent according of moral equivalence of Putin to America, and to America's
intelligence capabilities. America believes it WON – it won the Cold War culturally,
and in terms of its systems of government and economics. This 'End to History'
hubris voided – in this ecstatic state – the need to treat Russia as other than
a psychologically 'defeated people', (which they were not).
The western Establishment anger stems ultimately from Russia's refusal
to acquiesce to their merited 'defeatism' (in this view): Putin rejected to
merge Russia into the American-led global order, preferring Russia to remain
somehow 'Russian', in its own Russian cultural way.
What are the implications for Europe? For Europe this is a catastrophe. It
means that US dialogue with Putin will continue. Where to run for the EU – to
Washington or to Moscow? To remain loyal to an old suzerain or to try to adhere
to a new one, before others get there first?
Moreover, unlike Russia, Europe can't wait. By meeting Putin, Trump brought
the US out of zugzwang, having handed over to the European Union the right to
make this same move, which only risks complicating Euro politics – beyond its
existing challenges.
And for Trump? The 'smart money' says that he will be indicted, or impeached,
after the midterms. I doubt it. For all John Brennan's talk of "High Crimes
and Misdemeanors" (the precise legal language of impeachment), there is no crime.
If any, crimes per se may emerge out from a very different quarter.
And Trump likely will survive the current hysterics.
"... I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering. Now it appears that he is both. ..."
"... Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks. ..."
"... If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche. ..."
"... the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become. ..."
"... Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown. ..."
At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency,
more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled
opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly
engineering. Now it appears that he is both.
Trump's history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts
surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by
Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross , which saved him from embarrassment and
possibly saved his entire fortune . This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the
benefit of the doubt in my view.
Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their
careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of
Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.
Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of
Trump's associations. "What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn't this indicate he's
not controlled?" they say. I say, not really.
If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated
division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation
warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public
psyche.
This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It
absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing
insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to
look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists,
attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is
designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become
whatever the globalists want us to become.
... ... ...
As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist
coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent
ideas of "Russian collusion."
To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law.
They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn't suit
them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative
values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power
resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of
the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a
"coup," but it would inevitably be a failed coup.
Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the
globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used
as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be
fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.
I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are
conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their
conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the
globalists are well aware of this strategy.
Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book
published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is
quoted in his address ' Dissent: Do We Need It
':
"They say, "The Congress is corrupt." I ask them, "What do you know about the Congress? Do
you know your own Congressman's name?" Usually they don't. It's almost a reflex with them,
like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them
they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions,
and then work within the system. But most of them just won't buy that. They insist the system
is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so
balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.
For example, I've talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the
future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were
consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are
pretty generally in this group."
Is a "failed coup" being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very
"fascists" the left accuses us of being? The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this
is the game plan.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
"... For dessert today, I offer Russia's Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly articulated in its NDS I linked to above. ..."
"... By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address and solve the many domestic problems. ..."
Too Funny!
Trump whines, threatens pullout from WTO again! After decades of bullying
nations and impoverishing their people, other nations are using the Outlaw
US Empire's WTO as a weapon against it, so Trump cries Unfair! As I wrote
above, Big Money's trapped within its own web.
The "Softies" are yet another entity in the Smoke & Mirrors Fun House
designed to fool and gain citizenry's consent to be robbed blind.
Russians already went through that and are very wary as illustrated by
the very sensitive nature of the recent
Pension System Reform Debate and legislation that Putin had to solve
using his political capital.
As with all politicians, you won't know what you elected until you learn
how your rep votes issues, although some can be anticipated by examining
their past behavior as with our pseudo Democrat-Socialist.
For dessert today, I offer Russia's
Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US
Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize
the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly
articulated in its NDS I linked to above.
By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political
POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address
and solve the many domestic problems.
Big Money refuses as its addicted to Smoke & Mirrors since that's what
was used to gain its power and will now double-down.
The powerful always want more power.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
June 26, 2016
"Brexit: Are The Serfs Finally Rebelling"?
The establishment are shocked that the ordinary people want out of the European Union
(EU). They just don't realize that people are fed up being used, abused, dictated to, lied
to, manipulated, and forced into an EU dictatorship by treacherous politicians.
These are some of the same politicians who scurry to the meetings of the so-called elites
in Davos, and also attend Bilderberg meetings. And many of them, when they leave politics,
finish up on the boards of banks and multi-national corporations with the rest of the
money-manipulating bandits that got bailed out with taxpayers' dollars, some of whom, I
believe, should be in jail .
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked
in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded
by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it
launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States'
geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.
The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in
which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of
production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and
parasitic activity to the next."
"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the
capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the
ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means
considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.
This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening
attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the
income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.
In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous
benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the
parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of
parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."
"... So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion . ..."
"... Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008. ..."
"... Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war. ..."
"... NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires. ..."
"... NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission. ..."
By now you've probably heard that Turkey is having a financial crisis, and Trump appears to be pouring gasoline on it.
But you may not understand what is happening, or you may not know why it's important.
So let's do a quick recap
.
Turkey's currency fell to a new record low today. Year to date it's lost almost half its value, leading some investors and
lenders inside and outside of Turkey to lose confidence in the Turkish economy.
...
"Ninety percent of external public and private sector debt is denominated in foreign currencies," he said.
Here's the problem. Because of the country's falling currency, that debt just got a lot more expensive.
A Turkish business now effectively owes twice as much as it did at the beginning of the year. "You are indebted in the U.S.
dollar or euro, but your revenue is in your local currency," explained Lale Akoner, a market strategist with Bank of New York
Mellon's Asset Management business. She said Turkey's private sector currently owes around $240 billion in foreign debt.
This is all about hot money that has been washing around in a world of artificially low interest rates, and now, finally, an
external shock happened. As it
always happens .
The bid-ask spread, or the difference between the price dealers are willing to buy and sell the lira at, has widened beyond
the gap seen at the depth of the global financial crisis in 2008, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse.
So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the
danger of contagion
.
The turmoil follows a similar currency crash in Argentina that led to a rescue by the International Monetary Fund. In recent
days, the Russian ruble, Indian rupee and South African rand have also tumbled dramatically.
Investors are waiting for the next domino to fall. They're on the lookout for signs of a repeat of the 1997-1998 Asian financial
crisis that began when the Thai baht imploded.
A minor currency devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997 eventually led to 20% of the world's population being thrust into poverty.
It led to Russia defaulting in 1998, LTCM requiring a Federal Reserve bailout, and eventually Argentina defaulting in 2001.
Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008.
The markets want Turkey to run to the IMF for a loan, but that would require a huge interest rate hike and austerity measures
that would thrust Turkey into a long depression. However, that isn't the
biggest obstacle .
The second is that Erdogan would have to bury his hatchet with the United States, which remains the IMF's largest shareholder.
Without U.S. support, Turkey has no chance of securing an IMF bailout program.
There is another danger, a political one and not so much an economic one, that could have dramatic implications.
If Erdogan isn't overthrown, or humbled, then there is an ironclad certainty that Turkey will
leave NATO and
the West.
Turkey, unlike Argentina, does not seem poised to turn to the International Monetary Fund in order to stave off financial collapse,
nor to mend relations with Washington.
If anything, the Turkish President looks to be doubling down in challenging the US and the global financial markets -- two
formidable opponents.
...
Turkey would probably no longer view the US as a reliable partner and strategic ally.
Whoever ends up leading the country, a wounded Turkey would most likely seek to shift the center of gravity away from the West
and toward Russia, Iran and Eurasia.
It would make Turkey less in tune with US and European objectives in the Middle East, meaning Turkey would seek to assert a
more independent security and defense policy.
Erdogan has warned Trump that Turkey would
"seek new friends" , although Russia and China haven't yet stepped up to the plate to bat for him.
Russia, Iran and China do have a common interest when in comes to undermining the
petrodollar . Pulling Turkey into their sphere of influence would be a coup.
Turkey lies at a historic, strategic crossroad. The
bridge between the peaceful West and the war-ridden dictatorships of the East that the West likes to bomb.
On its Western flank, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria, Western-facing members of the European Union. A few years ago, Turkey
-- a member of NATO -- was preparing the join Europe as a full member.
Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with
Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war.
Losing Turkey would be a huge setback for NATO, the MIC, and the permanent war machine.
more struggling economies are starting to get it. Trade wealth for the rulers (IMF supporters) to be paid by the rest of us.
Fight back. Squeeze the bankers balls. Can't have our resources, now way, no how, without a fight.
in a flailing Turkey? Weren't there some outside potential takers encouraging China when it floated its currency proposal?
Nastarana on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:41pm
NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires.
Patrolling our shores for drug running and toxic dumping. Teaching school, 10 kids per class maximum. Refurbishing buildings and
housing stock. Post Cold War, an military alliance with Turkey makes no sense.
Meanwhile going back to the ongoing escalation in political tensions between the US and
Turkey, one day after Erdogan vowed to boycott US electronics products, including the iPhone,
Ankara slapped an additional tax on imports of a broad range of American goods. Turkey
announced it would impose an additional 50% tax on U.S. rice, 140% on spirits and 120% on cars.
There are also additional charges on U.S. cosmetics, tobacco and some food products. The was Erdogan's latest retaliation for the Trump administration's punitive actions over the past few
weeks to pressure Turkey into releasing an American pastor.
Bloomberg
calculated that the items listed in the decree accounted for $1 billion of imports last
year, similar to the amount of Turkish steel and aluminum exports that were subjected to higher
tariffs by President Donald Trump last week.
The decision shows Turkey giving a proportionate
response to American "attacks" on the Turkish economy, Vice President Fuat Oktay said in tweets
this morning.
No matter how globalism is repackaged, it always smells the same way in the end.
For decades, the globalists have subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) been moving us toward a
world in which national borders have essentially been made meaningless . The ultimate goal, of
course, is to merge all the nations of the world into a "one world socialist utopia" with a
global government, a global economic system and even a global religion.
The European Union is a model for what the elite hope to achieve eventually on a global
scale . The individual nations still exist, but once inside the European Union you can travel
wherever you want, economic rules have been standardized across the Union, and European
institutions now have far more power than the national governments.
Liberty and freedom have been greatly restricted for the "common good", and a giant horde of
nameless, faceless bureaucrats constantly micromanages the details of daily life down to the
finest details.
With each passing day the EU becomes more Orwellian in nature, and that is why so many in
Europe are completely fed up with it.
"... Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China. ..."
"... So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that. ..."
"... despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment. ..."
"... for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor. ..."
"... first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements. ..."
"... And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal. ..."
"... let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. ..."
"... The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system. ..."
"... So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable. ..."
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
The Financial Times chief economic columnist Martin Wolf has called Trump's trade wars with
Europe and Canada, but obviously the big target is China, he's called this a war on the liberal
world order. Well, what does this mean for China? China's strategy, the distinct road to
socialism which seems to take a course through various forms of state hypercapitalism. What
does this mean for China? The Chinese strategy was developed in what they thought would be a
liberal world order. Now it may not be that at all.
Now joining us to discuss what the trade war means for China, and to have a broader
conversation on just what is the Chinese model of state capitalism is Minqi Li, who now joins
us from Utah. Minqi is the professor, is a professor of economics at the University of Utah.
He's the author of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, and the
editor of Red China website. Thanks for joining us again, Minqi.
MINQI LI: Thank you, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So I don't think anyone, including the Chinese, was expecting President Trump to
be president Trump. But once he was elected, it was pretty clear that Trump and Bannon and the
various cabal around Trump, the plan was twofold. One, regime change in Iran, which also has
consequences for China. And trade war with China. It was declared that they were going to take
on China and change in a fundamental way the economic relationship with China and the United
States. And aimed, to a large extent, trying to deal with the rise of China as an equal, or
becoming equal, economy, and perhaps someday in the not-too-distant future an equal global
power, certainly as seen through the eyes of not just Trumpians in Washington, but much of the
Washington political and economic elites.
So what does this mean for China's strategy now? Xi Jinping is now the leader of the party,
leader of the government, put at a level virtually equal to Mao Tse-tung. But his plan for
development of the Chinese economy did not, I don't think, factor in a serious trade war with
the United States.
MINQI LI: OK. As you said, Trump was not expected. Which meant that Trump in fact was not
the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with
respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these
new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not
the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the
American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the
majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against
China.
Now, on the Chinese part, and we know that China has been on these parts, there was
capitalist development, and moreover it has been based on export-led economic growth model and
with exploitation of cheap labor. So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends
on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the
model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that.
And so you have, indeed there are serious trade conflicts between China and U.S. that will,
of course, undermine China's economic model. And so far China has responded to these new
threats of trade war by promising that China, despite whatever happened to the U.S., China
would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial
liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic
sectors to foreign investment.
Now, with respect to the trade itself, at the moment the U.S. has imposed tariffs on, 25
percent tariffs on the worth of $34 billion of Chinese goods. And then Trump has threatened to
impose new tariffs on the additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. But this amount at
the moment is still a small part of China's economy, about 3 percent of the Chinese GDP. So the
impact at the moment is limited, but certainly has created a lot of uncertainty for the global
and the Chinese business community.
PAUL JAY: So given that this trade war could, one, get a lot bigger and a lot more serious,
and/or even if they kind of patch it up for now, there's a lot of forces within the United
States, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Economic being the discussion about China
taking American intellectual property rights, becoming the new tech sector hub of the world,
even overpassing the American tech sector, which then has geopolitical implications; especially
when it comes to the military. If China becomes more advanced the United States in artificial
intelligence as applied to the military, that starts to, at least in American geopolitical
eyes, threaten American hegemony around the world.
There are a lot of reasons building up, and it's certainly not new, and it's not just Trump.
For various ways, the Americans want to restrain China. Does this start to make the Chinese
think that they need to speed up the process of becoming more dependent on their own domestic
market and less interested in exporting cheap labor? But for that to happen Chinese wages have
to go up a lot more significantly, which butts into the interests of the Chinese billionaire
class.
MINQI LI: I think you are right. And so for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic
consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income,
wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the
Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in
transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor.
PAUL JAY: You know, there's some sections of the left in various parts of the world that do
see the Chinese model as a more rational version of capitalism, and do see this because they've
maintained the control of the Chinese Communist Party over the politics, and over economic
planning, that do see this idea that this is somehow leading China towards a kind of socialism.
If nothing else, a more rational planned kind of capitalism. Is that, is there truth to
this?
MINQI LI: Well, first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic
sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall
economy, by various measurements.
And then regarding the rationality of China's economic model, you might put it this way: The
Chinese capitalists might be more rational than the American capitalists in the sense that they
still use most of their profits for investment, instead of just financial speculation. So that
might be rational from the capitalist perspective. But on the other hand, regarding the
exploitation of workers- and the Chinese workers still have to work under sweatshop conditions-
and regarding the damage to the environment, the Chinese model is not rational at all.
PAUL JAY: My understanding of people that think this model works better, at least, than some
of the other capitalist models is that there's a need to go through this phase of Chinese
workers, yes, working in sweatshop conditions, and yes, wages relatively low. But overall, the
Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and China's position in the world is more and
more powerful. And this creates the situation, as more wealth accumulates, China is better
positioned to address some of the critical issues facing China and the world. And then, as bad
as pollution is, and such, China does appear to be out front in terms of developing green
technologies, solar, sustainable technology.
MINQI LI: OK. Now, Chinese economy has indeed been growing rapidly. It used to grow like
double-digit growth rate before 2010. But now China's growth rate has slowed down just under 7
percent in recent years, according to the official statistics. And moreover, a significant part
of China's growth these days derives rom the real estate sector development. And so there has
been this discussion about this growing housing market bubble. And it used to be that this
housing price inflation was limited to a few big cities. But for the first half of 2018,
according to the latest data, the national average housing price has grown by 11 percent
compared to the same period last year. And that translates into a pace of doubling every six
years.
And so that has generated lots of social resentment. And so not only the working class these
days are priced out of the housing market. Moreover, even the middle class is increasingly
priced out of the housing market. So that is the major concern. And in the long run, I think
that China's current model of accumulation will also face the challenge of growing social
conflicts. Worker protests. As well as resources constrained and environmental damage. And
regarding the issue of China's investment in renewable energy, it is true. China is the largest
investor in renewable energy development, in the solar panels. And although China is of all the
largest investor in about everything.
And so China is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for
almost 30 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the world every year. And then
China's own oil production in decline, but China's oil consumption is still rising. So as a
result, China has become the world's largest oil importer. That could make the Chinese economy
vulnerable to the next major oil price shock.
PAUL JAY: And how seriously is climate change science taken in China? If one takes the
science seriously, one sees the need for urgent transformation to green technology. An urgent
reduction of carbon emission. Not gradual, not incremental, but urgent. Did the Chinese- I
mean, it's not, it's so not taken seriously in the United States that a climate denier can get
elected president. But did the Chinese take this more seriously? Because you don't get the
same, any sense of urgency about their policy, either.
MINQI LI: Well, yeah. So like many other governments, the Chinese government also pays lip
service to the obligation of climate stabilization. But unfortunately, with respect to policy,
with respect to mainstream media, it's not taken very seriously within China. And so although
China's carbon dioxide emissions actually stabilized somewhat over the past few years, but is
starting to grow again in 2017, and I expect it will continue to grow in the coming year.
PAUL JAY: I mean, I can understand why, for example, Russia is not in any hurry to buy into
climate change science. Its whole economy depends on oil. Canada also mostly pays lip service
because the Alberta tar sands is so important to the Canadian economy. Shale oil is so
important to the American economy, as well as the American oil companies own oil under the
ground all over the world. But China is not an oil country. You know, they're not dependent on
oil income. You'd think it'd be in China's interest to be far more aggressive, not only in
terms of how good it looks to the world that China would be the real leader in mitigating,
reducing, eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels, but still they're not. I mean, not at the
rate scientists say needs to be done.
MINQI LI: Not at all. Although China does not depend on all on oil for income, but China
depends on coal a lot. And the coal is still something like 60 percent of China's overall
energy consumption. And so it's still very important for China's energy.
PAUL JAY: What- Minqi, where does the coal mostly come from? Don't they import a lot of that
coal?
MINQI LI: Mostly from China itself. Even though, you know, China is the world's largest coal
producer, on top of that China is either the largest or the second-largest coal importer in the
world market as well. And then on top of that, China is also consuming an increasing amount of
oil and natural gas, especially natural gas. And so although natural gas is not as polluting as
coal, it's still polluting. And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest
importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously
the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal.
PAUL JAY: The Chinese party, just to get back to the trade war issue and to end up with, the
idea of this Chinese nation standing up, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese nationalism, it's a
powerful theme within this new Chinese discourse. I'm not saying Chinese nationalism is new,
but it's got a whole new burst of energy. How does China, if necessary to reach some kind of
compromise with the United States on the trade war, how does China do that without looking like
it's backing down to Trump?
MINQI LI: Well, yes, difficult task for the Chinese party to balance. What they have been
right now is that on the one hand they promise to the domestic audience they are not going to
make concessions towards the U.S., while in fact they are probably making concessions. And then
on the other hand the outside world, and they make announcement that they will not change from
the reform and openness policy, which in practice means that they will not change from the
neoliberal direction of China's development, and they will continue down the path towards
financial liberalization. And so that is what they are trying to balance right now.
PAUL JAY: I said finally, but this is finally. Do the Americans have a case? Does the Trump
argument have a legitimate case that the Chinese, on the one hand, want a liberal world order
in terms of trade, and open markets, and such? On the other hand are not following intellectual
property law, property rights and law, the way other advanced capitalist countries supposedly
do. Is there something to that case?
MINQI LI: Well, you know, let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led
by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global
order that the Trump administration in the U.S. - but I don't want to make justifications
for the neoliberal global order. But let's put it this way: The Trump administration of
this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social
conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans'
current political system.
PAUL JAY: So the crisis- you know, when you look at the American side and the Chinese side,
including the deep debt bomb people talk about in China, there really is no sorting out of this
crisis.
MINQI LI: So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable.
PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Minqi. I hope we can pick this up again
soon.
MINQI LI: OK. Thank you.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
"... Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, "Does the United States Have a Future?" was published on 12 October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on http://www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide. See the recent professional review http://theduran.com/does-the-united-states-have-a-future-a-new-book-by-gilbert-doctorow-review/ For a video of the book presentation made at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on 7 December 2017 see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciW4yod8upg ..."
Tharoor quotes from New York Times columnist David Brooks who concluded that Trump's behavior was that "of a man who
wants the alliance to fail." He quotes extensively from Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and leader of the Liberal
political fraction in the European Parliament fighting for a much more integrated EU, who sees Trump as the enemy of liberal internationalism
and ally of his own alt right enemies in Europe.
Tharoor also brings into play Martin Wolf of the Financial Times , who delivered a scathing attack on Trump for his rejection
of the West: " today the U.S. president appears hostile to core American values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law; he feels
no loyalty to allies; he rejects open markets; and he despises international institutions."
In the 23 July issue of "Today's World View," Tharoor takes advantage of the time gone by since Helsinki to refine the conclusions.
He offers a pithy commentary from Susan Glasser of The New Yorker : "We are witnessing nothing less than the breakdown of
American foreign policy."
In the same issue, Tharoor notes that public reaction to Trump in Helsinki is less pronounced than one might suppose from reading
the pundits. He offers the following remarks of colleagues on the results of a recent poll: "Most Americans do not feel Trump went
'too far' in supporting Puitn, and while more Americans say U.S. leadership has gotten weaker than stronger under Trump, his ratings
on this question are slightly improved from last fall."
If we go back in time to the days following Trump's visit to the NATO gathering in Brussels, we find in the headlines of the 11
July issue another take on what Trump is doing:
"Trump's NATO trip shows 'America First' is 'America Alone.'"
Here we read about Trump's insistence that America "stop footing Europe's bill" for its defense, namely his demand that all NATO
allies pay up 2% of GDP at once, not in the remote future; and that they prepare to double that to 4% very quickly. By intentional
abrasiveness, these moves by Trump are, Tharoor tells us, "undercutting the post-World War II order in pursuit of short-term, and
likely illusory, wins."
All of these comments address the question of what Trump opposes. However, Tharoor is unable to say what, if anything, Trump stands
for. There are only hints: continued US hegemony but without the ideological cover; might makes right; nationalism and the disputes
that lead to war.
Does this make sense? Or is it just another way of saying that Trump's foreign policy stance is an inconsistent patchwork, illogical
and doomed to fail while causing much pain and destruction along the way?
I fully agree with the proposition that Donald Trump is ripping up the post-Cold War international order and is seeking to end
NATO and the rest of the alliance system by which the United States has maintained its global hegemony for decades. But I believe
this destructive side is guided by a creative vision of where he wants to take US foreign policy.
This new foreign policy of Donald Trump is based on an uncompromising reading of the teachings of the Realist School of international
affairs, such as we have not seen since the days of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was its greatest practitioner in US history.
This is not isolationism, because Trump is acting to defend what he sees as US national interests in foreign trade everywhere
and in geopolitics in one or another part of the world. However, it is a world in which the US is cut free from the obligations of
its alliances which entail maintenance of overseas bases everywhere at the cost of more than half its defense budget. He wants to
end the risks of being embroiled in regional wars that serve our proxies, not core US national interests. And he is persuaded that
by a further build-up of military might at home, by adding new hi-tech materiel the US can secure its interests abroad best of all.
I reach these conclusions from the snippets of Trump remarks which appear in the newspapers of daily record but are intentionally
left as unrelated and anecdotal, whereas when slotted together they establish the rudiments of an integrated worldview and policy.
For example, I take his isolated remark that the United States should not be prepared to go to war to defend Montenegro, which
recently passed NATO accession, because Montenegro had been a trouble-maker in the past. That remark underwent virtually no analysis
in the media, though it could be made only by someone who understood, remarkably, the role of Montenegro at the Russian imperial
court of Nicholas II precisely as "troublemaker," whose dynastic family aided in their own small way the onset of WWI.
Donald Trump is not a public speaker. He is not an intellectual. We cannot expect him to issue some "Trump Doctrine" setting out
his Realist conception of the geopolitical landscape. All we get is Tweets. This inarticulate side of Trump has been used by his
enemies to argue he has no policy.
In fact, Trump is the only Realist on the landscape.
Going back to 2016, I thought he was being guided by Henry Kissinger during the campaign and then in the first months of his presidency,
I misjudged entirely. Trump is true to the underlying principles of Realism without compromise, whereas Henry K. made his peace with
the prevailing Wilsonian Idealism of the American Establishment a couple of decades ago in order to remain welcome in the Oval Office
and not to be entirely marginalized.
Trump's vision of Realism draws from the source in the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 with its guiding concept of sovereign nation-states
that do not intervene in others' domestic affairs. It further draws on the notions of raison d'état or national interest
developed by the French court of Louis XIV and then taken further by "perfidious Albion" in the eighteenth century, with temporary
and ever changing combinations of states in balance of power realignments of competitors. The history of the Realist School
was set out magnificently by Kissinger in his 1994 work Diplomacy . It is a pity that the master himself strayed from true
and narrow.
In all of this, you have the formula for Trump's respect, even admiration for Putin, since that also is now Vladimir Vladimirovich's
concept of Russia's way forward: as a strong sovereign state that sets its own course without the constraints of alliances and based
on its own military might.
The incredible thing is how a man with such poor communication skills, a man who does not read much came to such an integrated
vision that outstrips the conceptual abilities of his enemies, his friends and everyone in between.
We are tempted to look for a mentor, and one who comes to mind is Steve Bannon, who is very articulate, razor-sharp in his intellect
and who provided Trump with much of the domestic content of his 2016 campaign from the alt right playbook. And though Bannon publicly
broke with Trump in their falling out over his ever diminishing role in the Administration, Bannon's ongoing project, in particular
his Movement to influence European politics and shift it to the Right by coordinating activities across the Continent during the
parliamentary elections of May 2019, very closely parallel what Trump's ambassador in Berlin seems to be doing in Trump's name.
It may well be that the President and his confidantes find it prudent for him to play the hapless fool, the clueless disrupter
of the global political landscape until he has the support in Congress to roll out the new foreign policy that is now in gestation.
The logical consequence of such a Realist approach to foreign policy will be to reach an understanding with the world's other
two principal military powers, Russia and China, regarding respective spheres of influence in their geographic proximity. But I do
not believe we will see a G-3 succeeding America's unipolar moment. Given the predispositions of both Russia and China, we are more
likely to see a broader board of governors of global policy in the form of the G-20, ushering in the multipolar age. In such a formulation,
regional conflicts will be settled locally by the interested parties and with the major powers involved only as facilitators, not
parties to conflict. That promises a much more stable and peaceful future, something which none of Donald Trump's detractors can
begin to imagine as his legacy.
trump has wrecked environmental policy, trade policy and domestic social policy....the
upshots will be: 1- a much more toxic environment & much higher level of respiratory
disease and cancerous related ailments; overall poorer health & health care for the
average citizen 2- higher prices for imported goods, lower level of trade exports, fewer US
based jobs and more off-shoring of US jobs 3- a substantial increase in the homeless
population in the urban areas of this country; increased rates of poverty for the poor, lower
economic prosperity for the lower and lower middle class income brackets; wage stagnation for
the middle & upper middle income brackets; less advanced education & lower worker
productivity and innovation to name just a few of the impacts created by this idiot....in
simple in English, Trump and his so-called initiatives are shafting this country in almost
every way possible
What part of international law is not just pissed on toiler paper strewn over the floors of a
urinal? Which post WWII president respected this law?
None.
International law, since WWII failed. It failed in '47 when no referendum was held in
Palestine - against Chapter 1, Article 1 paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. It failed in Crimea,
when the results of such a referendum was spat on by the previous war criminal to sit in the
Oval Office. It fails now as sanctions are used unilaterally - being equivalent to the use of
force in result, they should be
But then let's not stop at after the war. The US is the only country to nuke civilians.
6/7 US four star generals at the time said the action had no strategic or tactical purpose
whatsoever.
The US is what ISIS dreams to be, the sooner it falls into obscurity the better.
Pure nonsense. The Great Depression began on October 29, 1929. FDR was inaugurated on March
4, 1933 nearly 4 years after it began. Hoover had actually only been in office for just over
6 months before Black Tuesday. GDP began growing and unemployment began falling in 1933
shortly after FDR took office. The Depression officially came to an end in 1939 when GDP
returned to pre-Depression levels.
There is no long term US growth. There is a debt default after people realize the fact that
the top of the whole US government is incompetent. That it has chained itself to such
astronomic liabilities for useless wars (as the Empire has not succeeded in world hegemony),
is even sadder. It coould have spent the $5tn of Iraq and Afghanistan on building shit, but
instead it bombed shit.
Trump doesn't matter for US long run - in 5-10 years time the country will be only found
in history books.
Remember Kruschev's (sp?) last words on leaving office, and I'm paraphrasing: "Don't worry
about America, they'll spend themselves to death (just like we have)". Continued economic
growth is a wet dream of Wall Street origin. We are massively overpopulated and rapidly using
up earth's natural resources at an increasingly unsustainable rate. We must begin to reduce
our growth, not keep increasing it. Population density stress is killing us now and only
increasing every day along with the 220,000 new mouths to feed that we are turning out into a
world that has no room for 28,000,000 homeless migrants already. Just how crazy are we
really. If this article is to be believed, we are nuts. E.F. Schumacher is rolling in his
grave! Stress R Us
The contribution of a president to the national debt depends a bit on how you calculate it.
You could simply look at rhe dates of inauguration or go a step further and look at the
fiscal years. For the latter see :
In absolute terms Obama is indeed at the top of the list, percentagewise his predecessor
played a larger part. No matter how you look at it or what the causes were, under Bush and
Obama the U.S. debt seems to have spiralled out of of control and Trump is doing bugger all
to stop that trend.
For consider the fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years : the frozen wages of
U.S. workers, $12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million
manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that
pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.
To maintain a belief in the superiority of free trade to economic patriotism, in the face of
such results, is to recognize that this belief system is impervious to contradictory proof.
The sad reality that I see all around is that Western civilization has been hijacked by
degenerate hyenas like Rome was sacked from within first before being sacked externally. The
institutions that once made the West a leader and a model, have been corrupted, tainted and
filled with anti-humanists and crony corporatists. Greed is out of control and "popular
culture" is spreading decay. The hollowing out will continue until these parasites find
another host to leech off. Will it be China? Will it be a global government? Will it be
another planet? Who knows.
Once upon a time figures like Rosenstein, Mueller, Brennan, Browder, Clapper, Clinton etc
would be just fucking taken out or punished. Instead of that, they get to wander their toxic
asses around like protected peacocks, all on tax payers dime, with their shitty agendas, and
their shitty handlers cheering on the degeneracy and assault on the truth and the people.
If this is what "civilization" has boiled down to, count me the fuck out of it. The 5000
year old human farming experiment is merely switching straight jackets. Its the same old
story that ever was, ever since we gave up the nomadic lifestyle. In a way, its probably an
inevitability, given our flawed human nature, and the size of the population....and average
intellect. The desire to be 'lead' by some ruling class, no matter what flavour of 'ism' it
is, eventually all turns to the same end result....shit. Unless this global awakening can
muster into a force to be reckoned with, and not be swayed by divide and conquer tactics,
nothing will change. So far with the toxic Left vs Right divide, and countless other divides,
the only beneficiaries of this are the ones at the top of the pyramid.
Pat Buchanan: Are Globalists Plotting A Counter-Revolution?
HopefulCynical : Is the sky blue? Is water wet? Is fire hot?
FFS, look at the goddamn purge on (((Social media))). Of COURSE the (((globalists))) are
attempting a counter-revolution.
We all need to move to alt-tech: Minds , Gab , Bitchute . Even if you don't have a
(((social media))) presence, consider getting an alt-media presence. We've been wondering
when the next phase would begin, whewn it would be time to take further action. Well, it's
here.
First step in this next phase is to set up multiple lines of communication not under
(((establishment))) control. Even if you seldom use them, set up accounts; advise those you
know to do likewise. Wanna see the establishment panic? If they see the subscriber count for
the alt-tech sites suddenly quadruple (or more) in response to their purge, they'll shit
themselves. They'll probably attempt to pull domain registrars and financial processing
services from those sites.
Then - the motherfucking games begin, bitchez.
[EDIT:] According to Styx, the alt-tech sites are already seeing a surge in membership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZP1fwkdupg
Let the (((establishment))) diaper-filling begin!
But will "negotiations" and regulatory loosening on issues like the environment and worker
safety, which have gotten out of hand in the US to the disadvantage of underemployed
citizens, offset the extremely low wages offered to Asian and Latin American workers in the
countries where American-owned companies shipped over 6 million jobs, canceling out the
SS-retirement fund contributions that would have been made by American workers [and]
employers if the jobs had been kept here?
Cheap labor seems to TRUMP everything with US employers.
Running from the SS trust fund might be another reason for their abandonment of
America.
Cheap labor Trumps everything here in the USA, too, and the cheap-labor pool is aided and
abetted by the welfare system. That is why US employers prefer an often extremely absentee
welfare and progressive-tax-code-subsidized labor market, receiving .gov-financed monthly
bills and up to $6,431 in refundable child-tax-credit cash for US-born instant-citizen
kids.
Contrary to myth, hard work, daily and all-day attendance and even work productivity, like
every-month quota meeting, is NOT preferred by American employers for most of the jobs left
here in the USA.
The welfare-eligible 42 million are (on the books) not hard workers, but part-time
workers, staying under the income limits for welfare programs. I KNOW that from working at
the Department of Human Services, where single moms and the womb-productive girlfriends of
illegal and legal immigrants MUST submit proof of a single-breadwinner's part-time, traceable
earnings to get the free stuff.
The earnings must fall below the income limits for welfare programs that ALWAYS reward
part-time work in womb-productive single-breadwinner households of citizens and noncitizens.
You cannot work full time in a minimum-wage job while meeting the income limits. When I
worked at DHS, both the EBT and monthly cash assistance income limits were BELOW $900 per
month......
Even if Trump eventually lures US corporations back here with looser regulations and tax
cuts, rather than just unleashing a stock buy-back spree, it will not matter to the 101
million American citizens of working age who are out of the labor force and the 78 million
gig pieceworkers, not if this welfare-rigged labor market of citizens and noncitizens
continues to be the norm.
You cannot compete with a bigly labor market full of welfare-fetching citizens &
noncitizens who do not need pay sufficient to cover rent due to their womb production.
Only a Deplorables First immigration reform would address that issue, including a big
reduction in the number of welfare-eligible legal immigrants let in each year. The number 1.5
million is too many. This -- no more and no less than illegal immigration -- keeps wages
down, but the illegal immigration has the added bonus of making America more dangerous.
The impasse on the immigration issue is the reason why I am skeptical of the value of
current trade-war maneuvering, even though I am glad that Trump is addressing that general
issue.
The other thing that complicates this trade war is the way that globalist elites have sold
America out over the years, not just destroying the middle class with all of this offshoring
and welfare-supported illegal labor, but also getting the US economy 1) waist-deep in debt,
2) dependent on foreign investment and 3) subject to getting jerked around by Machiavellian
currency manipulation that non-math people, like me, really don't understand.
It sounds kind of dangerous, though, even just the argument that Stockman makes about
China being a house of cards that, if it came down, could have unintended consequences for
the US.
I have no idea. But I do know that many of the people who voted for Trump are pretty
adamant about the immigration issue, first and foremost, regarding it as an easier and less
risky thing to get done as well.
Maybe, the children-at-the-border Movie of the Week has convinced most Trump voters to
stay on the train, thinking something permanent has been done to contain the flow of
welfare-rewarded illegal immigration.
I think many of the teenagers, released into the country to live with extended family or
in foster care, will, in a few years, be entering the labor force as part-time workers,
producing instant-citizen kids and getting free monthly bills and refundable child-tax-credit
cash from .gov, while citizens like me will still face rent that eats up over half of our
monthly, earned-only income from low-wage churn jobs.
As much of an enthusiastic Trump voter as I have been, going back a long way, I am not
sure that I am going to vote in the mid-term general election. I am not going to vote for
this Tammany Hall II Democratic Party, but I may just stay home.
There are many populists out there, not just on the right either, who are disgruntled for
very real reasons, like this interesting article explains, so there will likely be wave after
wave of non-centrist populism until globalism's shoreline has been redefined.
Hmmm, weird, when I loaded the other link, it conformed to the format of this text box,
but then when I loaded the link above this last paragraph, it reverted to cutting off the
text on the side. Until I post it, I cannot see the full text after links are added.
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so
dependent on it favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other
hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous
advantages...will bear its burden without complaint and perhaps without suspecting that the
system is inimical to their best interests."
-Rothschild Brothers of London communique' to associates in New York June 25th, 1863.
The Difference.
J. Speer-Willams
June 16, 2010.
New-Cons. Love War & torture, increased regulations, tyranny and taxes; with our taxes
going to the plutocrats of the private banking community. They support governmental
destruction of our environment, under the pretender of protecting it. They, also, overtly
support corporatism (Fascism for Oligarchs) and any measures supported by the Republican
Party that enrich the private International Monetary / Banking Cartel at the expensive of
the. American People.
New- Libs. Love War & torture, increased regulations, tyranny and taxes; with our
taxes going to the plutocrats of the private banking community. They support governmental
destruction of our environment, under the pretender of protecting it. They, also, overtly
support corporatism (Socialism for Oligarchs) and any measures supported by the Democratic
Party that enrich the private International Monetary / Banking Cartel at the expensive of
the. American People.
The economics of the neoliberal era had a fundamental flaw.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into
the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building
up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private debt, neoclassical
economics.
I think Pat also gets this sentence wrong and if so I say he misses details we would like
to see
This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.
The University Economist programs/studies were more oriented toward people in the old
days. Economics today is used to justify Wall Street type finance and ideology. Economic
study was hijacked to serve only those looking to get rich any way they can. CFR agenda comes
to mind. Globalism comes to mind also and is an attack on all nations constitutions.
The Americans have been discovering the problems of running an economy with bad
economics.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
The Classical economist, Adam Smith, observed the world of small state, unregulated
capitalism around him.
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the
labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious
merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his
money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no
usurers and no tax gatherers."
How does this tie in with the trickledown view we have today?
Somehow everything has been turned upside down.
The workers that did the work to produce the surplus lived a bare subsistence
existence.
Those with land and money used it to live a life of luxury and leisure.
The bankers (usurers) created money out of nothing and charged interest on it. The bankers
got rich, and everyone else got into debt and over time lost what they had through defaults
on loans, and repossession of assets.
Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the
parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had
shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity
of everyone else.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
How can we protect those powerful vested interests at the top of society?
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the
Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy.
The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society
again.
It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the
money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let
bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their
loans.
The powerful vested interests held sway and economics was corrupted.
Now we know what's wrong with neoclassical economics we can put the cost of living back
in.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees want more disposable income (discretionary spending)
Employers want to pay lower wages for higher profits
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other
costs of living
The neoliberals obsessed about reducing taxes, but let the cost of living soar.
The economists also ignore the debt that is papering over the cracks and maintaining
demand in the economy. This can never work in the longer term as you max. out on debt.
The problem is the US has lost citizenry-control. A shadow-government along with media
operatives work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall globalist,
world-government objective (Neo-Marxism). The so-called elites behind the curtain are after
total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not be
a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a secretive
Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who will negotiate with each other as to which levers
to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization. But the tightknit
Cabal has more work to do to infiltrate deeper into US (and world) government. The EU's
Parliament is a proto-type test to tweak how they must proceed. As the Cabal coalesces their
power, more draconian rulership will become apparent. The noose will tighten slowly so as to
be un-noticeable and unstoppable. Certain events are planned that will cause citizenry to
demand totalitarianism (for safety reasons). For the Cabal, it'll be like taking candy from a
baby. This, in a nutshell, is the outline of how the US (and Western civilization) loses its
democracy.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to
understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets. FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS :
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national
outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive
global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying
interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals
then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured
to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously
established a proactive financial footprint.
Pat must suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance. There is no free trade, nor there
was before Trump. In a world of flexible exchange rates and central banking
backed-inflationary credit trade wars are the status quo. He willfully ignores all the
effects of credit inflation, unsound money, tax structures, subsidies, regulatory burdens
created internally and by those "trade deals" and last but not least the reserve status of
the fiat dollar which basically turned the US in a huge nothing-for-something economy
relative to its imports.
Completing the latest round of tariffs pledged against China, the US Trade Representative
announced on Tuesday (after the close of course) it will impose 25% tariffs on $16
billion-worth of Chinese imports starting August 23. The new round of tariffs completes Trump's
previously disclosed threat to impose $50 billion of import taxes on Chinese goods. The first
$34 billion-worth went into effect on July 6th.
According to the USTR statement, customs will collect duties on 279 product lines, down from
284 items on the initial list; as Bloomberg notes, this will be the second time the U.S. slaps
duties on Chinese goods in about the past month, overruling complaints by American companies
that such moves will raise business costs, tax US consumers and raise prices.
On July 6, the U.S. levied 25% duties on $34 billion in Chinese goods prompting swift
in-kind retaliation from Beijing.
Of course, China will immediately retaliate, having vowed before to strike back again,
dollar-for-dollar, on the $16 billion tranche.
The biggest question is whether there will be a far bigger tariff in the near future: as a
reminder, the USTR is currently also reviewing 10% tariffs on a further $200 billion in Chinese
imports, and may even raise the rate to 25%. Those tariffs could be implemented after a comment
period ends on Sept. 5. President Donald Trump has suggested he may tax effectively all imports
of Chinese goods, which reached more than $500 billion last year.
Over the weekend, Trump boasted that he has the upper hand in the trade war, while Beijing
responded through state media by saying it was ready to endure the economic fallout. Judging by
the US stock market, which has risen by $1.3 trillion since Trump launched his trade war with
China, which has crushed the Shanghai Composite, whose recent drop into a bear market has been
duly noted by Trump, the US president is certainly ahead now, even if the market's inability,
or unwillingness, to push US stocks lower has led many traders and analysts to scratch their
heads.
Exposing the growing backlash against Trump's trade policies, the
WSJ writes
that "ticked-off Canadians", angered by U.S. metals tariffs and Trump's harsh words
for their prime minister,
are boycotting American products and buying Canadian.
Take Garland Coulson, a 58-year-old Alberta entrepreneur, who admits that while usually he doesn't
pay much attention to where the goods he buys are coming from, saying that "you tend to buy the
products that taste good or you buy the products that are low in price where taste isn't an issue",
he believes the tariffs from Canada's neighbor are a "slap in the face," and added that in recent
he has put more Canadian products into his shopping cart.
Or take Calgary resident Tracy Martell, who "replaced her Betty Crocker brownie mix with a
homemade recipe and hasn't visited the U.S. since shortly after President Trump's inauguration."
Or take Ontario resident Beth Mouratidis is trying out Strub's pickles as a replacement for her
longtime favorite, Bick's.
The push to " boycott America" and buy more Canadian products gained strength after the U.S.
levied 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and 10% on aluminum starting June 1 and President Trump called
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "Very dishonest & weak" on Twitter following a Group of
Seven meeting the following week. Canada in turn imposed retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. products,
including foodstuffs such as ketchup, orange juice and yogurt.
"People sort of feel that we're getting a raw deal from the U.S. and we have to stick up for
ourselves," said Tom Legere, marketing manager for Ontario-based Kawartha Dairy Ltd., which has
seen more interest in its ice cream recently. "And this is their way at the supermarket of
trying to do so."
However, in their attempt to exclude US produce, Canadians have run into a problem:
what
is American, and what is really Canadian
?
The logistical spiderweb of global supply chains has made even something as simple as a boycott
surprisingly complex. It shouldn't be: after all, Canada is the U.S.'s top export market, taking a
little more than 18% of all U.S. exports. According to some estimates, roughly 40% to 60% of food
on Canada's grocery shelves is from the US, while closely linked production chains make it tough to
determine how much of any given item was produced domestically.
That has left would-be boycotters scratching their heads as they untangle how much of a given
product was made or grown outside the country.
The confusion has led to a mini cottage industry: tracing the origins of Canadian products.
"I'll swear up and down something is 100% Canadian," said Mouratidis, who curates a Facebook list
of Canadian household goods, food products and other items. Occasionally, she runs into surprises:
she was convinced Old Dutch chips were all-Canadian until she found out Old Dutch Foods Ltd. is a
subsidiary. The parent company, Old Dutch Foods Inc., is based in Minnesota.
This leads to occasional exclusions on the boycott list: the Old Dutch snack food remains on Ms.
Mouratidis's list because the Canadian company makes its chips in Canada.
It has also led to a sales boost for companies whose products are not "diluted" with traces of
American influence. A social-media post promoting Kawartha Dairy over "American" Haagen-Dazs ice
cream was criticized by a Facebook user who pointed out that Haagen-Dazs products sold in Canada
are made at a Canadian plant. The plant also uses Canadian dairy, Nestlé Canada Inc. confirmed.
Kawartha Dairy, which wasn't involved in the original post, received more than a hundred
emails and Facebook messages in recent weeks from Canadians asking where they could find the
company's ice cream.
Another product getting a boost from the "Buy Canadian" push: Hawkins Cheezies, a corn snack
that looks like a denser and crunchier version of Cheetos that is made with Canadian cheddar. W.T.
Hawkins Ltd., which makes the snack, said two large grocery-store chains recently increased their
orders.
The growing animosity to "Made in America" has made some traditional staples
non-grata:
Kraft Heinz has been a frequent target for Canadians since Heinz stopped producing ketchup
in Ontario in 2014.
A list circulating online recently that ranked consumers' best options for Canadian products
puts French's ketchup ahead of Heinz because it is manufactured in Canada.
Then again, unlike the Chinese where a
boycott really means a boycott
,
one wonder if for all the clamor, Canada's revulsion to US products is merely just another example
of virtue signaling. After all, one sector where the boycott efforts are failing miserably, is
travel. Although some people are deliberately staying away from the U.S., the WSJ notes that
according to official Canadian data,
overall cross-border car trips by Canadians were up
12.7% in June from the same month last year
.
Foreign trade can be mutually beneficial. For the most
part it has not been beneficial for the US for the last 40
years.
Much of the problem centers around US politicians simply
selling out to foreign interests through family, friends,
and foundations. The US worker has been left to dry up and
die.
China is willing to resolve differences with the United States
on an equal footing, the Chinese government's top diplomat said on Friday after meeting U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but added they did not address their trade war too
specifically.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday instructed his trade officials to look at
increasing tariffs to 25 percent from 10 percent on $200 billion in Chinese imports into the
United States.
Trump, who has accused China and others of exploiting the United States in global trade, has
demanded that Beijing make a host of concessions to avoid the new duties, which could be
imposed in the weeks after a comment period closes on Sept. 5.
China, however, shows no sign of bending to Washington's pressure.
Speaking to reporters after meeting Pompeo on the sidelines of a regional summit in
Singapore, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi said Pompeo told him he was "was willing to
maintain constructive contact".
"As two members of the U.N. Security Council and the world's largest two economies, we
should of course maintain talks at all times," Wang said.
"Cooperation is the only correct choice for the United States and China. It's the universal
expectation of the international community. Opposition can only bring dual loss and will hurt
the peaceful and stable development of the world," he added.
"We are willing to resolve the concerns of both sides via talks on the basis of an equal
footing and mutual respect. He (Pompeo) was accommodating on this as a direction, and said that
he does not want current frictions to continue," Wang said.
Answering a question about what was specifically said on trade, Wang said: "We did not speak
in such details. But actually, as journalists have noted, how can talks take place under this
pressure?"
Wang, who is also China's foreign minister, urged the United States on Thursday to calm down
and "carefully listen to the voices of U.S. consumers".
So far, the United States has imposed duties on $34 billion of imports from China as part of
a first tranche of sanctions on $50 billion of goods.
It wants China to stop stealing U.S. corporate secrets, abandon plans to boost its high-tech
industries at America's expense and stop subsidising Chinese companies with cheap loans that
enable them to compete unfairly.
China says the United States is trying to stop the rise of a competitor and it has imposed
its own tariffs on U.S. goods. The rising tensions have weighed on stock and currency markets,
with the Chinese yuan falling against the dollar.
The two countries have not had formal talks on their trade dispute since early June.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do
not necessarily reflect those of NASDAQ, Inc.
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut
down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row
in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing
funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes
for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery,
Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for
Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc.
and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our
Country!
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut
down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row
in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing
funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes
for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery,
Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for
Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc.
and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our
Country!
In the long run, the US has two distinct advantages that offset some of the vulnerabilities in the US economy, brought about
by 40 years of outsourcing. The US is energy independent to a very large extent, where China is greatly dependent on energy
imports, largely priced in dollars. The US has a global military advantage that will persist for the next decade or more.
Hard to say where this will lead. Best option is for the US and China to resume the trade talks that broke off months ago.
Economic mutually assured destruction is not a pleasant outcome, particularly at a moment when even the IMF is worrying about
emerging market debt, corporate debt defaults and other signs of another global financial crisis.
My sense is that the whole issue of trade disputes is not so much about trade and economics as much
as politics and sovereignty. Not a whole lot will have changed in economic terms when the dust
clears, but the underlying politics will have been altered unrecognizably. The whole idea of
creating international bureaucratic bodies to oversee and regulate international trade (e.g. WTO)
was to bypass the "normal" politics in the states involved. Long ago, the weaker countries cried
"modern day imperialism" over these because they felt (not entirely without justification) that
these arrangements took trade policy out of the hands of their domestic politics and unresponsive
to their needs, interests, and demands--and, in a sense, this was exactly the point, since
protectionism, even economically undesirable varieties, are product of "good" domestic politics.
But since 1980s and 90s, the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction where
reclaiming a share of sovereignty over trade policy is preferred by many over trusting
international bureaucracy. While not exactly "trade" policy (but it is economic), the experiences
of the less well off countries in EU (as well as segments of the publics even in better off
countries) has to be a fairly widespread worldview in many countries these days--certainly enough
that it should make good politics to try to address them in some fashion, not try to override them
by fiat (the latter seeming to be the preferred approach of the cosmopolitan elite)
"My sense is that the whole issue of trade disputes is not so much about trade and economics as
much as politics and sovereignty."
That has to be right, and it certainly applies to small
countries. Small countries must always be aware that there is a loss of sovereignty implicit in
the very act of trading with larger ones. The greater weight of the large country can enable it
to impose trading terms that are sometimes disadvantageous to the smaller.
Tough. That's how it is. But the smaller country must always be on its guard against the very
real danger of allowing that to extend to loss of political sovereignty.
What I don't see is how this applies to the US. The US is not a small country and need not
fear any loss of political sovereignty attendant upon any lack of size or power. Therefore one
could perhaps see the current US trade negotiations in a different light.
That is, that Trump is not defending his country against any such threat. He is merely
attempting to level the playing field. For far too long that playing field has been tilted
against the US worker and, ultimately, the US economy. He was elected to rectify that and will,
I believe, be judged by his success in doing so.
If, in attempting that, he ruffles a few feathers - well, if he went the asking nicely route
they'd walk all over him.
That quibble aside, I couldn't agree more with your note.
I don't think the size of the country is the decisive factor.
International trade always
produces winners and losers. Depending on the particulars, the gains might be more widely
spread than losses, or vice versa. Both sides want to play the political game to shape the
terms of the trade in their favor. Generally, those who are in favor of more protection tend
to do well in domestic politics, while those who tend to gain more by opening up trade don't.
This is why international bureaucracy regulating trade winds up being set up, to bypass the
domestic political process in favor of the free traders.
I don't think there is a fundamental relationship between the size of the country and the
political conflict over free trade. It may be that smaller countries tend to be predisposed
more towards protectionist policies, but counterexamples are found easily (e.g. Singapore).
The real issue is that creation of and deference to international bureaucracy is a mechanism
through which the winners from free trade shift the venue of politics from the domestic to
the international and, in a sense, unfairly disadvantage their political enemies by depriving
them of the means to affect trade policy easily. Or, in other words, international trade
bureaucracy is NOT just a solution for trade conflict between nations, but a political weapon
directed at the skeptics at home. If the winners of free trade were willing to share their
gains with the losers, the conflict would not need to be so sharp. This has not been the case
in US: more than in most other developed countries, the winners of free trade kept the gains
only to themselves, claiming moral absolute of the free trade and their Mammon-given right to
hold on to everything. Those who lose from the free trade are not only aggrieved, but find
themselves at the wrong end of the political game specifically rigged to deprive them of
influence. They don't want to play by its rules if they can--and Trump is providing them this
option.
In this sense, Trump's actions are re-domesticalizing the politics of free trade, making
trade policy responsive to domestic interests that were shunted side formerly. The
internationalists have only their own short-sightedness to blame: if they were willing to
build up a broader coalition, or at least, appease their domestic opponents better, the
opposition to free trade detached from domestic politics would not have become so
acrimonious.
Personally, I think it's not a good development: walking back from free trade is not easy,
if at all possible--too many linkages have been built, too many sectors are dependent on
access to foreign inputs or markets, that actual protectionism will be near impossible to
bring back without major costs. Still, if you are creating international bureaucracy to
bypass domestic politics, you'd better not piss off folks back home enough that they'd start
with pitchforks, and this is among the many mistakes internationalists have made.
This interview of Sir James Goldsmith by Charlie Rose frames his debate with Laura Tyson, Clinton's
trade representative. Well worth watching to understand the trade debate.
Play
Hide
The analyst in the link below explained the myth US energy independence. Although it is not as
severe as china's need for foreign energy supply , but she got russian energy export via landline
as opposed as sealane gulf imports.
There also this constant propaganda of better unemployment
statistic , because of the way the data was processed to make it looks better (cooked)
-- -- -- -- --
From Srsroccoreport :
While the Mainstream media and the Whitehouse continue with the energy independent mantra, the
U.S. is still highly reliant upon a great deal of foreign oil.
Ahttps://d3hxt1wz4sk0za.clo...
, why would the U.S. import 8 million barrels of oil per day if
its shale oil production has surged over the past decade?
Well, it's quite simple. The U.S. Shale Oil Industry is producing way too much light tight oil,
with a high API Gravity, for our refineries that are designed for a lower grade. So, as U.S. shale
oil production exploded , the industry was forced to export a great deal more of this light oil
overseas.
Thanks for your exposition.
Some observations:
China's import of oil in US funds is about equal to USA's net import in US$ - the rest is in ruble/yuan.
The armed force imbalance is of no value, as attack on China is certain to get A-bombs into play
[aside form danger to US ships both naval and other due to Chinese/Russian made anti ship missiles]
The USA can not maintain 25% duties on consumer goods for the simple reason that 75% of population
can not afford to be consumer -debt levels are too high.
The USA can not maintain high tariffs as such would greatly increase the inflation rate applicable
to the "deplorables" who are already on ropes [homelessness, welfare, food subsidies etc.] Notably
the Fed would have to raise rates if inflation increases with dire result for the bond market and
the federal deficit due to increased interest costs.
That the European satraps have bowed under US pressure is nothing new... there will be more changes
in governments in the next cycle - the present bunch is too ripe [or rotten].
I do not imply by the above that China will not suffer, however they have a trillion dollar kitty
to balance the external trade problems.
"75% of population can not afford to be consumer..."
They are in debt because they are consuming beyond thier income. "the Fed would have to raise
rates if inflation increases" The Fed has already raised rates twice this year. It was less than
ten days ago that Trump based the Fed for raising rates. The losers in that have always been
Americans at the bottom.
http://thehill.com/policy/f...
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
By Enrico Verga,
a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he
concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His
articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many
other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force:
profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers
and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It
isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current
conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of
pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the
middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and
other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton,
and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top
of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by
Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of
Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits
of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of
figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the
New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its
analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream
Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American
counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the
analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic
fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that
currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their
managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and
expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods
(metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank
slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new
"happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock
doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for
mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became
famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't
adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the
scandal of
Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory
producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations
freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest)
labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can
bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing
for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany
successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of
this achievement is the exploitation of workers
from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has
allowed many European businesses to
shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker
is much lower (
by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its
role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class
– and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they
are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes
illegally (
as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization,
while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a
journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi
continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic
crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate
bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by
pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the
diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a
miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an
explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is
financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of
voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way
– the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically
changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen
recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself
forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an
influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just
think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic
migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to
understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a
way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of
globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on
which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily
focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the
(pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many
blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of
deputy Lia Quartapelle on
the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of
the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the
lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle
subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are
symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to
potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where
Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that
she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of
exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces.
Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection
for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at
controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side
has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new
direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns
of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to
globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other
differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and
keep our focus on what really matters.
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must
acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but
that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION –
that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL
DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be
done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler
politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that.
Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in
the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must
continue.
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate.
According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has
shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce
of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember
several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on
an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines:
'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure
fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems
unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those
chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or
established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the
virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing
Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like
would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well
being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class
under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then
established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of
policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared
deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists
for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist
stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet,
as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all
workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled
matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously
implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political
landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who
called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic
policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid
handsomely for their services.
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never
saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into
this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into
racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading
when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US.
But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively
protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as
in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think
a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the
expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage
thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of
the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption
(certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real
migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party
was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in
working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party
who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between
nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's
about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think
that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour
arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent
immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that
is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a
campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often
fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they
get right).
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine,
collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments).
Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature
if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy,
rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in
your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are
done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the
powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like
you.
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to
say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It
makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in
contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time
in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world
IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan
policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and
rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media
and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially
true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their
"it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more
vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often
from Europe.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti
Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely
ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves
and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on
Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs
union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour
markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist
direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political
parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the
hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers
for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the
few over the many.
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can
be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did
the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop.
First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to
Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany
and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need
to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for
continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also
need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own
corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even
when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest
push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix
their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly
alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want
concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms
but not alone by far.
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic
migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of
international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring
history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before
the next blow.
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which
is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and
cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in
speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent
crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker
ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but
rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the
sort.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic
system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that
everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one
set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while
they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that
everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate
different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the
more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the
fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of
Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to
destroy the system or did not care to support it.
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in
Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting
the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin
friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO,
UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization,
Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national
sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique
of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there
is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him
to change his mind.
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate
between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain
of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging
in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u
know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting
that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is
willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents
point :)
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be
seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of
workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political
classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this
video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by
Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who
reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and
pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with
something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern
political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have
been posted here, sorry Yves.
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information
or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the
general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that
biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and
intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate,
regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and
rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years
of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's
a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such,
all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the
record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts
that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that
parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy
flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger
entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the
human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military
senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated
proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the
healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the
prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of
inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that
cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive
levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose
guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half.
Divide and conquer rules.
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near
power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want
protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights.
Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to
distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages,
some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they
have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even
though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home
country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist
shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic
migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against
them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower
or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this
happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is
nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce
surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself
wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly
that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist,
but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the
economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet
their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the
problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to
exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater
number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain
togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even
stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly
noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and
not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of
the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each
other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come
for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class
who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would
enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or
would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers
produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are
actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to
another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your
logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would
suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but
instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are
straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the
capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work
toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will
either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect
the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false
equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and
instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public
figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred
to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the
article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article
and look them up before discussing the matter.
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly
uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict
with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he
should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers
American reflexes.
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton
imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the
reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the
US.
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to
look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia
and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer
countries.
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point
out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and
peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining?
With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and
deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern
Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless
in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population,
especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using
fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I
would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry
about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth."
+10,000
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich
countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we
live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of
inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to
live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this
economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world
countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do,
it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to
meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments
above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization
possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7
Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created
stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from
declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising
cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever
further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political
parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and
left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national
sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in
current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods
and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that
even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is
a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the
alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9%
enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can
benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said
policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within
the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with
the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor
policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the
ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the
workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used
to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think
we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the
labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most
from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the
working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their
profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of
enabling those overseas profits.
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their
advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income
whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the
US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely
transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to
that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax
deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of
corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try
though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major
factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we
have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational
corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable
(i.e. cheapest) labor force."
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US
in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here
to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we
view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then
fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary
extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some
sort of supranational
IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance
and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way
to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic
migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan
task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we
are at least moving in the right direction.
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the
revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be
alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention
from this issue.
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one,
for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try
to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of
them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can
have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an
analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if
we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the
Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent
have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an
imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it
certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant
role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely
clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of
course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization
and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american
drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame.
There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not
being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years
are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now,
could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the
extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing
onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a
rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their
needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a
country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries
close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems
to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of
this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the
US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are
much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and
economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system,
which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in
instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite
small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes.
Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not
the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the
geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable
products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers
are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there
right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to
society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who
take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify
there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the
underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and
willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will
wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to
exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the
country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has
been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through
mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their
desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is
also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will
still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass
is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers
and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the
real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held
withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native
workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors
then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is
much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left
generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way
modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like
Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding
political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically
different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But
as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must
generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were
referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence
for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used
to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its
algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound
for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth.
While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it
will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of
the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its
exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs
nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US,
Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to
pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt
that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it
needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time
to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i
am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my
viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your
able to get something out of my response as well.
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some
misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely
translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be
unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the
meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article
speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues
with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are
economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get
US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply
some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are
suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge
that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say
things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country
workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist
system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current
conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting
more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly
detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's
the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way
described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that
way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3),
as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might
in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run;
this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other
significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question
of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital
reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long
run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness
to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the
impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing
in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in
which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his
arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this
misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so
analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the
article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by
neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little
protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its
war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely
fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are
decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the
consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate
intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist
policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable
of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already
destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental
contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who
protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these
countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe
the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country,
for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human
fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions
of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity
and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
Globalization is not a one-dimensional phenomenon, and some of its aspects are still intact.
Hollywood dominance, Internet, English language dominance, West technological dominance, will
not reverse any time soon.
What is under attack by Trump, Brexit, etc. is neoliberal globalization, and, especially
financial globalization, free movement of labor and outsourcing of manufacturing and services
(offshoring).
Neoliberal globalization was also based on the dollar as world reserve currency (and oil
trading in dollars exclusively). But this role of dollar recently is under attack due to the
rise of China. Several "anti-dollar" blocks emerged.
Trump tariffs are also anathema for "classic neoliberalism" and essentially convert
"classic neoliberalism" into "national neoliberalism" on the state level. BTW it looks like
Russia switched to "national neoliberalism" earlier than the USA. No surprise that Trump
feels some affinity to Putin ;-)
Attacks against free labor movement also on the rise and this is another nail in the
coffin of classic neoliberalism. In several countries, including the USA the neoliberal elite
(especially financial elite after 2008, despite that no banksters were killed by crowds) does
not feel safe given animosity caused by the promotion of immigration and resorts of
conversion of the state into national security state and neo-McCarthyism to suppress
dissent.
I think those attacks will continue, immigration will be curtailed, and "classic
neoliberalism" will be transformed into something different. Not necessarily better.
Several trends are also connected with the gradual slipping of the power of the USA as the
chief enforcer of the neoliberal globalization. Which is partially happened due to the
stupidity and arrogance of the USA neoliberal elite and neocons.
Another factor in play is the total, catastrophic loss of power of neoliberal propaganda
-- people started asking questions, and neoliberal myths no longer hold any spell on
population (or at least much less spell). The success of Bernie Sanders during the last
election (DNC was forced to resort to dirty tricks to derail him) is one indication of this
trend. This "collapse of ideology" spells great troubles for the USA, as previously it spells
great troubles for the USSR.
"Trumpism" as I understand it tried to patch the situation by two major strategies:
(1) splitting Russia from China
(2) Attempt to acquire dominant position in regions rick in hydrocarbons (Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Venezuela, etc)
But so far the decline of neoliberalism looks like Irreversible. It never fully recovered
from the deep crisis of 2008 and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Another powerful factor that works against neoliberal globalization is the end of cheap
oil. How it will play out is unclear, Much depends whether we will have a Seneca cliff in oil
production or not. And if yes, how soon.
This is the end of classic neoliberalism, no question about it, and the collapse of
neoliberal globalization is just one aspect of it
"... Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that. ..."
"... Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles. ..."
"... Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'. ..."
"... Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war? ..."
"... Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait. ..."
G-7 summits are supposed to symbolize "the west", its unity and its power. The summits pretended to set policy directions for
the world. We are happy to see that they are dead.
Trump was obviously not inclined to compromise.
Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia
had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland. Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious.
She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid talk. Russia is not interested in rejoining
the G-7/G-8 format.)
There are now many fields where the U.S. and its allies disagree: climate change, the Iran deal, trade are only the major ones.
Before leaving the summit Trump again
used
Mafia language against everyone else:
As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade
barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.
"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that
companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed,
then we're not going to deal with these countries. "
The row at the G-7 meeting was in stark contrast to the more important other meeting that happened today, the 18th Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China:
Dazzling against the city skyline of Qingdao, fireworks lit up the faces of guests who traveled across the vast Eurasian continent
to the coast of the Yellow Sea for the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, on Saturday night.
It is the first such summit since the organization's expansion in June 2017 when India and Pakistan joined as full members.
...
The Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit
of common development , was stated in the Charter of the SCO, a comprehensive regional organization founded in 2001 by China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and later expanded to eight member states.
This weekend Xi will chair the summit for the first time as Chinese president, which is attended by leaders of other SCO member
states and four observer states, as well as chiefs of various international organizations.
...
The SCO has grown to be an organization covering over 60 percent of the Eurasian landmass, nearly half the world's population
and over 20 percent of global GDP.
Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia
apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that.
Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought
to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers'
it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles.
Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue,
the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my
best friend'.
The 'west' has lost in Eurasia.
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big. Trump is off to Singapore to meet Kim Yong-un. Unlike Trump North Korea's supreme leader will be well prepared. It is likely that
he will run rings around Trump during the negotiations. If Trump tries to bully him like he bullies his 'allies', Kim will pack up
and leave. Unlike the U.S. 'allies' he has no need to bow to Trump. China and Russia have his back. They are now the powers that
can lead the world.
The 'west' is past. The future is in the east.
Posted by b on June 9, 2018 at 03:14 PM |
Permalink
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Trump is running full-speed into isolation. It's an ancient policy, which recalls the 1920s. What
does America need of the outside world? Good question.
I would think we will hear in the not too distant future of a European replacement of the US exchange systems, such as VISA.
The Americans have become too unreliable. Obviously the Russians and Chinese do have their own systems, but that won't do for
the EU.
Independence is going to be forced, and the consequences will be permanent.
Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started
it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more
valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but
it is well worth the wait.
Last year during the border standoff with India they had on strident Indian voices arguing the Indian position every day. Imagine
if CNN had on Mexican reps regarding the wall - never happen.
Because Iran was under sanctions levied by the United Nations earlier, it was blocked from admission as a new member of the Shanghai
Cooperation Council [SCO]. The SCO stated that any country under UN sanctions could not be admitted. After the UN sanctions were
lifted, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced its support for Iran's full membership in SCO during a state visit to Iran in January
2016.Iran must join the SCO ASAP it is also a military alliance and should prepare itself for a big effort at regime change by
the US and lackeys. The moral of the story unless they hang together, the US will hang them separately.
Well, China as the text books say was always ' half the human story' - only eclipsed by Western connivance in the 1860's .I remember
my father argueing with high ranking Australian government and commercial figures in 1970.
My father argued Australia needed
to find its own voice with China and Chinese policy . They replied sneeringly '' Ralph , their just red communists and will never
amount to anything ' . Shortly thereafter Nixon flew to Beijing and my father sat back in his living room with a sardonic look
on his face !
You may like Freedland's article yesterday, which unusually I agreed with, that in fact Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives
away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem? Why give away the
honour to NK of a one-to-one with the US president? I'd be surprised if NK surrenders, when they know what will happen if they
do.
"President Putin is the leader of a great country who is influential around the world," Xi said. "He is my best, most intimate
friend." Xi promised Russia and China would increase their coordination in the international arena.
Putin expressed his thanks for the honor and said he saw it as an "evaluation" of his nation's efforts to strengthen its relationship
with its southern neighbor.
"This is an indication of the special attention and respect on which our mutual national interests are based, the interests
of our peoples and, of course, our personal friendship," Putin said.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time. In cold war 1.0, Soviet Union
was the main enemy of the US and China was split away from the Soviet Union. In this war, Trump sees China's economy as the main
threat to the US and is trying but failing to pull Russia away from China.
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
If winning the Cold War is about vanquishing communism, they flat out lost. Because, while they were concentrating on the end
of the USSR and celebrating, China was going up and up and up. They never saw her coming, yet to this day and for the foreseeable
future, China is a socialist, Marxist country.
So the new, desperate Western spin is to try to argue that China has "succumbed" to capitalism. Yeah, right, a country where
all the private companies have to have members of the CPC on their board and hand over enough shares to the state to grant it
veto powers, not to mention the Central bank and all its major companies are state-owned... Lol.
After the collapse of the USSR the consensus - even of the alt-media (what little of it existed) was that a new American century
was on the way and the whole world would be better off for it. A decade later in 2003 the consensus (post 'shock & awe' Gulf War
2) was that America had the ability to re-structure the Asian /African world and that it would all be for good.
15 years later we are all sick of the fruit of that delusion. So we look to another power to save us... Do we understand nothing?
Without the accountability of multi-polarity, Western supreme power all became security-obsessed privilege, self-aggrandizement,
blatant plunder and total disregard for moral value and life. Power corrupts - it knows no exceptions.
If the West is truly dead, the East will be no different.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time.
Thought of a moment to annoy the Europeans. It is obvious that Trump was pissed off about having to attend, and left at the earliest
opportunity. The Europeans heard that, and will draw the inevitable conclusions.
Lea @ 13 Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist, what does it matter: it seems to work for China, at least for the time being. It's success
makes me think that a bit more government control of corporations might not be such a bad thing.
The summit with Kim will be fascinating to observe. In my view, NK has finessed the US and the Trump administration to a degree
I would not have thought possible, even from native US insiders. To do it long range from the other side of the world speaks to
me a lot about the power of Asia, and the clarity of view from there.
I agree with Laguerre @9 that Trump is a terrible negotiator (forgive that I didn't read the Guardian piece). I would take
this much further and say that all the US institutions themselves are culturally crippled in terms of understanding what's happening
in the ascendancy of Asia. All of their negotiation is feeble, because their grasp on their own true position is based on yesterday's
view of their power. You cannot go into negotiation without knowing what you hold.
Every day, I become more confident in the ability of the elder nations to put the young western empires to rest without their
being triggered into death spasms.
Red Ryder @11 - I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to
render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked. Russia as the other half of the Double Helix
mesmerizes the west with weaponry while China undercuts the ground. Both countries are fully at war, and winning, while unseeing
commenters complain that it's time for them to "do something." How superb the silk rope drawn so softly around the throat.
It's a beautiful play. I very much hope - and truly expect - that we can all survive to be able to sit back and admire it as
the years unfold.
I have a small quibble with b's wording but thank him for following and reporting on our evolving world.
b's words:"
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
"
My rewording:
The global elite have their US puppet acting like a schoolyard bully who beat up his gang members because their former victims
have grown too big.
The West is trying to consolidate power and control while they still have some ghost of a chance. How they hold countries after
this global divorce will be interesting.
At his time the West has little to offer humanistically except its vice grip on most economic interaction and the tools including
banking underpinning the "system". The elite have deluded the public in the West for centuries about private finance behind the
scenes of all/most conflict......pointing to other religions but never their own.
It sure is getting interesting. IMO, the two Koreas are going to announce a reconciliation that requires the removal of America
military forces/bases et al, which fits in with the fake nationalism efforts of Trump.
That the US and the EU and their respective camps are at loggerheads over trade and perhaps other economic issues should not (I
hope) lead readers to assume that one side has the interests of the public it represents uppermost in mind. As the US and the
Anglosphere is dominated by one set of neoliberals, so Germany and the lackey EU nations following Berlin are dominated by another
set of neoliberals in thrall to an export-led mercantilist ideology. Just as the elites in charge of US power structures are only
interested in enriching themselves, the same can be said for those in charge of power structures in Europe. Whether under the
US or the EU, the public suffers.
Notice that Germany benefits from being the major economic power in the EU while its fellow EU nations around the Atlantic
and Mediterranean rim flail under a huge debt (and Greece is being punished back into the impoverished colonial status it held
under Nazi German occupation) and eastern European EU members are following suit running their economies into the ground and having
to beg NATO into setting up bases in their territories to attract money. At the same time German workers are becoming poorer,
they are not benefiting from Berlin's economic policies, they are not reproducing fast enough so Berlin needs to bring in more
foreign workers in the guise of "refugees" to prop up factories and keep wages low.
@ Madderhatter67: The US did not win the Cold War because the Cold War was only ever a propaganda front for the secret war
waged by US / UK elites against Russia and China to dominate and rob these nations and their neighbours of their natural resources.
thanks b - and for the laugh with the marjorie and homer pic for comparison!
i think this parallel you draw is a good one.. the west is certainly floundering... i am not sure how global finance responds
here... i can't imagine the 1% being on the wrong side of a bet on the direction of things here either..
@6 harry law.. did iran make it into the sco? it sounds like it did.. good!
@14 les7.. regarding your last line - i tend to agree with that viewpoint..
@19 jen... do you think it will be somehow different if the power shifts to russia/china? i guess i am not so sanguine over
power, regardless of who holds it.
Very well put, only issue that as to be dealt with is all those Stan Countries, they are a hibernating and breeding ground for
Terrorists and Arms dealers , who don't care who they sell arms to and how they get them to rogue regimes.
I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy
powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked.
I do think you're exaggerating there.
China's past history has been one of a country very contented with itself, much like the US, because defended geographically
by vast deserts. A longer history, so some foreigners did traverse the deserts.
The Chinese exported their products by foreign ships (Arabo-Persian) arriving at Canton, and buying cargoes, or camel caravans
arriving in the north and buying silk. The Chinese themselves did not travel abroad very much, and so didn't know very much about
surrounding countries, or the rest of the world. There was a fleet of Chinese junks which arrived in the Gulf in the 14th century,
but it was the only one.
Today's situation is not so different. There are Chinese interventions in Africa, but their diplomacy is pretty ham-fisted.
The Belt-and-Road initiative is in fact intended to bring up to speed Central Asian countries like Tajikistan. Fine, Tajikistan
needs it, but it's not world-changing.
The rail freight from Beijing to Frankfurt works better as an intermediate between sea and air freight, but essentially it
is what has always happened - foreigners export Chinese products. The Chinese don't know how to run a foreign policy.
from their body language, I would say that Japan is surely 'with' Trump and the US, but that's only because that arch-reactionary
Abe is in power.....and when he goes, and go he will, there will be a big period of adjustment...some day.
The scambastic Trump could be inclined to make a slightly more fair deal in Singapore just to make a deal, but he is going extra
early (no jet lag) and will be controlled by Pompeo with his 'Grim Reaper' CIA-dog/warhawk/translator/born & raised S. Korean
with multiple relations in their South KCIA (NIS) and cabinet leadership, Andrew Kim (born Kim Sung-hyun). Kim's purpose will
be to control Trump's spontaneaous decision making, inform him on what he reads as N. Korea's intent, and give baseline hawkish
color to the translations for his own hawkish viewpoint.
bjd, bolton is trump's overseer, making sure he doesn't step out of line.
Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the
US embassy to Jerusalem?
Laguerre, you have it backwards. the embassy move, the iran deal, and the appointment of bolton are all concessions trump made,
as payback for adelson's millions to both the gop and his campaign. possibly also has a little something to do cambridge analytica,
honey traps or whatever.
The imprint of the 84-year-old's political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump's more controversial decisions, including
violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John
Bolton as national security adviser.
......The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a "shadow National Security Council" advising Bolton
James @ 21: I think one should always be a bit suspicious of those who hold power, especially those who find themselves holding
the uppermost hand in power as a result of victory in war (whether in the form of actual military combat, trade war or other wars
in soft power).
Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they
may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa?
Of course, it is about Iran. It's the Iranian deal that the EU needs to continue. They benefit as the biggest vendors to Iran.
They want to get inside that developing 70 million person market, also.
Bolton wants regime change. The EU knows that will be worse than Iraq. And economically, the EU will be in the dumps for 2
decades if there's another war they are forced to join. And they will be forced to join. They cannot say No to the Hegemon.
The EU 2, Germany and France, are at a historic moment of truth.
They could have a great future with Russia, China, Iran, the BRICS, SCO, OBOR and EAEU or they could be crippled by the Empire.
"...But Canada, which pushed for Russia to get the boot in 2014, is not onside. 'Russia was invited to be part of this club
and I think that was a very wise initiation, and an invitation full of goodwill,'[FM Chrystia Freeland] she told reporters at
the summit. 'Russia, however, made clear that it had no interest in behaving according to the rules of Western democracies..."
it's kind of wonderful to see all these imperialist and former neo-colonial powers fighting among themselves.
unfortunately, like the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight it's the grass and small animals that suffer.
I see no reason for optimism for the peoples of europe at this point, as the stranglehold of the Trioka is perhaps as strong
as ever, and hundreds of millions of people are suffering; the people simply have to get organized at all levels and take back
their sovereignty at least as a start
The US still has the power of the dollar in its arsenal. The UK and EU, and any nation that deals with Wall Street, are addicted
to US investment in dollars. Since the EU is run by the banks, and western banks can't function with the dollar, any statements
by the EU that they're going to avoid US sanctions over Iran are meaningless.
The equation is essentially this: you can have your sovereignty or you can have the benefits of the dollar that make your 1%
very rich. You can't have both. Since the EU is ruled by the 1% banker/investor class they will forestall any attempts to regain
sovereignty by the people. In a sense, Europe is like Russia 10-15 years ago, thinking that the US is the key to the golden calf.
Russia learned the hard way they needed to establish some independence (although to this day Russia doesn't have nearly the financial
independence one might hope), and China saw from Russia's example they needed to do so as well. This led them to team up on many
economic initiatives while seeking to reduce the dominance of the dollar.
Perhaps someday Europe will learn this lesson. But as long as the EU exists, I kind of doubt it. The EU-crats will cry and
criticize Trump but the bankers love US money too much to let them actually do anything serious.
If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia,
and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians?
Most Americans don't no matter how much explanation I go into.
They insist its a tariff or duty,which its not.
I've given up trying to explain its a sales tax on all,paying at customs is merely a cash flow issue for the importer.A reclaimable
input on his VAT return,did it many times myself.
there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them.
Trumps quid pro quo is deals that benefit his family. I don't thinks he cares one bit about the GOP and how the party fundraises.
He cares about advancing his family and keeping the loot.
maybe we should realize that the concepts of east and west, as much as neo liberalism or neo conservatism or any other moniker
that we could apply to loot and steal - legally and without shame under the guise of trade - are concepts of the past.
the future is for the strongest, irrespective of their origins or philosophy. we are burning this planet down with a vengeance
and we - the people - are to numerous and too expensive to keep.
while we debate and some even chuckle with delight as to how the west is treated by trump, or how much the west deserves to
be made redundant and all hail the Russians and the Chinese - the king is dead, long live the king - it is us who dies in the
wars, it is our children that are being kidnapped and locked up in prison when arriving on the border seeking asylum, it is us
who will watch the women in our live die in childbirth because of lack of medical care, it is us who will die of black lung, hunger,
thirst and general malice.
and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank.
b, we have no doubt that the North Korean leadership is ready for the Americans and know the score with a rising Eurasia and a
sinking NATO. However, your last assumption of Kim being more than ready to go toe-to-toe with DJT smacks of some of the worst
tendencies of many posters here who are ready to venerate Kim without him ever even making formal address of more than a few words
to a) his people, 2) his allies, or D) even the world. This is a laughable assumption from you and it would be like having the
most beautifully-made garment handy for a long while, desperate for anyone to come along so you could fling it on them to prove
they were the most amazing supreme leader in all the world!
This is not to say I do not want the NoKos to succeed in their endeavors of getting a fair deal...hardly: I think they will
succeed eventually because they are shrewd. But this is an attempt to squash the unbelievably propagandistic (or naive) attempts
to place the mantle of imperviousness, all-knowingness, utterly-innocentness, and insurmountably-cleverousness onto the boy that
would be king. DJT could eat a boy like Kim for breakfast if left alone from their advisors.
Trump is very dependent on his base. He knows them well. At risk of hitting a discordant note I suspect a lot of his fans are
happy seeing him sock it to the goddamn ch*nks and euro faggots.
It's a big weekend. G7, SCO, Bilderberg, NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels and the huge NATO "Drills" including the Baltic
States and for the first time, Israel.
Oh, and the US called on NATO to add 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 naval ships to "counter Russian aggression."
I predicted it would become the G6+1 and so it has. Trump told his staffers NOT to sign the Joint Communique, which I believe
is a first.
On the issue of power
and the BRI , the linked item is a trove of info as it focuses on perhaps the most problematic region of the SCO/BRI.
If Europe is to break free from the Outlaw US Empire, Merkel must be jettisoned and independent-minded leaders must take control
of Germany and EU. I'm not at all surprised with how events went in Canada. However, I see the Policy as the Bully, not Trump,
the policy still being the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Domination. What's most important, IMO, is this spectacle will not go
unnoticed by the rest of the world. The Outlaw US Empire cannot make it any plainer that it's the primary enemy state of all except
the Zionist Abomination. I think Abe wonders why he's there and not in Qingdao.
Although this item focuses on Kashmir , it should be read after the longer article linked above. There's little news as of
yet coming from Qingdao other than who's cooking what and sideline meets. I expect more coming out beginning Monday. Of course,
Kim-Trump begins now, it being the 10th in Singapore already.
The difference between the two projects- the western Empire and the Eurasian schemes exemplified by OBOR- is that the former,
as 500 years of experience teaches us, relies on ethnic divisions, wars and competition while the latter requires peace and co-operation.
In a sense that answers Jen @ 32. It really doesn't matter who runs the governments of China and Russia, provided that they
can prevent the imperialists from distracting them into rivalry. It was that which, thanks to plenty of stupidity on both sides,
gave rise to the tensions of which Nixon and Kissinger took advantage.
Had the USSR and China ironed out their small differences on the sixties- and Vietnam gave them a perfect excuse to do so,
history would have been very different and probably much less bloody.
The truth is that, as b asserts, the SCO is already much more important than the G7- America and the Six Dwarfs. How much more
important is shown by the role of Freeland (the neo-Nazi Ukrainian apologist) in insisting on holding the line against Russia's
re-admission to a club that it almost certainly does not want to rejoin.
Trump may not be a 'good negotiator' but he has a position of relative strength vis a vis the rest of the G7 who cannot negotiate
because they do as they are told. If they won't do what Trump tells them to do they will be on the lookout for someone else to
give them orders-they have no idea of independence or sovereignty. Just watch most of them scuttle back to Brussels for ideas,
or set up back channels to Moscow- once a puppet always a puppet.
The Sino-Soviet Split occurred while Stalin was still alive--he refused to allow the Chinese to develop "Communism with Chinese
Characteristics" just like any other European Orientalist. And as the Monthly Review article I linked, the Chinese must
beware of becoming/being seen as Imperialistic in their zeal to push BRI--Imperialist behavior will kill the Win-Win concept as
it will revert to just another Zero-sum Game.
One of the factors which has been killing the 'Democratic' West is that its bribed & blackmailed leaders have alienated themselves
from The People whose views they were elected to represent.
No-one living in a so-called democracy is prepared to tolerate a leader who spends too much time praising, and making excuses
for, the crimes of the racist-supremacist Zionist Abomination (h/t karlof1) and its Piece Process in Palestine. It can be persuasively
argued that embrace of and fealty to the Z.A. is the only factor which Western Leaders have in common. And it's neither a coincidence
nor happenstance.
Grrr! I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then
replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but
I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same.
These issues of justice & equity
cannot be fixed by swapping bosses because every society has its share of pathologically fucked up greedies who have the means
and lack of empathy to destroy anything and everyone in their lust for whatever it is they imagine they need.
We have to accept that will never change and that trying to purge the planet of those types just creates more of them from
within the structure most successful in effecting the swap.
I know I sound like a scratched disc but the only fix that could hope to work is one that smashes the conglomerations into
tiny shards, reducing the world to thousands of small self governing entities; sure some places will still end up being taken
over by low self esteem motivated arseholes, but not only will they not be able to do as much damage, arseholes stand out in a
small society where more 'normal' humans interact with them - currently all the pr1cks coagulate in spots such as the G7 and few
non-pr1cks ever get close enough to see them for what they are. A low count on the old degrees of seperation register makes it
much more difficult for the scum to rise. Making sure that no chunk is sufficiently big to force its will on another would also
be vital.
That won't fix everything, but who outside some totally screwed up anal regressive would want that anyway? I just want to live
in a world where no one cops it like the entire Yemeni population currently is. I see no benefit in moving the horror from Yemen
to Uigar-land or whatever place the new bosses decide should be their fun palace of hate, murder and misery.
The Congo and/or Nigeria another coupla sites of misery for money. Timor Leste aka East Timor, now that the Portuguese expats
in the form of the man with the Nobel stamp of obeisance to the monied
Jose Ramos Horta have done over the
locals, something Xanana Gusmão always said could happen. Horta's arseholeness made the wealthiest nation in the world (divide
resources by population) riven by poverty, lack of health and education services plus of course old favourite, racist oppression.
Check out these kids here untroubled
by issues like getting a decent phone signal or their ranking on Twitch - wondering where their next decent feed is coming from
is prolly their most pressing issue.
Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have'
is deemed to be.
Humanity either learns how to live with itself on an equal basis or it will perish; it's really that simple. The likes of the
Outlaw US Empire, its NATO vassals and the Zionist Abomination are shining examples of what MUST be exorcised for ever more.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com
.
Leaders are routinely confronted with philosophical dilemmas. Here's a classic one for our Trumptopian times: If you make enemies
out of your friends and friends out of your enemies, where does that leave you? What does winning (or losing) really look like? Is
a world in which walls of every sort encircle America's borders a goal worth seeking? And what would be left in a future fragmented
international economic system marked by tit-for-tat tariffs, travel restrictions, and hyper-nationalism? Ultimately, how will such
a world affect regular people? Let's cut through all of this for the moment and ask one crucial question about our present cult-of-personality
era in American politics: Other than accumulating more wealth and influence for himself,
his children
, and the
Trump family empire , what's Donald J. Trump's end game as president? If his goal is to keep this country from being, as he likes
to complain, " the world's
piggy bank ," then his words, threats, and actions are concerning. However bombastic and disdainful of a history he appears to
know little about, he is already making the world a less stable, less affordable, and more fear-driven place. In the end, it's even
possible that, despite the upbeat economic news of the moment, he could almost single-handedly smash that piggy bank himself, as
he has many of his own
business
ventures . Still, give him credit for one thing: Donald Trump has lent remarkable new meaning to the old phrase "the imperial
presidency." The members of his administration, largely a set of aging white men, either conform to his erratic wishes or get fired.
In other words, he's running domestic politics in much the same fashion as he oversaw the boardroom on his reality-TV show The
Apprentice . Now, he's begun running the country's foreign policy in the same personalized, take-no-prisoners, you're-fired
style. From the moment he hit the Oval Office, he's made it clear at home and abroad that it's his way or the highway. If only,
of course, it really was that simple. What he will learn, if "learning process" and "President Trump" can even occupy the same sentence,
is that "firing" Canada, the European Union (EU), or for that matter China has a cost. What the American working and the middle classes
will see (sooner than anyone imagines) is that actions of his sort have unexpected global consequences. They could cost the United
States and the rest of the world big-time. If he were indeed emperor and his subjects (that would be us) grasped where his policies
might be leading, they would be preparing a revolt. In the end, they -- again, that's us -- will be the ones paying the price in
this global chess match.
The Art of Trump's Deals
So far, President Trump has only taken America out of trade deals or threatened to do so if other countries don't behave
in a way that satisfies him. On his
third day in the White House, he honored his campaign promise to remove the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
a decision that opened space for our allies and competitors, China in particular, to negotiate deals without us. Since that grand
exit, there has, in fact, been a boom in side deals involving China and other Pacific Rim countries that has weakened, not strengthened,
Washington's global bargaining position. Meanwhile, closer to home, the Trump administration has engaged in a barrage of NAFTA-baiting
that is isolating us from our regional partners, Canada and Mexico.
Conversely, the art-of-the-deal aficionado has yet to sign a single new bilateral trade deal. Despite steadfast claims that he
would serve up the best deals ever, we have been left with little so far but various tariffs and an onslaught against American trading
partners. His one claim to bilateral-trade-deal fame was the
renegotiation of a six-year-old
deal with South Korea in March that doubled the number of cars each US manufacturer could export to South Korea (without having to
pass as many safety standards).
As White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
put
it , when speaking of Kim Jong-un's North Korea, "The President is, I think, the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes
to any type of conversation." She left out the obvious footnote, however: any type that doesn't involve international trade.
In the past four months, Trump has imposed tariffs, exempting certain countries, only to reimpose them at his whim. If trust were
a coveted commodity, when it came to the present White House, it would now be trading at zero. His supporters undoubtedly see this
approach as the fulfillment of his many campaign promises and part of his
classic method of keeping both friends and enemies guessing until he's ready to go in for the kill. At the heart of this approach,
however, lies a certain global madness, for he now is sparking a set of trade wars that could, in the end,
cost millions of American jobs.
The Allies
On May 31st, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
confirmed that Canada, Mexico, and the EU would all be hit with 10 percent aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs that had first
made headlines in March. When it came to those two products, at least, the new tariffs bore no relation to the previous average 3
percent tariff on US-EU traded goods.
In that way, Trump's tariffs, initially supposed to be
aimed at
China (a country whose president he's praised to the skies and whose trade policies he's lashed out at endlessly), went global.
And not surprisingly, America's closest allies weren't taking his maneuver lightly. As the verbal-abuse level rose and what looked
like a possible race to the bottom of international etiquette intensified, they threatened to strike back.
In June, President Trump ordered
that a promised 25 percent tariff on
$50 billion worth of imported
goods from China also be imposed. In response, the Chinese, like the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Mexicans, immediately
promised a massive response in kind. Trump countered by threatening another
$200 billion in tariffs against China. In the meantime, the White House is targeting its initial moves largely against products
related to that country's "
Made in China 2025 " initiative, the Chinese government's strategic plan aimed at making the country a major competitor in advanced
industries and manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Mexico began adopting retaliatory tariffs on American imports. Although it has a far smaller economy than the United
States, it's still the second-largest importer of US products, buying a whopping
$277 billion of them last year. Only Canada buys
more. In a mood of defiance stoked by the president's
hostility to its people, Mexico
executed its own trade gambit, imposing
$3 billion in 15
percent–25 percent tariffs against US exports, including pork, apples, potatoes, bourbon, and cheese.
While those Mexican revenge tariffs still remain limited, covering
just 1 percent
of all exports from north of the border, they do target particular industries hard, especially ones that seem connected to President
Trump's voting "base." Mexico, for instance, is by far the largest buyer of US pork exports, 25 percent of which were sold there
last year. What its 20 percent tariff on pork means, then, is that many US producers will now find themselves unable to compete in
the Mexican market. Other countries may follow suit. The result: a possible loss of up to 110,000 jobs in the pork industry.
Our second North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner (for whose prime minister, Justin Trudeau, there is "
a special place in hell ," according to a key Trumpian trade negotiator) plans to invoke tariffs of up to 25 percent on about
$13 billion in US products beginning on July 1st. Items impacted
range "from ballpoint
pens and dishwasher detergent to toilet paper and playing cards sailboats, washing machines, dish washers, and lawn mowers." Across
the Atlantic, the EU has similarly announced retaliatory tariffs of 25 percent on 200 US products, including such American-made classics
as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, blue jeans, and bourbon.
Trump Disses the Former G7
As the explosive Group of Seven, or G7, summit in Quebec showed, the Trump administration is increasingly isolating itself from
its allies in palpable ways and, in the process, significantly impairing the country's negotiating power. If you combine the economies
of what might now be thought of as the G6 and add in the rest of the EU, its economic power is collectively larger than that of the
United States. Under the circumstances, even a small diversion of trade thanks to Trump-induced tariff wars could have costly consequences.
President Trump did try one "all-in" poker move at that summit. With his game face on, he first suggested the possibility of wiping
out all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States and the rest of the G7, a bluff met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Before he left for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, he even suggested that the G7 leaders "consider
removing every single tariff or trade barrier on American goods." In return, he claimed he would do the same "for products from their
countries." As it turned out, however, that wasn't actually a venture into economic diplomacy, just the carrot before the stick,
and even it was tied to lingering
threats of severe penalties.
The current incipient trade war was actually launched by the Trump administration in March in the name of American "
national security
." What should have been highlighted, however, was the possible "national insecurity" in which it placed the country's (and the
world's) future. After all, a similar isolationist stance in the 1920s and the subsequent market crash of 1929 sparked the global
Great Depression,
opening the way for the utter devastation of World War II.
European Union countries were
incredulous when Trump insisted, as he had many times before, that the "U.S. is a victim of unfair trade practices," citing the
country's trade deficits, especially with
Germany and China. At the G7 summit, European leaders did their best to explain to him that his country isn't actually being
treated unfairly. As French President Emmanuel Macron
explained , "France runs trade
deficits with Germany and the United Kingdom on manufactured goods, even though all three countries are part of the EU single market
and have zero tariffs between them."
"... The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most powerful country on Earth. ..."
"... "No," the official said. "There's definitely a Trump Doctrine." "What is it?" I asked. Here is the answer I received: "The Trump Doctrine is 'We're America, Bitch.' That's the Trump Doctrine." ..."
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President
Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to
identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us
in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. ..."
Bashing allies is an essential component of the
Trump doctrine :
The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this, from a senior
national-security official: "Permanent destabilization creates American advantage." The
official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries
alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most
powerful country on Earth.
...
The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White
House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this
person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps
be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine. "No," the official said. "There's
definitely a Trump Doctrine." "What is it?" I asked. Here is the answer I received: "The
Trump Doctrine is 'We're America, Bitch.' That's the Trump Doctrine."
I think Trump simply has a very prosaic, very sincere even, view about the world: he treats
his equals equally (e.g. Putin, Xi, Kim) and his unequals unequally (NATO countries'
leaders, Abe etc.).
That is, he simply views his allies for what they really are: clients. And when you go
visit clients, you expect them to stop, lower their heads, listen and obey you: that's why
he probably found strange the fact that the Europeans were insulted by his behavior during
the NATO summit and the individual countries official visits. He must have been
particularly thunderstruck over the popular protests in Scotland: from his point of view,
Scotland owes everything they have now to the USA (NATO), so he, as chief of State of the
USA, has every right to go there and play golf whenever he pleases to do so. And the fact
is he's right to think so: the European peninsula is an American protectorate, a
"subState", inhabited by second-class citizens (like the peoples of Latin status of the
Roman Republic).
As for the destabilization doctrine (Trump Doctrine), it's absolutely correct: peace,
right now, is nocive to the USA. That's why Russia and China are trying to descalate: peace
(and time) is on their side. If the USA doesn't manage to trigger WWIII soon, it will start
to eat itself up, because the world didn't recover from the 2008 meltdown. The clock is
ticking for the Americans (and, by extension, for the Europeans and the Japanese).
Last, I agree completely with the theory that May is a remainer who's trying to implode
brexit without appearing to do so. She was a remainer during the camapaign, that's the
reason she was elected as Cameron's successor (it was she or Leadsom or Johnson, both
hardcore brexiters). The British elite is holding her while it can, and she is only in
office right now because she has the elite's full weight behind her: if it was a Labour MP,
he/she would've already fallen.
There is one significant weakness to Putin's patient, restrained and reasonable response
to US/NATO aggression and intimidation...
...
Posted by: les7 | Jul 15, 2018 12:17:17 PM | 2
Huh?!
If you watch the last 8 minutes of Episode 3 of Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews it'll cure
you of the habit of confusing Putin's "Our Partners" diplo-speak with the hair-raising
reality experienced by the crew of the Donald Cook in the Black Sea a couple of years ago.
It'll also dissuade you from imagining that Putin/Russia has a 'weak' or 'reasonable'
attitude toward NATO military provocations.
Imo Trump would have either watched them himself or been briefed on their contents by
someone who has.
Trump is acting out the good cop bad cop role all in one. He comes in with slashing attacks
and praise. The media only prints the slashing attacks. By placing his adversaries off
balance he seeks to gain something. I would say that he is operating like a corporate
raider. The weak kneed euro leaders just do not know how to handle this stuff.
He will not try that with Putin because he respects him. Putin is operating with a weak
hand and he cannot and will not take on the Europe on his borders conventionally when he
can possibly get what he wants in time with no bloodshed. Libya is his next target.
Putin and his family are from Stalingrad and Putin will cut off the head of the Snake
(US) before he lets that happen again. How? Think bright glowing mushroom clouds. It is
that serious.
Trump wants to bring Russia back into Europe. The Anglo Europeans want more control over
Russia's vast resources and companies that control them. Offering then a role in NATO would
be genius.
Putin is being conflated into an enemy of the world by a mass propaganda campaign.
Crimea and Ukraine was NATO pushing to hard to make Putin act with aggression. Crimea fell
without a shot being fired. As an independent republic full of Russians it can choose who
it wants to affiliate with.
All in all this can be solved diplomatically but not by the current crop of deep state
diplomats.
THERESA May's new soft Brexit blueprint would "kill" any future trade deal with the United
States, Donald Trump warns today.
Mounting an extraordinary attack on the PM's exit negotiation, the President also reveals
she has ignored his advice on how to toughen up the troubled talks.
Instead he believes Mrs May has gone "the opposite way", and he thinks the results have been
"very unfortunate".
His fiercest criticism came over the centrepiece of the PM's new Brexit plan -- which was
unveiled in full yesterday.
It would stick to a common rulebook with Brussels on goods and agricultural produce in
a bid to keep customs borders open with the EU.
But Mr Trump told The Sun: "If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the
European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.
Trump's declaration that "trade wars are good, and easy to win" is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover's "prosperity
is just around the corner."
Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more
than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict. That's also why Peter Navarro predicted that
nobody would retaliate against Trump's
tariffs. Since that's actually not how trade works, we're already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation.
But here's the thing: Trump's tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist
view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal
gain. Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath
seem to have a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world
still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting
a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the
foreign retaliation.)
In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on
car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you've raised
costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations.
So in today's world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising
costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you're
afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn't be getting into a trade war in the first place.
But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods.
Chad Bown and colleagues
have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods
or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production: KS
Is there a strategy here? It's hard to see one. There's certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into
accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.
China's retaliation
looks very different. It doesn't completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it's mostly on final goods. And it's also
driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they're trying to accomplish:
Image
What about others?
Canada's picture
is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more
sophisticated strategy than the U.S.:
Except for steel and aluminum, Canada's retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American
supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing
instead on final goods.
And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage.
Trade wars aren't good or easy to win even if you know what you're trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting
there. What's notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they're so self-destructive.
And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed's
most recent minutes :
[M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions,
both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending
had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries
expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity.
So Trump and company don't actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will
lose it even more decisively than one might have expected.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
On Tuesday, his trade representative Robert Lighthizer released a list of $10% tariffs
to be imposed on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
A senior Trump regime official falsely said it's "roughly equal to their exports to" the
US. It's around 40% of the 2017 total.
Newly announced tariffs won't take effect before completion of a two-month review process,
concluding at end of August. Trump warned he may order tariffs on $500 billion worth of Chinese
goods.
In 2017, imports from China were $506 billion, US exports to the country $130 billion. The
trade deficit was $375 billion last year.
It's because so much of industrial America was offshored to China and other low-wage
countries, millions of US jobs lost, Washington under Republicans and undemocratic Dems
permitting what demands opposition.
The Investment-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system incorporated into US trade deals like
NAFTA and others, letting a corporate controlled extrajudicial tribunal resolve disputes,
promotes offshoring of US jobs.
China called the latest announced tariffs "totally unacceptable" bullying, urging other
countries to unite against Trump's trade policy, promising to retaliate in kind.
Along with earlier duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, newly announced ones raise
the total to half of Chinese imports – maybe all of them to be targeted ahead if China
retaliates in kind as expected.
China Association of International Trade senior fellow Li Yong believes one Beijing
retaliatory measure may be a greater push to attract foreign investment other than from the US,
adding:
Trump "closed the door for negotiations. It's up to (him) to open the door again."
Trade policy expert Eswar Prasad believes
"(t)he internal political dynamics in both countries make it unlikely that either side
will stand down and offer conciliatory measures that could deescalate tensions and lead to a
resumption of negotiations."
Economist Stephen Roach called trade wars "not easy to win easy to lose, and the US is on
track to lose (its) trade war" with China, adding:
"This is live ammunition. This is not just rhetorical discussion anymore. We're in the
early stages of fighting skirmishes in a real, live trade war."
"The question is, how far does it go? And how significant will the ammunition be in the
future?"
Roach believe China has lots of ammunition to hold firm and fight back with.
"The US is hugely dependent on China as a source for low-cost goods to make ends meet for
American consumers. We're hugely dependent on China to buy our Treasuries to fund our budget
deficits," he explained.
Beijing has lots of ways to retaliate against Washington besides imposing duties on US
goods.
On Thursday, China's People's Daily slammed the Trump
regime, saying
Beijing "will never back down when faced with threats and blackmail, neither will it waver
its resolution in safeguarding the global free trade and multilateral trade system,"
adding:
"The US is undermining global trade rules and causing problems for the global economy.
(Its) mentality not only brings negative impacts to both parties directly involved, but also
to every country on the global industrial chain."
China's Global Times called Trump's trade policy "extortion," stressing "countermeasures"
will be taken.
Markets believe both sides eventually will show restraint. There's no sign of it so far
– just the opposite.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
Trump's declaration that "trade wars are good, and easy to win" is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover's "prosperity
is just around the corner."
Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more
than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict. That's also why Peter Navarro predicted that
nobody would retaliate against Trump's
tariffs. Since that's actually not how trade works, we're already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation.
But here's the thing: Trump's tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist
view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal
gain. Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath
seem to have a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world
still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting
a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the
foreign retaliation.)
In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on
car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you've raised
costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations.
So in today's world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising
costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you're
afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn't be getting into a trade war in the first place.
But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods.
Chad Bown and colleagues
have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods
or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production:
Image
Is there a strategy here? It's hard to see one. There's certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into
accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.
Advertisement
China's retaliation
looks very different. It doesn't completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it's mostly on final goods. And it's also
driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they're trying to accomplish:
Image
What about others?
Canada's picture
is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more
sophisticated strategy than the U.S.:
Except for steel and aluminum, Canada's retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American
supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing
instead on final goods.
And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage.
Trade wars aren't good or easy to win even if you know what you're trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting
there. What's notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they're so self-destructive.
And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed's
most recent minutes :
[M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions,
both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending
had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries
expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity.
So Trump and company don't actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will
lose it even more decisively than one might have expected.
The trend is definitely against EU. But Britain may be crushed, like Brazil and Argentina into accepting neoliberal world order
for longer.
Notable quotes:
"... Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she lost significant support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go. ..."
"... Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the EU. ..."
"... There is an excellent piece in the Boston Review on the EU- https://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/j-w-mason-market-police ..."
"... Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal." ..."
"... It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt. ..."
"... It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones. ..."
"... Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically. ..."
"... EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first. The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries (Visegrad group and more). ..."
"... As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe) the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot. ..."
"... But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond. ..."
"... Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to be. ..."
"... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want? get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed.. ..."
"... Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good description. ..."
"... The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same. ..."
"... EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations, perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea. ..."
"... Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :)))) ..."
"... What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits. Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank." ..."
"... From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national cabal throughout "the American Century." ..."
"... Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling bureaucracy. ..."
"... First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second. ..."
"... At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom, perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules. It will be interesting to see how this works out. ..."
"... The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. ..."
"... That is really saying something because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced -- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany. ..."
"... Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist stripped the uk and a large part of the world! ..."
"... Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans. ..."
...Hours before Boris Johnson quit his position, Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from Prime Minister May's cabinet.
On July 6 the British government held a cabinet meeting at Chequers, the private seat of the prime minister. Following the meeting
it published
a paper (pdf) that took a weird position towards exiting the European Union. If it would be followed, Britain would practically
end up with staying in the EU, accepting nearly all its regulations and court decisions, but without any say over what the EU decides.
The paper was clearly written by the 'Remain' side. The two top Brexiters in May's cabinet felt cheated and resigned. More are likely
to follow.
The majority of the British people who voted to leave the EU must feel duped.
My hunch is that Prime Minister Theresa May was tasked with 'running out the clock' in negotiations with the EU. Then, shortly
before the March 2019 date of a 'hard Brexit' would arrive without any agreement with the EU, the powers that be would launch a panic
campaign to push the population into a new vote. That vote would end with a victory for the 'Remain' side. The UK would continue
to be a member of the European Union.
No matter how the Brexit vote will go, the powers that are will not allow Britain to exit the European Union.
Is that claim still justified?
Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she
lost significant
support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament
and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go.
Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite
amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably
run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the
EU.
Then again - Boris may do the unexpected.
How do the British people feel about this?
Posted by b on July 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM |
Permalink
Did you notice how quickly th E U sided with the U K over Salisbury ? That was the deal.
Remain in EU and we're back you!
Then again could have been we'l create a false flag you back us and we'll stay , a suttle nuonce.
The likelihood is that the blairite faction in the Parliamentary Labour Party-which has no real political differences with the
Tories and is fanatically pro EU, as all neo-liberals are- will prop up the May government. Or a Tory government headed by another
Remainer, with Blairites in the Cabinet.
This will prevent the General Election which Tories of all parties fear.
Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete
integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal."
It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and
Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any
sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution
which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt.
@Jeff - #1 - You are correct. There will not be another referendum.
I would add that there is some chance, however small, that on March 29th the British government will tell the EU that they
just have no way to meet the requirements of Article 50 and would the EU please allow them to continue as a member of the EU and
forget about all the shenanigans of the past 2 years. The EU has said previously that they will accept such a result and allow
the UK to continue as a member. The Brexiteers will have a total meltdown, and May will most likely be thrown out of office, but
most businesses and many individuals will be quite happy for this whole thing to just go away.
It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders
and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones.
In the US Trump, in the UK the Torys the democracies are now openly imperial and openly corrupt. Rule of law - ask the Skripals.
Brexit, Russia, Skripals, Russia, junkies and poisons Russians - minority government - ministers resigning right and left deadlines
looming no solutions in sight.
Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas of "democracy" are failing. Democracy
is not a religion, it is not the end of history, it is not sacred and immutable - checks and balances have failed utterly. This
sweetly written little essay says it all.
Look for countries to unilaterally bail from the EU with little or no advance notice. They will simply abrogate and that will
trigger an avalanche of others joining in. There are various good economic reasons why they would do that, but I think the groundswell
of populism fueled by anger over the open borders cataclysm will be the prime driver.
Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well
as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically.
The current path to chaos
is well-trod. Now, we can expect national attention is on the team in Russia in the semi-finals, while the government crumbles
and tumbles. But afterward, especially if Kane fails to bring the Cup home? Oh, the chaos. Of course, it will all be Putin and
Russia's fault.
UK. Despicable. How long it has taken for folks to realize Theresa May always has been a stalking horse. Highly Likely the
UK will stew in its own piss. Put that in their White Hall dossiers, and stamp it "Kremlin Plot".
Britain won't be staying in the EU and nor will the EU be accepting May's fantasy ideas for a future relationship giving the UK
free trade on everything it needs. There's a remote possibility that a new UK government could begin working on re-joining the
EU (Article 49), but there are plenty in Europe who would not let the UK re-join, at least not in the near future.
Friday the
13th is coming soon, scary stuff ?
The "Don't take No for an answer" is rather misleading. Made to vote again ..only after changes to the Treaty. France's vote
against the EU Constitution was accepted and when the Dutch also rejected it, it didn't happen.
EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first.
The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny
and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries
(Visegrad group and more).
Now we have this Nato meeting coming and the abomination of Donald meeting Vlad that scares the whole neo-lberals, borgists,
russian haters, warmongers.
As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe)
the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot.
Brits, especially the Leave voters, have no real idea what the consequences of leaving the EU are, nor do they care that much.
What is uppermost in their minds is they do not want is to be in a union with "losers". Every single country on the Continent
is a loser and thus the object of contempt. The only country in Europe that is not a loser (meaning they have never lost a war)
is the United Kingdom of Roast Beef and God Save The Queen.
This British loser-phobia also explains the island nation's guttural hatred of Russia, which has bailed out Europe, and so
by definition the Brits as well, twice, thereby taking away some of the British luster. (OK the last time around they got a bit
of help from their old colonies, the Yanks, but its all the same. Yanks and Brits are the same stock.) As far as EU goes the Brits
can leave, no problem. Except that what the Continent would then be faced with was an American armed camp a few miles off shore,
not an appealing prospect to say the least. But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into
the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond.
Boris Johnson's resignation letter. Well written.
Makes the same argument over the Checkers paper that I made above. If Johnson gets 48 back benchers on his side he could launch
a vote on no-confidence against May and possibly become PM. The Conservatives in Parliament seem quite upset over all of this.
Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed
order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to
be.
@20 Not sure who qualifies as an 'ordinary Brit' these days. They come in all shapes and colours. I think the ones who moved to
Spain are fairly happy with the EU status quo.
Dominic Raab is the new UK Brexit point-man. The previous guy, Davies, just resigned. But Raab's appointment, I think, points
to what Brexit has been about all along -- namely, labour market reform beyond the rest of Europe, and to do this the UK must
be free of the European Human Rights council and other protections it provides for workers in the member states.
@23 psychohistorian... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want?
get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed..
it was interesting reading near the end of bjs comments "Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country
has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the
Skripals." Guilty first - we will prove it later... maybe he really ought to consider rule from Brussels or where ever, if he
can't fathom the concept of innocent until proven guilty...
The French populace rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 during the Chirac years, and you are correct that after some changes
it was accepted under the Sarkozy government.But that happened because it was the Assembly (the parliament, i.e., the political
class) that voted on it, not the people. Can't have those deplorable citizens deciding important matters like that, now can we?
@51 pft... in so far as the cia work for the financial complex - yeah, probably.. how to create a currency - the eu - that no
one has any real control over, to compete with the us$ and yen... makes sense on that level..
Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas ...
When we discuss ALL ideas of the Enlightenment, we must remember this:
Wikipedia: "Enlightened absolutism is the theme of an essay by Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia from 1740 to 1786, defending
this system of government.[1]
When the prominent French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire fell out of favor in France, he eagerly accepted Frederick's invitation
to live at his palace. He believed that an enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance.
Frederick the Great was an enthusiast of French ideas. Frederick explained: "My principal occupation is to combat ignorance
and prejudice ..."
In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe.
The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic
vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem.
Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has come out in support of Brexit, saying the UK would be "better
off" outside of the European Union and lamenting the consequences of migration in the continent.
The billionaire, who secured the backing of Republican voters on a staunchly anti-immigration platform, said that his support
for the UK leaving the EU was a personal belief and not a "recommendation".
"I think the migration has been a horrible thing for Europe," Trump told Fox News late on Thursday. "A lot of that was pushed
by the EU. I would say that they're better off without it, personally, but I'm not making that as a recommendation. Just my
feeling."
Donald Trump accuses Angela Merkel of making 'catastrophic mistake' on refugees. President-elect tells The Times and Bild that
EU has become 'a vehicle for Germany'.
US President-elect Donald Trump said in a newspaper interview published on Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had
made a "catastrophic mistake" with a policy that let a wave of more than one million migrants into her country.
In a joint interview with The Times and the German newspaper Bild, Trump also said the European Union had become "a vehicle
for Germany" and predicted that more EU member states would vote to leave the bloc as Britain did last June.
"I think she made one very catastrophic mistake, and that was taking all of these illegals," Trump said of Merkel, who in
August 2015 decided to keep Germany's borders open for refugees, mostly Muslims, fleeing war zones in the Middle East.
Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good
description.
Even when the 'light' (read truth about Brexit) is revealed, many here choose to ignore it out of sheer ignorance. For a good
description of the MOA comment section, one should consult Plato's Allegory of the Cave. And the 'left' blames external elements
for its inaptitude and demise when many it has only itself to blame.
The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The
colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same.
Its presence in the EU was never really a problem though and was useful in terms of providing a guiding hand, so long as it remained
free of the Eurozone. So I am not really sure its a change in strategy. Just another fork in the road.
It remains to be seen how it all works out. Perhaps the UK Brexit is meant to send a message to the other EU states as to the
consequences of leaving. One benefit to the US neoliberals might be that UK scraps or at least scales back its NHS due to the
economic consequences of a hard Brexit. The 0.1% will be fine at the end of the day and they are the only group that matters .
The rest are just pawns on the board.
As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs. All part of
the neoliberal blueprint. Divide and rule is an age old tactic perfected by the British to rule the colonies. The EU and Germany
being controlled by the Anglo-American ruling elite , and basically occipied by US controlled NATO opened the doors. Reversing
this immigration can provide a plausible reason for more terrorism in Europe to empower the EU to become more of a security-police
state like US and UK.
On a side note its interesting the head of the ECB and BOE are both former Goldman Sachs employees.
Another related link suggesting the EU also serves a purpose of isolating Russia economically.
EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations,
perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea.
Zero Hedge is polishing turds now it seems.
Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually
based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :))))
"The Marshall Plan also established the creation of the Organization for European economic cooperation. It did this in a
number of ways:
promote co-operation between participating countries and their national production programmes for the reconstruction
of Europe,
develop intra-European trade by reducing tariffs and other barriers to the expansion of trade,
study the feasibility of creating a customs union or free trade area,
study multi-lateralisation of payments, and
Achieve conditions for better utilisation of labour.
It was arguably through this persistent interlinking of many European countries economic affairs that to not cooperate would
simply be too risky.
This provided the basis for European cooperation and this was favoured by many people because cooperation was seen as a
fundamental building block in the establishment of long term European Peace."
"In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe."
You are right, and that included Catherine the Great for whom Samuel Bentham worked for some years. His brother Jeremy spent
some time with him there and was a great admirer of Catherine and Potemkin. He was a key figure in the development of liberal
ideology and political economy.
'The Enlightenment' is an historical concept which obscures more than it explains. To suggest that representative democracy's
origins lie in this nebulous thing is completely misleading -- the truth is that democracy is as old as community. If anything
'The Enlightenment' movements are the beginning of the current system whereby the trappings of popular government are hung on
the reality of a kleptocrats' oligarchy.
Just in time for Emperor Trump's arrival in Britain! I do not understand Great Britain's "democracy," (the very concept
of an aristocratic House of Lords Peerage makes my head explode... and what's this about the Monarch having the authority to appoint
a Prime Minister if he/she doesn't like the one selected?). But doesn't the party with the majority get to anoint the Prime Minister?
Wouldn't that be Labour right now if Missy May is shown the door?
Furthermore, the assertion that the UK will stay in the EU is entirely plausible. I heard, early in the days after the vote, that
the govt had not expected it to go the way it did. Plans were made for a show of Brexit but that 'the idea is that everything
stays the same' , i.e., no change. Sadly for the UK, the EU will not allow that to happen. In all probability, another vote
will indeed be called. Otherwise, it's going to be a disaster for an already divided UK for many, many years to come!
The main problem with Brexit is that it is so complex that neither the officials who were set the task of drafting it knew
little more than the Ministers themselves! NOBODY knew what the fuck to do! And they still don't!
There is every chance a Vote of No Confidence is going to be called on May's government and she will finally fall, as she must
as she is the most inept PM there has probably ever been!
What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits.
Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank."
Are terms such as "The Five Eyes" and "The AZ Empire"
'trumped' by all this nationalistic furor?
From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with
its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national
cabal throughout "the American Century."
But really, does anyone here really believe that a New York City conman or the latest British "mophead" is more powerful than
the dynastic power of the Rothschilds, Warburgs or Morgans... or even the nouveau riche like the Rockefellers or Carnegies?
These are dynasties so wealthy and powerful that they don't even appear on Forbes lists of "The Richest" and no one dare mention
their names when plotting the next global conflagration.
Since David Cameron used Jimmy Cliff's " You Can Get It
If You Really Want " for his campaign,
Afshin Rattansi's interview
with that truly revolutionary artist is not so off topic. And it's well worth 12 minutes to enter a worldview we Westerners rarely
live.
I and I say "Ja Mon!"
OK. I can't post Jimmy without " The Harder They Come,
" especially as that seems to be the root of most of the comments here.
@33 -- "...and Western Australia were separate British colonies that all began as penal settlement."
Not entirely correct. Western Australia started as a capitalist investment venture (c. 1828) but suffered chronic labor shortages
as slavery was closed down (c. 1833). The colony then resorted to convict imports for a time. Much of the myth about 'criminal'
can be re-framed as political prisoners such as the Welsh Chartists (see Chartism in Wales).
One can only be confused if one ignores public and secret reasons while Cameron threatened Brexit vote already in 2015 and went
through it in 2016. Officially it was about antiterrorism, security and hence controlling immigration flagship of Tory political
campaign that brought them overwhelming electoral win as well as some noises that EU rules and laws stifle economic development
and the British lose more in EU payments than they gain.
Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly
negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration
especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws
and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together
this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling
bureaucracy.
What Cameron was scared of as far as direction of future of EU?
First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal
in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second.
And second point is future of British monarchy which further integration of EU into superstate would require to be abandoned
in UK as elsewhere as states were to loose all even symbolic sovereignty and turn into regions and provinces as in Roman Empire
. Needles to say that UK still powerful landed aristocracy want nothing of that sort.
Hence Cameron went to Brussels make special deal for UK and was essentially, with some meaningless cosmetic changes, rebuked
into binary decision in EU or out of it no special deal and hence he escalated with calling Brexit vote as a negotiating tool
only to increase political pressure to rig elections toward remain if deal reached . In fact as latest scandal revealed results
of exit polls were released to stock market betting hedge funds just minutes before polls were closed concluding guess what, that
remain campaign won while electoral data in hours showed Brexiters wining simply because to the last moment before closing polls
they expected EU to cave in, they did not so they continued pressure by closing openly pro Brexit win.
The pressure continues now while Cameron had to pay political price as he openly advocated staying in EU under phony deal even
Tory did not buy, and hence this seeming chaos now fooling people that there is other way but hard Brexit to keep monarchy sovereignty
and profits from global money laundering or surrender and humiliation degradation U.K. into EU colony as BJ just said.
Of course which way it goes ordinary Brits will pay but also big crack will widen in EU as national movements will have impact
of shattering dreams of quit ascending to EU superstate.
At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom,
perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules.
It will be interesting to see how this works out.
The Chinese, as they are intended to be the regional governor of Asia under the evolving global governance are key to the entire
tyrannical plan. The AGW hoax, paid for by Western oligarchs, is the public relations for the UN's Agenda 21, currently being
enforced at the local level in many parts of the US.
The Chinese oligarchs are so delighted with its tyrannical land-use provisions that they are actually calling their projects
"China's Agenda 21". You may search for it.
@ 62: Thanks for the Pilger article, a good read. There are many today, who would return us all to those days.
Herman J Kweeblefezer , Jul 10, 2018 1:05:09 AM |
72
The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better
oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. Bevin
& co can whine on about the injustices of the eu for as long as their theoretical view of the world sustains them, but the brexit
which will be delivered is based on 'pragmatic realism' developed by a really nasty gang of avaricious lying c**tfaces and will
create a society far more unjust, divided and impoverished than the one that currently exists.
That is really saying something
because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced
-- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like
the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany.
Jezza was great in the house last night but he didn't
call for an immediate general election which would be pretty much SOP for any opposition facing as tattered a government (Seven
cabinet 'resignations') as bereft of ideas as the Maybot machine.
The reason he didn't - couldn't in fact, is that the UK left is as divided and dug into their positions as that tory bunch
of bastards. Far too many opposition politicians insist that a 'deal' on brexit comes first ahead of sorting out poverty and homelessness,
woeful education outcomes (unless you believe wildly juked stats) and the horror show that has been created by three decades of
relentless attacks on the health service.
We see it here from the brexiters so convinced of the rightness of their cause they ignore the institutionalised racism that
will certainly follow a tory brexit. Or the remoaners who also ignore the unsavory aspects of eu policy to try and render the
labour left impotent. Those latter types simply don't give a damn about anything which flows from this debate and division other
than killing momentum, they consider even losing the next 5 elections to tories an agreeable sacrifice for ridding the party of
Corbyn and co.
Corbyn has recognized the destructive divisiveness of Brexit and tries to ignore it because he holds with fixing the mess so
many people are in as being much more important than theoretical arguments which will change nothing for the better regardless
of impassioned exhortations by ninnies on both sides of the argument.
The thing which really pisses me off about the lefty brexiters, is that they behave as if it is a now or never situation, when
it is anything but. There is nothing to prevent a more united Labour Party who have got their mandate by actually delivering a
better life for people rather than irrelevant concepts, returning to sorting out the UK's position in the EU at a later date,
ideally at a time when the EU's intransigent support for corporate welfare has run bang smack into a leftist UK Labour government's
determination to restore public ownership of natural monopolies (rail, water, power, mail delivery etc).
The lefty brexiters claim the lefty remainers won't allow it, while the lefty remainers claim it is the lefty brexiters clogging
the works. In fact it is both gangs of selfish egotistical assholes.
NotBob @ 35.
The EU Constitution never happened. The Lisbon Treaty came along a couple of years later and this time round the Irish people
voted against it. It got amended and the Irish people accepted it. The French and Dutch (and every other EU) country chose not
to "ask the people" and left the decision to the peoples' chosen represtentatives.
The Irish Constitution has a bit in it making
it necessary to ask the people before any changes can be made to that Constitution, so every time the EU adds some bits to the
EU Treaty that require the Irish to change their own Constitution there's trouble, as those 3 million or so Irish people have
the power to scupper anything and everything for the other 500 million EU citizens. Holding a national referendum to make decisions
affecting the entire Union doesn't seem to be either fair or democratic. A single EU-wide referendum could be held when there's
a major change to the Treaties.
Political correctness is a social disease very similar to syphilis - it fucks with the brain. You really should take precautions
if socializing in those circles. Precautionary measures are available at all chemists and most public toilets.
I click on MoA now and see a pic of Boris the clown hanging from a rope. If the Brits were smart, they would connect that rope
to a weather balloon and allow Boris to ascend to the stratosphere and cruise the jet stream.
The EU is first and foremost a massive attack on democracy. At the same time it attempts to establish technocracy as the mode
of government of the future. But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU...
"Democracy" only being possible locally? Numbers I posted on another thread:
Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - population of 3 Billion+
EU Members - population of 500 million.
United States - population of 326 million
GDP of United States - 18.57 trillion USD
GDP of European Union - 17.1 trillion USD
GDP China, India, Russia combined (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) -
- close to 15 trillion
You think EU countries have got a competitive chance if on their own? Or - democracy in Switzerland enables them to decide
on their relations with the outside world? Like not being part of the "single market" - they are -including free movement of people
- yes you can live and work in Switzerland if you are a EU citizen.
But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU
Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist
stripped the uk and a large part of the world! The people we are scared to mention are the true people killing and oppressing
us. I thank Daniel@66 for naming them ! Rothchild family ect ect I would add the Rothermere family and Murdoch ! Politics are
debated, but history is made on the streets. We need to regain our sense of moral outrage (where did that go ?) there are 70 million
displaced people in the world ! It could be. You or I next !
Peter AU 1 @ 83: I agree with ADKC and IMO. There were convicts transported to the Australian colonies whose crimes can be considered
political crimes. The Tolpuddle Martyrs who came to the Sydney colony in the 1830s are one example: they were transported for
the crime of demanding an extension of voting rights to all men, among other demands. Such convicts were a small minority though.
As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs.
"The demonization of Muslim immigration to the EU ...." - fixed it for you.
The stuff about leaving fewer euros for social programmes is propaganda. Social programmes are designed to force people to
work - they are pegged below the minimum wage.
In the case of Germany costs for refugees were accounted to the 0.7 percent of GDP Germany is supposed to spend for development
aid by the UN, thereby effectively developing Germany instead.
Alan @ 88
I am in total agreement with you on your comment regarding Boris Johnson ! His childish buffoonery, is a commen system / tactic
of a psychopath . It hides a callous disregard for human life , wins gullible friends which the psychopath manipulates to exploit
there power and influence! They are very good at scheming there own self interested plan. But (and here's the crunch ) are totally
useless at for seeing the consequences of there actions . And no regard for the victim of there actions!!! Do we want that in
charge of the nuclear button ?
There is nothing wrong/inconsistent with the idea of an interconnected world of sovereign (independent) states. The idea that
a treaty or a trade agreement means that a state is no-longer independent is ridiculous. As ridiculous as believing that an individual
who purchases a pack of polo mints is no longer free because of the need of a local shop and a manufacturer.
You are basically pushing the idea that there should be no nation states, no borders and all trade free and therefore no need
for treaties. From this comes no regulation, a poisoned environment, uncontrolled and rapacious capitalism, no rights for people,
no benefits, no protection, just work til' you die and polished off sharpish if you are no longer productive.
I don't object to an EU as a grouping of independent states acting collectively. I do object to an EU that erodes and undermines
the nation state, that seeks to remove state leaders and interfere in state elections/policies. The EU that we have is the latter
and there is no practical way to reform it to the former.
@ B. You have too high an opinion of the competence of the main political figures in the UK Governing Party.
Boris Johnson has
never been a serious contender for PM. He's good at giving a rousing speech to the Party faithful but that's it. The blue rinses
enjoy the titillation of his infidelities but they don't want someone so amoral coming anywhere near their daughters, or representing
their principles.
You knew Theresa May had no judgment the first day of her premiership, when she made BoJo her Foreign Secretary. A selection
that could kindly be described as risible. He indicated no suitability for the role before his appointment nor has since. Quite
the opposite. It was at that decision you knew all was hopeless. Brexit was going to be hopeless. Everything she was going to
be involved in was hopeless.
And so it has proved.
The vox pop that I encounter ..... the Remainers are reconciled to Brexit and just want to get on with it. The Brexiteers are
sick to death with hearing about it but not seeing anything done. Everyone had made their minds up before the election in 2015.
The Referendum campaign was a few weeks of premium entertainment watching the most reviled political figures in the land trying
to tear each others' throats out.
Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually
followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was
finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans.
There's a huge disconnect between Parliament (+ media) and the people. A further example of this is the official narrative
on the Salisbury poisonings. Ask people in the street and they say "yeah, it was Vlad with the doorknob" and then they crease
up laughing. The Govt has no credibility with its "only plausible explanation".
My prediction, since the day BoJo was appointed minister for the exterior, is that the situation is so catastrophic the EU
will have to lead us by the hand through the process of brexit. The EU's priority will be the stability of the Euro. They won't
want us beggared on their doorstep and as they export 15% of their stuff to us they'll want to keep on doing that. We'll have
to have what we're given and be grateful.
The political situation in the UK is so far beyond surreal that a man dragging a piano with a dead horse on it would appear
mundane.
- It doesn't matter who the prime minister is. The UK has already adopted A LOT OF EU regulations/laws and that will make it nearly
impossible to perform a "Hard Brexit". The UK still exports A LOT OF stuff to the Eurozone and then it simply has to follow EU
regulations, no matter what the opinion of the government is. In that regard, the current EU regulation simply provides a good
framework, even for the UK. No matter what one Mrs. May or Mr. Johnson.
- As time goes by the UK can change parts of the EU
regulations to what the UK thinks those regulations should be.
- And do I think that Mrs. May and her ministers have drawn that same conclusion.
The much anticipated resignation letter penned by the former UK Foreign Minister Boris
Johnson has been released, and in as expected, he does not mince his words in unleashing a
brutal attack on Thersa May, warning that "we have postponed crucial decisions -- including the
preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November -- with the result
that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in
the EU system, but with no UK control over that system ."
He then adds that while "Brexit should be about opportunity and hope" and "a chance to do
things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of
the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy", he warns that the " dream is dying,
suffocated by needless self-doubt. "
He then compares May's proposal to a submission even before it has been received by the EU,
noting that "what is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how
we see the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer . It is as
though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them."
And his punchline: the UK is headed for the status of a colony:
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to
see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement
Explaining his decision to resing, he then says that "we must have collective
responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly
concluded that I must go."
It remains to be seen if his passionate defense of Brexit will stir enough MPs to indicate
they are willing to back a vote of no confidence, and overthrow Theresa May in what would be
effectively a coup, resulting in new elections and chaos for the Brexit process going
forward.
Meanwhile, as Bloomberg adds, the fact that Boris Johnson, or those around him, made sure
his resignation statement came out in time for the evening news - before it was formally issued
in the traditional way by May's office, hints at his continued interest in leading the
Conservative Party.
His full letter is below (highlights ours):
Dear Theresa,
It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an
unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of
their democracy.
They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate
the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to
pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.
Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things
differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the
UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.
That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.
We have postponed crucial decisions -- including the preparations for no deal, as I argued
in my letter to you of last November -- with the result that we appear to be heading for a
semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK
control over that system.
It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not
actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since
the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London,
in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to
improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though
there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we
had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.
So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence
from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact
no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give
Ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a
country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists -- when that proposal is
supported at every level of UK Government -- then I don't see how that country can truly be
called independent.
Conversely, the British Government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU
directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the
ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law,
without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health -- and when we no
longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to
see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.
It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods
(and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then
there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable
customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.
What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see
the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though
we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I
was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on
immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.
On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and
congratulated you on at least reaching a Cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then,
the Government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over
the weekend and find that they stick in the throat.
We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these
proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.
I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your Government. As I step down, I would
like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me
and my family, at times in demanding circumstances.
I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last
few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28
governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination
of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured
record international support for this Government's campaign for 12 years of quality education
for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by
far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe -- a continent which we
will never leave.
"... By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Cross posted from MacroBusiness ..."
"... Captains of the German auto industry kowtowing to US ambassador Grenell make a remarkable scene, not unlike the Chinese capitulating to the British and handing over Hong Kong in the opium wars. ..."
Europe
Isolates China Trade Cheat Posted on July 7,
2018 by Yves
Smith Yves here. I'm faithfully replicating the MacroBusiness headline as an indicator of
unhappiness in some circles in Australia about the degree to which the government has opened
the floodgates since I was there to investment from China, particularly in real estate. When I
lived in Sydney in 2002 to 2004, property struck me as awfully fully priced by global
standards, and it's been on a moon shot trajectory since then, in part due to Australia also
liberalizing immigration. When I was there, the intent of policy was to have immigration in
certain skilled categories, and then with an eye to maintaining population levels, not goosing
them. Since then, the population in Australia has grown from 20 million to over 24 million.
But in addition, even though imposing tariffs on cars and car parts would hurt quite a few
US employers, it would also hurt European multinationals (many of whom happen to be US
employers), to the degree that they've pushed the European officialdom to see if they can cut a
deal with Trump. If that happens, Trump gets a win he can brandish for the midterms and the
tariff brinksmanship presumably eases off a bit, potentially a lot.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Cross posted from MacroBusiness
Recall that China has tried to play Europe for the chump, via
Reuters :
China is putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against
President Donald Trump's trade policies at a summit later this month but is facing
resistance, European officials said.
In meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, senior Chinese officials, including Vice
Premier Liu He and the Chinese government's top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, have
proposed an alliance between the two economic powers and offered to open more of the Chinese
market in a gesture of goodwill.
One proposal has been for China and the European Union to launch joint action against the
United States at the World Trade Organization.
But the European Union, the world's largest trading bloc, has rejected the idea of allying
with Beijing against Washington, five EU officials and diplomats told Reuters, ahead of a
Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.
Instead, the summit is expected to produce a modest communique, which affirms the
commitment of both sides to the multilateral trading system and promises to set up a working
group on modernizing the WTO, EU officials said.
"China wants the European Union to stand with Beijing against Washington, to take sides,"
said one European diplomat. "We won't do it and we have told them that."
Despite Trump's tariffs on European metals exports and threats to hit the EU's automobile
industry, Brussels shares Washington's concern about China's closed markets and what Western
governments say is Beijing's manipulation of trade to dominate global markets.
"We agree with almost all the complaints the U.S. has against China, it's just we don't
agree with how the United States is handling it," another diplomat said.
But it's China that looking more isolated today, via
Quartz :
The US may have been accused by China of "opening fire on the world" with its punitive
trade tariffs, but it looks like officials may be making more progress in Europe's largest
economy Germany.
Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, has caused quite a stir since he arrived in
Berlin in May, lecturing German companies to stop trading with Iran, and saying he planned to
"empower" anti-establishment conservatives in Europe. However, with the threat of punitive US
tariffs on its cars looming, Grenell certainly has the attention of Germany's powerful car
bosses.
German business daily Handelsblatt reports (link in German) that Grenell met Daimler CEO
Dieter Zetsche, BMW CEO Harald Krüger, and VW CEO Herbert Diess on Wednesday evening to
discuss both sides abolishing all tariffs on each others car imports. Right now, the European
Union adds a 10% tax on imported US cars, and the US puts 2.5% on EU car imports, and is
threatening to ramp that up to 25%. As part of the deal, president Donald Trump would
reportedly want German carmakers to invest more in the US.
Last night's meeting was not the first time the carmakers and Grenell have talked about
abolishing two-way tariffs. The Wall Street Journal (paywall) reported on June 20 that the
ambassador had been meeting with all Germany's most important car companies, and that they
were already behind the idea.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is worried about the damage a car trade war could do to one of
Germany's core industries. "We now have tariffs on aluminum and steel and we have a
discussion that is far more serious," she told parliament, referring to auto tariffs. "It's
worth every effort to try to defuse this conflict so it doesn't turn into a war."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday she would back opening talks with trading
partners on lowering automobile tariffs, in what appeared to be an olive branch to US
President Donald Trump as the EU battles to dissuade him from imposing hefty levies on
European cars.
But Merkel said that any negotiations on lowering tariffs in one area could only be
conducted with "all the countries with which we have trade in cars," rather than just with
the United States.
A deal with the US alone "would not conform with WTO" rules, she said.
"We can either have negotiations about a wide range of tariffs, for 90 percent of goods,"
Merkel said in a reference to the stalled talks for a transatlantic free-trade deal known as
TTIP.
"Or we can talk about one type of goods, but then we must accord the same treatment to all
trading partners of the world. That's an option I could imagine," she added.
Interestingly, Nomura sees it all as deflationary:
US pursuit of beggar thy neighbor policies: is it leading to a whole new world for global
automakers?
Automakers have set up an intricate web of suppliers and assembly plants globally to
leverage the benefits of trade agreements, while keeping FX risks at acceptable levels. The
pursuit of beggar thy neighbour policies by a large, connected, and heretofore open Now 3
mths 12 mths US Europe Japan Korea Brazil Russia India China Thailand Indonesia Nomura |
Global Autos Outlook 4 June 2018 4 economy such as the US threatens to upend this
structure.
In this edition of the Global Autos Outlook, we therefore look at trade-related challenges
(and opportunities) facing global automakers, possible strategies they could adopt to cope,
and potential winners and losers over the near-to-medium term. Risk of "No NAFTA" has risen,
although our base case remains NAFTA 2.0 Trump's openly protectionist policies have increased
the risk of a "No NAFTA" outcome, although our base case still remains that NAFTA will be
renegotiated.
Nearly 25 years of NAFTA have integrated the North American auto industry very tightly. If
NAFTA is dissolved, it will impact all automakers operating in North America. In particular,
we think GM and FCA could be hit the hardest (higher import tariffs cut 40% of GM's FY2018E
EBIT, 23% of that for FCA). In our opinion, it increasingly appears that the US President's
decision-making is centered on autoworkers, even if that is to the detriment of the
automakers. Thus, US automakers getting hurt might not hold back Trump from making such a
move.
Auto industry staring at global excess capacity, no matter what the outcome of the Section
232 drama
The US Department of Commerce has started a Section 232 investigation into US imports of
autos and auto parts. Under the worst case scenario, this may result in broadbased import
tariffs slapped on US automotive imports after the investigation concludes and reports back
to the President in several months. US imports of new passenger vehicles and auto parts
totaled $333bn in 2017. Import duties on such a large volume of goods would be highly
disruptive and impact all the major car exporting countries/regions such as Mexico, Canada,
Japan, the EU, and South Korea.
While we think that the threat of tariffs is largely Trump's negotiation tactic to get a
better NAFTA deal, we caution investors to pay attention, as the tail risk (of import tariffs
materializing) is not negligible. Furthermore, no matter whether new auto tariffs are imposed
or not, global carmakers, irrespective of nationality, are feeling pressured to build plants
and increase employment in the US. This is likely to lead to increased capacity in the US,
where car demand is no longer growing.
On the other hand, non-US carmakers are unlikely to cut capacity at home or elsewhere,
leading to excess capacity globally. This will impact most markets except for relatively
closed ones such as China, India, and Southeast Asia, due to their existing high import
tariffs. For global automakers, we therefore see a binary outcome from a growing list of
protectionist measures being deployed by the US. Neither outcome is good news, with
automakers staring at excess global capacity in either case:
If Section 232 tariffs are imposed, it (largely) cuts off imports into the
domestic US market. However, that would mean that there is excess capacity outside the US, as
existing foreign plants supplying to the US (7.88mn/$192bn new PVs, 8.2% of global volume,
and $141bn auto parts in 2017) have to find markets elsewhere.
If new tariffs are not imposed, we still have additional capacity coming up in
the US as automakers are goaded into doing so to avoid political pressure. This also leads to
a global supply-demand imbalance in the auto industry.
Although US protectionism is a real threat, we see a couple of silver linings. China
announced an import tariff cut for autos, from 25% currently to 15% beginning 1st July 2018.
The Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA) was agreed upon last December and is
likely to become effective in spring 2019, benefiting Japanese car exporters. One of the
biggest beneficiaries from both China and the EU's tariff cuts would be Toyota Motor.
"US lure carmakers with tariff offer – but the proposal is illegal"
That's the title in WirtschaftsWoche. A premier german language trade and economics
magazine. It had an interview(in German) with Ewald Pum attorney at internal law firm
Wirtschaftskanzlei Rödl & Partner.
He states that what Ambassador Grenell proposed is illegal under international WTO law,
and the EU could therefore not support it. Also, the EU had historically supported rules
based free trade, and this could only be accomplished via an bilateral trade deal in goods,
what he called TTIP on a diet.
' Nomura sees it all as deflationary: the pursuit of beggar thy neighbour policies by a
large, connected, and heretofore open economy such as the US threatens to upend this
structure. '
So does UK-based Russell Napier, who sees the US obsession with shrinking its trade
deficit provoking a seismic shift in China:
Investors need to prepare for a formal widening of the trading bands for the RMB
relative to its basket and the problems such a move will create for all emerging markets.
That first move in the RMB is inherently deflationary. This is no counter-punch in a trade
war; it is the beginning of the creation of a new global monetary system.
The ability of China to extend the cycle has come to an end as its current account
surplus has all but evaporated. It has also come to an end because Jay Powell has warned
China, and other emerging markets, that he will not alter the course of US monetary policy
to assist with any credit disturbances outside his own jurisdiction.
Who can run the current account deficits necessary to make their currency an attractive
anchor for smaller countries seeking to run current account surpluses?
It seems well nigh impossible to believe, following almost 40 years of mercantilism,
that China would opt to become a country running large current account deficits. Such a
change in mindset may seem revolutionary, but it is just another necessary shift in the
long game in the attempt to make China the pre-eminent global economy.
The initial shift to a more flexible Chinese exchange rate is deflationary and
dangerous. The USD selling price of Chinese exports will likely fall, putting pressure on
all those who compete with China – EMs [Emerging Markets] but also Japan. The USD
will rise, putting pressure on all those, particularly EMs, who have borrowed USD without
having USD cash flows to service those debts. With world debt-to-GDP at a record high, such
a major deflationary dislocation can easily trigger another credit crisis.
Following the great dislocation, China will be free to reflate the world.
' Free to reflate the world ' much as the US did post-WW II with its Great
Inflation that flooded the world with dollars.
But getting from here to there is the tricky bit. As Napier insists, a deflationary ditch
lies between. Combine Llewellyn-Smith's comments on the auto industry's overcapacity and
supply-chain disruption with a deflationary break in the global economy, and you've got the
recipe for a nasty little crisis and perhaps a second bankruptcy in GM, whose long-term debt
is rising rapidly.
Flake-o-nomics may be creative destruction, but folks are not going to like the interim
results. The purblind Hoover-Trump will be blamed, rightly.
This whole tariff fight really seems to be about derailing China's plans to be a world
leader with its 'Made in China 2025' plan. Maybe Trump and his advisers reckon that if this
fight is not carried to the Chinese soon, then it will be too late. Europe, though under
attack by Trump, is also seeing the dangers where the EU will be eclipsed by a single
country.
It may be that Europe is giving Trump a message that if he plays nice with Europe's
tariffs, then the EU will cooperate with the US against China. I hope that the calculation is
not to push China into financial chaos as serving Europe's and Trump's interests. Supply
chains are far too meshed to make that a good option and I can easily see a recession in the
making which will hit the world hard.
China may have a long term advantage in that it has invested in infrastructure, transport,
education and training whereas the west has been devaluing these things due to neoliberal
policies for decades now. They may start pulling their money back which will hit places like
Australia, Canada and the US hard as to my eye Chinese money keeps things like property
values high in those places. We'll find out soon enough.
I've been following CGTN on the tariff war, and it looks like China is going to go the
'proportional reciprocity' route, just as Russia has with sanctions.
The latter has benefited from sanctions, while Europe has lost billions in trade.
As for the 'five EU officials' – all anonymous – cited in Reuters' report, I
would take their statements with a large dose of salt.
EU is in ferment, and Merkel is not doing well in the polls.
There is strong anti-US sentiment in Germany, albeit not reported in the media. A
combination of Trump's policies and the perpetual wars – now implicated in the greatest
mass migrantion crisis since WWII – has led to a disenchantment with US.
Then there is OBOR, with various interest groups – particularly in European industry
– beginning to look East rather than West.
Thus there is no real unified resolve at EU level to warrant such claims.
Dedollarization is continuing apace too, and new alliances are emerging like the SCO and
the reported deals between the major oil producing countries like Russia and Saudi.
China plays a much longer game than the US, so it is hard to estimate what the consequence
will be within the short – tern assessment models used by the Western powers.
I've gotten into the habit of rolling my eyes whenever an establishment media outlet
quotes "anonymous sources". Looking at the prospects in the global automotive sector, surely
the smart money is on the east (and other emerging markets) being where the long term growth
is going to emerge, so why the EU would bet on a jockey riding a horse that's falling behind
the pace would be rather difficult to fathom. One assumes that CEOs of the big three German
automakers play as long a game as anyone, so being brow beaten into an anti-china stance by a
US ambassador would be incredibly shortsighted, to say nothing of raising investor ire
Captains of the German auto industry kowtowing to US ambassador Grenell make a
remarkable scene, not unlike the Chinese capitulating to the British and handing over Hong
Kong in the opium wars.
But Germany is an occupied and humbled nation, with tens of thousands of US troops
garrisoned on its soil for three generations now. And Grenell, a product of the John F
Kennedy School of Gubmint at Hahhhhhvid, was born to rule.
It's good to be king ambassador.
*summons his liveried steward to fetch oysters and mimosas for brunch*
I agree that this is looking like creative destruction -- but more like intentional
creative destruction. Bringing down the dinosaur auto industry – now that's definitely
a step in the right direction, imo. So it's curious that Trump has such a strategic focus,
no? And he just started Space Force.
So clearly that is where the technology is. I do not agree that this is hyper-nationalism
(that's just the cover) and it seems absurd for anyone to suggest that Trump is actually
doing anything to benefit domestic auto workers he's just not that dumb. And of course Merkel
is in a tizzy. She's going to do everything she can to soften the impact of the
inevitable.
Ha! As discussed and promised 'round the table at D4 last night ;-) #ChicagoNCMeetup
Thanks again Yves!
Part of me wants to believe that the capitalist nations were always destined to circle
the wagons against communist China, despite all the hand wringing about Trump. The
political aspect of this is more interesting to me at the moment. Given all we know about the
loyalty Trump still enjoys from those who put him in office, a yuge trade "win" this
year will play to the theme of tempered expectations of a "Blue Wave".
I a way communism was a new religion and extermination of non-believers are typical for
religious wars.
The emergence of neoliberalism was a death sentence for Soviet communism. In this sense the USA did won the Cold War. The
triumph of neoliberalism over communism was complete. The USSR elite changes sides and became turncoats.
Communism as practiced by the Soviets was nether a sustainable ideology, not a sustainable political system. As such it
was doomed as any quasi theocratic state is doomed. It can' convert itself into something else. So the collapse was
inevitable although efforts of "collective West" to speed up this collapse by manipulating oil prices and withholding critical
technologies should not be underestimated. As well as bribing key players which by some estimates cost the USA one billion
in cash.
Also in 90th the level of degeneration of Soviet elite was staggering and that open a way for neocons. The country was in deep
cultural, ideological and political crisis. West supported nationalist movements became important shadow players in several of
former USSR republics. Supported by Soros foundation among others. I always wonder about the level of connections
between Soros and CIA.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving
humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best
conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime
mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and
after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even
worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death.,
There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine. Basically there were real
issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force
caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and
these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and
other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism
regime.
Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of
these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people.
Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started
made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human
rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a
soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.
Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.
I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this
issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional
background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.
Communism (at least as implemented in the USSR) had its severe faults. The main of these
was that they built a loser-oriented society: no matter how little you contribute, you get
quite a bit, with inevitable other side of this coin – no matter how much you
contribute, you don't get much more. People are quite different, and a difference in
compensation on the order of 5-10-fold would be appropriate. Naturally, the difference on the
order of 50-500-fold, like in current Russia or the "liberal" West, is thievery, pure and
simple: advantageously born or smarter people without conscience robbing regular folks blind,
and using their control of MSM to convince suckers that any other system is for losers. On
top of that, some (party numenclatura) were a lot more equal than others (to borrow Orwell's
expression). There were also tactical blunders: Soviet authorities did not allow most
citizens to travel and work abroad, where they could find out for themselves that huge
material advantage of the West is a propaganda myth. In fact, in material terms Russians now
live much better then Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, not to mention the majority of Eastern
European countries. In the USSR this myth festered and eventually lead to the downfall of the
USSR, as there were no serious forces ready to defend it from traitors at the top, who just
wanted to steal more than the party rules allowed them. I remember believing in that myth
until I got my personal experience working in the US. Here I learned how true is the American
folk wisdom that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" and "free cheese is only in the
mousetrap".
However, Soviet education system was way superior to American, and possibly better than in
many European countries (I have no personal experience there). I know for a fact that Soviet
school gave a lot better education than the school in the US, even though the US spends
enormous amounts of money on schools, much more than USSR did per pupil. The difference in
college education was huge in the USSR and is huge in the US. I know that Moscow State or
Phystech gave education that was not worse, possibly better than Harvard, Yale, Caltech,
UPenn, and other best schools in the US. But most colleges in the USSR were way below MSU
level. Similarly, most colleges in the US aren't worth the name, and only 2% of US college
students attend really good schools. However, I remember that when we graduated from Biofak
MSU, which trained the students mostly to do research, I had a feeling that they taught us to
swim but never put water into the pool. After moving to the US (I did not lie to pretend
being a persecuted refugee, I found a job via mail and went to work) within months of working
in the lab I got a reputation of a star post-doc, a "go to" person in anything related to
molecular biology and biochemistry. Besides, it became my unofficial duty to fix the
scintillation counter, which was regularly screwed up by the Italian post-docs working in
another lab. So, I published many strong papers as a post-doc, found my independent position
after 4 years, and got my first NIH RO1 grant a year later.
I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge
achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in
Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money
to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical
sites all over Europe. I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they
degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these
"reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact,
American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US
level). I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in
the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent
research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. Huge inequality is another negative,
especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now
continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned
and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that
regress rather than progress. On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in
international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a
thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps
those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be
damned.
Finally, life. As a biochemist, I see no other option than the idea that life appeared
spontaneously. The best book about evolution is Dawkins' "The blind watchmaker". People who
don't know even elementary biology would tell you that the probability of an emergence of any
protein by chance is virtually nil. That is true, but no protein emerged that way. Proteins
consist of parts, sequence motifs and domains, each much smaller than the whole thing. Modern
proteins (ours and bacterial alike – we all evolved for billions of years) emerged as
combinations of these parts. You can find the same domain or sequence motif in dozens,
sometimes hundreds, of proteins, attesting to the combinatorial nature of evolution of
complex things. When you mutagenize your protein and look at the sequence, you can see how
protein families evolved in the sequence of nucleotides (most amino acids can be encoded by
many, up to 6, different codons, which makes the evolution clearly traceable). Our ribosomes
(machines that make proteins by translating messenger RNA sequence) are a lot bigger and
slower than ribosomes in eubacteria, yet we have those better and more efficient ribosomes in
mitochondria (plants also have them in chloroplasts). Creationists can't explain this, but
this is just the result of eukaryotic cell being a symbiosis of anaerobic archaebacteria with
"bad" ribosomes and aerobic eubacteria with better ribosomes, that became mitochondria and
chloroplasts. There are many other clear traces of evolution (constantly developing
antibiotic resistance of disease-causing bacteria being one of the most obvious), but the
funniest argument for evolution I know is this: "Bush junior is the best argument against
intelligent design: nobody intelligent would ever design that".
Many historians have suggested that the 1929 stock market crash
was not the cause of the Great Depression. If anything, the 1929 crash was
the technical reflection of the inevitable fate of an overblown bubble
economy. Yet, stock market crashes can recover within a relatively short time
with the help of effective government monetary measures, as demonstrated by
the crashes of 1987 (23% drop, recovered in 9 months), 1998 (36% drop,
recovered in 3 months) and 2000-2 (37% drop, recovered in 2 months).
Structurally, the real cause of the Great Depression, which lasted more than
a decade, from 1929 till the beginning of the Second World War in 1941, was
the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that put world trade into a tailspin from which
it did not recover until World War II began. While the US economy finally
recovered from war mobilization after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1940, most of the world's market economies sunk deeper into
war-torn distress and never fully recovered until the Korea War boom in
1951.
Barely five years into the 21st century, with
a globlaized neo-liberal trade regime firmly in place in a world where market
economy has become the norm, trade protectionism appears to be fast
re-emerging and developing into a new global trade war of complex dimensions.
The irony is that this new trade war is being launched not by the poor
economies that have been receiving the short end of the trade stick, but by
the US which has been winning more than it has been losing on all counts from
globalized neo-liberal trade, with the EU following suit in locked steps.
Japan of course has never let up on protectionism and never taken competition
policy seriously. The rich nations needs to recognize that in their effort to
squeeze every last drop of advantage out of already unfair trade will only
plunge the world into deep depression. History has shown that while the poor
suffer more in economic depressions, the rich, even as they are fianancially
cushioned by their wealth, are hurt by political repercussions in the form of
either war or revolution or both.
During the Cold War, there was no international free trade. The
economies of the two contending ideology blocks were completely disconnected.
Within each block, economies interact through foreign aid and memorandum
trade from their respective superpowers. The competition was not for profit
but for the hearts and minds of the people in the two opposing blocks as well
as those in the non-aligned nations in the Third World. The competition
between the two superpowers was to give rather than to take from their
separate fraternal economies.
The population of the superpowers worked hard to help the poorer
people within their separate blocks and convergence toward equality was the
policy aim even if not always the practice. The Cold War era of foreign aid
and memorandum trade had a better record of poverty reduction in either camps
than post-Cold War globalized neo-liberal trade dominated by one single
superpower. The aim was not only to raise income and increase wealth, but
also to close income and wealth disparity between and within economies.
Today, income and wealth disparity is rationalized as a necessity for capital
formation. The New York Time reports that from 1980 to 2002, the total income
earned by the top 0.1% of earners in the US more than doubled, while the
share earned by everyone else in the top 10% rose far less and the share of
the bottom 90% declined.
For all its ill effects, the Cold War achieved two formidable ends:
it prevented nuclear war and it introduced development as a moral imperative
into superpower geo-political competition with rising economic equality
within each block. In the years since the end of the Cold War, nuclear
terrorism has emerged as a serious threat and domestic development is
pre-empted by global trade even in the rich economies while income and wealth
disparity has widened everywhere.
Since the end of the Cold War some fifteen years ago, world economic
growth has shifted to rely exclusively on globalized neo-liberal trade
engineered and led by the US as the sole remaining superpower, financed with
the US dollar as the main reserve currency for trade and anchored by the huge
US consumer market made possible by the high wages of US workers. This growth
has been sustained by knocking down national tariffs everywhere around the
world through supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and financed by a deregulated foreign exchange market working in
concert with a global central banking regime independent of local political
pressure, lorded over by the supranational Bank of International Settlement
(BIS) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Redefining humanist morality, the US asserts that world trade is a
moral imperative and as such trade promotes democracy, political freedom and
respect for human rights in trade participating nations. Unfortunately,
income and wealth equality are not among the benefits promoted by trade. Even
if the validity of this twisted ideological assertion is not questioned, it
clearly contradicts US practice of trade embargo against countries the US
deems undemocratic, lacking in political freedom and deficient in respect for
human rights. If trade promotes such desirable conditions, such practice of
linking trade to freedom is tantamount to denying medicine to the
sick.
President George W Bush defended his free trade agenda in moralistic
terms. "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral
imperative," he declared in a May 7, 2001 speech. "Trade creates jobs for the
unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we're providing new hope for
the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political
freedom." Such claims remain highly controversial when tested by actual
data.
Phyllis Schlafly, syndicated conservative columnist, responded
three weeks later in an article: Free Trade is an Economic Issue, Not a
Moral One . In it, she notes while conservatives should be happy to
finally have a president who adds a moral dimension to his actions, "the
Bible does not instruct us on free trade and it's not one of the Ten
Commandments. Jesus did not tell us to follow Him along the road to free
trade. Nor is there anything in the U.S. Constitution that requires us to
support free trade and to abhor protectionism. In fact, protectionism was the
economic system believed in and practiced by the framers of our Constitution.
Protective tariffs were the principal source of revenue for our federal
government from its beginning in 1789 until the passage of the 16th
Amendment, which created the federal income tax, in 1913. Were all those
public officials during those hundred-plus years remiss in not adhering to a
"moral obligation" of free trade?" Hardly, argues Schlafly whose views are
noteworthy because US politics is currently enmeshed in a struggle between
strict-constructionist paleo-conservatives and moral-imperialist
neo-conservatives. Despite the ascendance of neo-imperialism in US foreign
policy, protectionism remains strong in US political culture, particularly
among conservatives and in the labor movement.
Bush also said China, which reached a trade agreement with the
US at the close of the Clinton administration, and became a member of the WTO
in late 2001, would benefit from political changes as a result of liberalized
trade policies. This pronouncement gives clear evidence to those in China who
see foreign trade as part of an anti-China "peaceful evolution" strategy
first envisioned by John Forster Dulles, US Secretary of State under
Eisenhower in the 1950s. It is a strategy of inducing through peaceful trade
the Communist Party of China (CPC) to reform itself out of power and to
eliminate the dictatorship of the proletariat in favor of bourgeois
liberalization. Almost four decades later, Deng Xiaoping criticized CPC
Chairman Hu Yaobang and Premier Zhao Ziyang for having failed to contain
bourgeois liberalization in their implementation of China's modernization
policy. Deng warned in November 1989, five months after the Tiananmen
incident: "The Western imperialist countries are staging a third world war
without guns. They want to bring about the peaceful evolution of socialist
countries towards capitalism." Deng's handling of the Tiananmen incident
prevented China from going the catastrophic route of the USSR which dissolved
in 1991.
Yet it is clear that political freedom is often the first
casualty of a garrison state mentality and such mentality inevitably results
from hostile US economic and security policy toward any country the US deems
as not free. Whenever the US pronounces a nation to be not free, that nation
will become less free as a result of US policy. This has been repeatedly
evident in China and elsewhere in the Third World. Whenever US policy toward
China turns hostile, as it currently appears to be heading, political and
press freedom inevitably face stricter curbs. For trade to mutually and truly
benefit the trading economies, three conditions are necessary: 1) the
de-linking of trade from ideological/political objectives, 2) equality must
be maintained in the terms of trade and 3) recognition that global full
employment at rising, living wages is the prerequisite for true comparative
advantage in global trade.
The developing rupture between the sole superpower and its
traditionally deferential allies lies in mounting trade conflicts. The US has
benefited from an international financial architecture that gives the US
economy a structural monetary advantage over those of the EU and Japan, not
to mention the rest of the world. Trade issues range from government
subsidies disputes between Airbus and Boeing, banana, sugar, beef, oranges,
steel, as well as disputes over fair competition associated with mergers and
acquisition and financial services. If either government is found to be in
breach of WTO rules when these disputes wind through long processes of
judgment, the other will be authorized to retaliate. The US could put tariffs
on other European goods if the WTO rules against Airbus and vice versa. So if
both governments are found in breach, both could retaliate, leading to a
cycle of offensive protectionism. When the US was ruled to have unfairly
supported its steel industry, tariffs were slapped by the EU on Florida
oranges to make a political point in a politically important state in US
politics.
Trade competition between the EU and the US is spilling over
into security areas, allowing economic interests to conflict with ideological
sympathy. Both of these production engines, saddled with serious
overcapacity, are desperately seeking new markets, which inevitably leads
them to Asia in general and China in particular, with its phenomenal growth
rate and its 1.2 billion eager consumers bulging with rapidly rising
disposable income. The growth of the Chinese economy will lift all other
economies in Asia, including Australia which has only recently begun to
understand that its future cannot be separated from its geographic location
and that its prosperity is interdependent with those of other Asian
economies. Australian iron ores, beef and dairy products are destined for
China, not the British Isles. The EU is eager to lift its 15-year-old arms
embargo on China, much to the displeasure of the US. Israel faces similar
dilemma in its close relations with the US on military sales to China. Even
the US defense establishment has largely come around to the view that US arms
industry must export, even to China, to remain on top. The Bangkok Post
reported on June 7 that Rumsfeld tried to sell to Thailand F-16 warplanes
capable of firing advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs) two
days after he lashed out in Singapore at China for upgrading its own military
when no neighboring nations are threatening it. The sales pitch was in
competition with Russian-made Sukhoi SU-30s and Swedish JAS-39s. The open
competition in arms export had been spelled out for Congress years earlier by
Donald Hicks, a leading Pentagon technologist in the Reagan administration.
"Globalization is not a policy option, but a fact to which policymakers must
adapt," he said. "The emerging reality is that all nations' militaries are
sharing essentially the same global commercial-defense industrial base." The
boots and uniforms worn by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were made in
China.
The WTO is the only global international organization dealing
with the rules of trade between its 148 member nations. At its heart are the
WTO agreements, known as the multilateral trading system, negotiated and
signed by the majority of the world's trading nations and ratified in their
parliaments. The stated goal is to help producers of goods and services,
exporters, and importers conduct their business, with the dubious assumption
that trade automatically brings equal benefits to all participants. The
welfare of the people is viewed only as a collateral aim based on the
doctrinal fantasy that "balanced" trade inevitably brings prosperity equally
to all, a claim that has been contradicted by facts produced by the very
terms of trade promoted by the WTO itself.
Two decades of neo-liberal globalized trade have widened income
and wealth disparity within and between nations. Free trade has turned out
not to be the win-win game promised by neo-liberals. It is very much a
win-lose game, with heads, the rich economies win, and tails, the poor
economies lose. Domestic development has been marginalized as a hapless
victim of foreign trade, dependent on trade surplus for capital. Foreign
trade and foreign investment have become the prerequisite engines for
domestic development. This trade model condemns those economies with trade
deficits to perpetual underdevelopment. Because of dollar hegemony, all
foreign investment goes only to the export sector where dollars can be
earned. Even the economies with trade surpluses cannot use their dollar trade
earnings for domestic development, as they are forced to hold huge dollar
reserves to support the exchange rate of their
currencies.
In the fifth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cancun in
September 2003, the richer countries rejected the demands of poorer nations
for radical reform of agricultural subsidies that have decimated Third World
agriculture. Failure to get the Doha round back on track after the collapse
of Cancun runs the danger of a global resurgence of protectionism, with the
US leading the way. Larry Elliott reported on October 13, 2003 in The
Guardian on the failed 2003 Cancun Ministerial meeting: "The language of
globalization is all about democracy, free trade and sharing the benefits of
technological advance. The reality is about rule by elites, mercantilism and
selfishness." Elliot noted that the process is full of paradoxes: why is it
that in a world where human capital is supposed to be the new wealth of
nations, labor is treated with such contempt?
Sam Mpasu, Malawi's commerce and industry minister, asked at
Cancun for his comments about the benefits of trade liberalization, replied
dryly: "We have opened our economy. That's why we are flat on our back."
Mpasu's comments summarize the wide chasm that divides the perspectives of
those who write the rules of globalization and those who are powerless to
resist them.
Exports of manufactures by low-wage developing countries have
increased rapidly over the last 3 decades due in part to falling tariffs and
declining transport costs that enable outsourcing based on wage arbitrage. It
grew from 25% in 1965 to nearly 75% over three decades, while agriculture's
share of developing country exports has fallen from 50% to under 10%. Many
developing countries have gained relatively little from increased
manufactures trade, with most of the profit going to foreign capital. Market
access for their most competitive manufactured export, such as textile and
apparel, remains highly restricted and recent trade disputes threaten further
restrictions. Still, the key cause of unemployment in all developing
economies is the trade-related collapse of agriculture, exacerbated by the
massive government subsidies provided to farmers in rich economies. Many poor
economies are predominantly agriculturally based and a collapse of
agriculture means a general collapse of the whole
economy.
The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, sponsored by the
WTO, collapsed in Cancun, Mexico over the question of government support for
agriculture in rich economies and its potential impacts on causing more
poverty in developing countries. The Doha negotiations since Cancun are
focused on the need to better understand the linkages between trade policies,
particularly those of the rich economies, and poverty in the developing
world. While poverty reduction is now more widely accepted by establishment
economists as a necessary central focus for development efforts and has
become the main mission of the World Bank and other development institutions,
very little effective measures have been forthcoming. The UN Millennium
Development Goals (UNMDG) commits the international community to halve world
poverty by 2015, a decade from now. With current trends, that goal is likely
to be achievable only through death of half of the poor by starvation,
disease and local conflicts. The UN Development
Program warns that 3 million children will die in sub-Saharan Africa alone by
2015 if the world continues on its current path of failing to meet the UNMDG
agreed to in 2000 . Several key venues to this goal are located in
international trade where the record of poverty reduction has been
exceedingly poor, if not outright negative. The fundamental question whether
trade can replace or even augment socio-economic development remains unasked,
let alone answered. Until such issues are earnestly addressed, protectionism
will re-emerge in the poor countries. Under such conditions, if democracy
expresses the will of the people, democracy will demand protectionism more
than government by elite.
While tariffs in the past decade have been coming down like
leaves in autumn, flexible exchange rates have become a form of virtual
countervailing tariff. In the current globalized neo-liberal trade regime
operating in a deregulated global foreign exchange market, the exchanged
value of a currency is regularly used to balance trade through government
intervention in currency market fluctuations against the world's main reserve
currency – the dollar, as the head of the international monetary
snake.
Purchasing power parity (PPP) measures the disconnection between
exchange rates and local prices. PPP contrasts with the interest rate parity
(IRP) theory which assumes that the actions of investors, whose transactions
are recorded on the capital account, induces changes in the exchange rate.
For a dollar investor to earn the same interest rate in a foreign economy
with a PPP of four times, such as the purchasing power parity between the US
dollar and the Chinese yuan, local wages would have to be at least 4 time
lower than US wages.
<>PPP theory is based
on an extension and variation of the "law of one price" as applied to the
aggregate economy. The law of one price says that identical goods should sell
for the same price in two separate markets when there are no transportation
costs and no differential taxes applied in the two markets. But the law of
one price does not apply to the price of labor. Price arbitrage is the
opposite of wage arbitrage in that producers seek to make their goods in the
lowest wage locations and to sell their goods in the highest price markets.
This is the incentive for outsourcing which never seeks to sell products
locally at prices that reflect PPP differentials.
What is not generally noticed is that price deflation in an economy
increases its PPP, in that the same local currency buys more. But the
cross-border one price phenomenon applies only to certain products, such as
oil, thus for a PPP of 4 times, a rise in oil prices will cost the Chinese
economy 4 times the equivalent in other goods, or wages than in the US. The
larger the purchasing power parity between a local currency and the dollar,
the more severe is the tyranny of dollar hegemony on forcing down wage
differentials.
Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon, under pressure from
persistent fiscal and trade deficits that drained US gold reserves, took the
dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce), the dollar has been a fiat
currency of a country of little fiscal or monetary discipline. The Bretton
Woods Conference at the end of World War II established the dollar, a solid
currency backed by gold, as a benchmark currency for financing international
trade, with all other currencies pegged to it at fixed rates that changed
only infrequently. The fixed exchange rate regime was designed to keep
trading nations honest and prevent them from running perpetual trade
deficits. It was not expected to dictate the living standards of trading
economies, which were measured by many other factors besides exchange
rates.
Bretton Woods was conceived when conventional wisdom in international
economics did not consider cross-border flow of funds necessary or desirable
for financing world trade precise for this reason. Since 1971, the dollar has
changed from a gold-back currency to a global reserve monetary instrument
that the US, and only the US, can produce by fiat. At the same time, the US
continued to incur both current account and fiscal deficits. That was the
beginning of dollar hegemony.
With deregulation of foreign exchange and financial markets, many
currencies began to free float against the dollar not in response to market
forces but to maintain export competitiveness. Government interventions in
foreign exchange markets became a regular last resort option for many trading
economies for their preserving export competitiveness and for resisting the
effect of dollar hegemony on domestic living standards.
World trade under dollar hegemony is a game in which the US produces
paper dollars and the rest of the world produce real things that paper
dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture
comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to
service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to
sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies in foreign exchange
markets. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies
in deregulated markets, the world's central banks must acquire and hold
dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to market pressure on their
currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a
particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold.
This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces all
central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger.
This anomalous phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by
the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most
notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because
dollars can buy oil. The denomination of oil in dollars and the recycling of
petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries
for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in dollar-denominated
assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. A
strong-dollar policy is in the US national interest because it keeps US
inflation low through low-cost imports and it makes US assets denominated in
dollars expensive for foreign investors. This arrangement, which Federal
Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan proudly calls US financial hegemony in
congressional testimony, has kept the US economy booming in the face of
recurrent financial crises in the rest of the world. It has distorted
globalization into a "race to the bottom" process of exploiting the lowest
labor costs and the highest environmental abuse worldwide to produce items
and produce for export to US markets in a quest for the almighty dollar,
which has not been backed by gold since 1971, nor by economic fundamentals
for more than a decade. The adverse effects of this type of globalization on
the developing economies are obvious. It robs them of the meager fruits of
their exports and keeps their domestic economies starved for capital, as all
surplus dollars must be reinvested in US treasuries to prevent the collapse
of their own domestic currencies.
The adverse effect of this type of globalization on the US economy is
also becoming clear. In order to act as consumer of last resort for the whole
world, the US economy has been pushed into a debt bubble that thrives on
conspicuous consumption and fraudulent accounting. The unsustainable and
irrational rise of US equity and real estate prices, unsupported by revenue
or profit, had merely been a de facto devaluation of the dollar. Ironically,
the recent fall in US equity prices from its 2004 peak and the anticipated
fall in real estate prices reflect a trend to an even stronger dollar, as it
can buy more deflated shares and properties for the same amount of dollars.
The rise in the purchasing power of the dollar inside the US impacts its
purchasing power disparity with other currencies unevenly, causing sharp
price instability in the economies with freely exchangeable currencies and
fixed exchange rates, such as Hong Kong and until recently Argentina. For the
US, falling exchange rate of the dollar actually causes asset prices to rise.
Thus with a debt bubble in the US economy, a strong dollar is not in the US
national interest. Debt has turned US policy on the dollar on its
head.
The setting of exchange values of currencies is practiced not only by
sovereign governments on their own currencies as a sovereign right. The US,
exploiting dollar hegemony, usurps the privilege of dictating the exchange
value of all foreign currencies to support its own economic nationalism in
the name of global free trade. And US position on exchange rates has not been
consistent. When the dollar was rising, as it did in the 1980s, the US, to
protect its export trade, hailed the stabilizing wisdom of fixed exchange
rates. When the dollar falls as it has been in recent years, the US, to
deflect the blame of its trade deficit, attacks fixed exchange rates as
currency manipulation, as it targets China's currency now which has been
pegged to the dollar for over a decade, since the dollar was lower. How can a
nation manipulate the exchange value of its currency when it is pegged to the
dollar at the same rate over long periods? Any manipulation came from the
dollar, not the yuan.
The recent rise of the euro against the dollar, the first
appreciation wave since its introduction on January 1, 2002, is the result of
an EU version of the 1985 Plaza Accord on the Japanese yen, albeit without a
formal accord. The strategic purpose is more than merely moderating the US
trade deficit. The record shows that even with the 30% drop of the dollar
against the euro, the US trade deficit has continued to climb. The strategic
purpose of driving up the euro is to reduce the euro to the status of the
yen, as a subordinated currency to dollar hegemony. The real effect of the
Plaza Accord was to shift the cost of support for the dollar-denominated US
trade deficit, and the socio-economic pain associated with that support, from
the US to Japan.
What is happening to the euro now is far from being the beginning of
the demise of the dollar. Rather, it is the beginning of the reduction of the
euro into a subservient currency to the dollar to support the US debt bubble.
Six and a half years since the launch of European Monetary Union, the
eurozone is trapped in an environment in which monetary policy of sound money
has in effect become destructive and supply-side fiscal policy unsustainable.
National economies are beginning to refuse to bear the pain needed for
adjustment to globalization or the EU's ambitious enlargement. The European
nations are beginning to resist the US strategy to make the euro economy a
captive supporter of a rising or falling dollar as such movements fit the
shifting needs of US economic nationalism.
It is the modern-day monetary equivalent of the brilliant Roman
strategy of making a dissident Jew a Christian god, to pre-empt Judaism's
rising cultural domination over Roman civilization. Roman law, the foundation
of the Roman Empire, gained in sophistication from being influenced by if not
directly derived from Jewish Talmudic law, particularly on the concept of
equity - an eye for an eye. The Jews had devised a legal system based on the
dignity of the individual and equality before the law four century before
Christ. There was no written Roman law until two centuries B.C. The Roman law
of obligatio was not conducive to finance as it held that all
indebtedness was personal, without institutional status. A creditor could not
sell a note of indebtedness to another party and a debtor did not have to pay
anyone except the original creditor. Talmudic law, on the other hand,
recognized impersonal credit and a debt had to be paid to whoever presented
the demand note. This was a key development of modern finance. With the
Talmud, the Jews under the Diaspora had an international law that spans three
continents and many cultures.<>
The Romans were faced with a dilemma. Secular Jewish ideas and values
were permeating Roman society, but Judaism was an exclusive religion that the
Romans were not permitted to join. The Romans could not assimilate the Jews
as they did the more civilized Greeks. Early Christianity also kept its
exclusionary trait until Paul who opened Christianity to all. Historian
Edward Gibbon (1737-94) noted that the Rome recognized the Jews as a nation
and as such were entitled to religious peculiarities. The Christians on the
other hand were a sect, and being without a nation, subverted other nations.
The Roman Jews were active in government and when not resisting Rome against
social injustice, fought side by side with Roman legionnaires to preserve the
empire. Roman Jews were good Roman citizens. By contrast, the early
Christians were social dropouts, refused responsibility in government and
civic affairs and were conscientious objectors and pacifists in a militant
culture. Gibbon noted that Rome felt that the crime of a Christian was not in
what he did, but in being who he was. Christianity gained control of Roman
culture and society long before Constantine who in 324 A.D. sanctioned it
with political legitimacy and power after recognizing its power in helping to
win wars against pagans, the way Pope Urban II in 1095 used the crusade to
keep Papal temporal power longer. When early Christianity, a secular Jewish
dissident sect, began to move up from the lower strata of Roman society and
began to find converts in the upper echelons, the Roman polity adopted
Christianity, the least objectionable of all Jewish sects, as a state
religion. Gibbons estimated that Christians killed more of their own members
over religious disputes in the three centuries after coming to secular power
than did the Romans in three previous centuries. Persecution of the Jews
began in Christianized Rome. The disdain held by early Christianity on
centralized government gave rise to monasticism and contributed to the fall
of the Roman Empire.
By allowing a trade surplus denominated in dollars to be accumulated
by non-dollar economies, such as yen, euro, or now the Chinese yuan, the cost
of supporting the appropriate value of the dollar to sustain perpetual
economic growth in the dollar economy is then shifted to these non-dollar
economies, which manifests themselves in perpetual relative low wages and
weak domestic consumption. For already high-wage EU and Japan, the penalty is
the reduction of social welfare benefits and job security traditional to
these economies. For China, now the world's second largest creditor nation,
it is reduced to having to ask the US, the world's largest debtor nation, for
capital denominated in dollars the US can print at will to finance its export
trade to a US running recurring trade deficits.<>
The IMF, which has been ferocious in imposing draconian fiscal and
monetary "conditionalities" on all debtor nations everywhere in the decade
after the Cold War, is nowhere to be seen on the scene in the world's most
fragrantly irresponsible debtor nation. This is because the US can print
dollars at will and with immunity. The dollar is a fiat currency not backed
by gold, not backed by US productivity, not back by US export prowess, but by
US military power. The US military budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 is
$420.7 billion. For Fiscal Year 2004, it was $399.1 billion; for 2003, $396.1
billion; for 2002, $343.2 billion and for 2001, $310 billion. In the first
term of the Bush presidency, the US spent $1.5 trillion on its military. That
is bigger than the entire GDP of China in 2004. The US trade deficit is
around 6% of its GDP while it military budget is around 4%. In other words,
the trading partners of the US are paying for one and a half times of the
cost of a military that can someday be used against any one of them for any
number of reasons, including trade disputes. The anti-dollar crowd has
nothing to celebrate about the recurring US trade deficit.
It is pathetic that US Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld tries
to persuade the world that China's military budget, which is less that one
tenth of that of the US, is a threat to Asia, even when he is forced to
acknowledge that Chinese military modernization is mostly focused on
defending its coastal territories, not on force projection for distant
conflicts, as is US military doctrine. While Rumsfeld urges more political
freedom in China, his militant posture toward China is directly
counterproductive towards that goal. Ironically, Rumsfeld chose to make his
case about political freedom in Singapore, the bastion of Confucian
authoritarianism.
Normally, according to free trade theory, trade can only stay
unbalanced temporarily before equilibrium is re-established or free trade
would simply stop. When bilateral trade is temporarily unbalanced, it is
generally because one trade partner has become temporarily uncompetitive,
inefficient or unproductive. The partner with the trade deficit receives more
goods and services from the partner with the trade surplus than it can offer
in return and thus pays the difference with its currency that someday can buy
foods produced by the deficit trade partner to re-established balance of
payments. This temporary trade imbalance is due to a number of socio-economic
factors, such as terms of trade, wage levels, return on investment,
regulatory regimes, shortages in labor or material or energy,
trade-supporting infrastructure adequacy, purchasing power disparity, etc. A
trading partner that runs a recurring trade deficit earns the reputation of
being what banks call a habitual borrower, i.e. a bad credit risk, one who
habitually lives beyond his/her means. If the trade deficit is paid with its
currency, a downward pressure results in the exchange rate. A flexible
exchange rate seeks to remove or moderate a temporary trade imbalance while
the productivity disparities between trading partners are being addressed
fundamentally.
Dollar hegemony prevents US trade imbalance from returning to
equilibrium through market forces. It allows a US trade deficit to persist
based on monetary prowess. This translates over time into a falling exchange
rate for the dollar even as dollar hegemony keeps the fall at a slow pace.
But a below-par exchange rate over a long period can run the risk of turning
the temporary imbalance in productivity into a permanent one. A continuously
weakening currency condemns the issuing economy into a downward economic
spiral. This has happened to the US in the last decade. To make matters
worse, with globalization of deregulated markets, the recurring US trade
deficit is accompanied by an escalating loss of jobs in sectors sensitive to
cross-border wage arbitrage, with the job-loss escalation climbing up the
skill ladder. Discriminatory US immigration policies also prevent the
retention of low-paying jobs within the US and exacerbate the illegal
immigration problem.
Regional wage arbitrage within the US in past decades kept the US
economy lean and productive internationally. Labor-intensive US industries
relocated to the low-wage South through regional wage arbitrage and despite
temporary adjustment pains from the loss of textile mills, the Northern
economies managed to upgrade their productivity, technology level, financial
sophistication and output quality. The Southern economies in the US also
managed to upgrade these factors of production and in time managed to narrow
the wage disparity within the national economy. This happened because the
jobs stay within the nation. With globalization, it is another story. Jobs
are leaving the nation mercilessly. According to free trade theory, the US
trade deficit is supposed to cause the dollar to fall temporarily against the
currencies of its trading partners, causing export competitiveness to
rebalance to remove or reduce the US trade deficit or face the collapse of
its currency. Either case, jobs that have been lost temporarily are then
supposed to return to the US.
But the persistent US trade deficit defies trade theory because of
dollar hegemony. The current international finance architecture is based on
dollar hegemony which is the peculiar arrangement in which the US dollar, a
fiat currency, remains as the dominant reserve currency for international
trade. The broad trade-weighted dollar index stays in an upward trend,
despite selective appreciation of some strong currencies, as highly-indebted
emerging market economies attempt to extricate themselves from
dollar-denominated debt through the devaluation of their currencies. While
the aim is to subsidize exports, it ironically makes dollar debts more
expensive in local currency terms. The moderating impact on US price
inflation also amplifies the upward trend of the trade-weighted dollar index
despite persistent US expansion of monetary aggregates, also known as
monetary easing or money printing.
Adjusting for this debt-driven increase in the exchange value of
dollars, the import volume into the US can be estimated in relationship to
expanding monetary aggregates. The annual growth of the volume of goods
shipped to the US has remained around 15% for most of the 1990s, more than 5
times the average annual GDP growth. The US enjoyed a booming economy when
the dollar was gaining ground, and this occurred at a time when interest
rates in the US were higher than those in its creditor nations. This led to
the odd effect that raising US interest rates actually prolonged the boom in
the US rather than threatened it, because it caused massive inflows of
liquidity into the US financial system, lowered import price inflation,
increased apparent productivity and prompted further spending by US consumers
enriched by the wealth effect despite a slowing of wage increases. Returns on
dollar assets stayed high in foreign currency terms.
This was precisely what Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan
did in the 1990s in the name of pre-emptive measures against inflation.
Dollar hegemony enabled the US to print money to fight inflation, causing a
debt bubble of asset appreciation. This data substantiated the view of the US
as Rome in a New Roman Empire with an unending stream of imports as the free
tribune from conquered lands. This was what Greenspan meant by US "financial
hegemony."
The Fed Funds rate (ffr) target has been lifted eight times in steps
of 25 basis points from 1% in mid 2004 to 3% on May 3, 2005. If the same
pattern of "measured pace" continues, the ffr target would be at 4.25% by the
end of 2005. Despite Fed rhetoric, the lifting of dollar interest rate has
more to do with preventing foreign central banks from selling
dollar-denominated assets, such as US Treasuries, than with fighting
inflation. In a debt-driven economy, high interest rates are themselves
inflationary. Rising interest rate to fight inflation could become the
monetary dog chasing its own interest rate tail, with rising rate adding to
rising inflation which then requires more interest rate hikes. Still,
interest rate policy is a double edged sword: it keeps funds from leaving the
debt bubble, but it can also puncture the debt bubble by making the servicing
of debt prohibitively expensive.
To prevent this last adverse effect, the Fed adds to the money
supply, creating an unnatural condition of abundant liquidity with rising
short-term interest rate, resulting in a narrowing of interest spread between
short-term and long-term debts, a leading indication for inevitable recession
down the road. The problem of adding to the money supply is what Keynes
called the liquidity trap, that is, an absolute preference for liquidity even
at near zero interest-rate levels. Keynes argued that either a liquidity trap
or interest-insensitive investment draught could render monetary expansion
ineffective in a recession. It is what is popularly called pushing on a
credit string, where ample money cannot find credit-worthy willing borrowers.
Much of the new low cost money tends to go to refinancing of existing debt
take out at previously higher interest rates. Rising short-term interest
rates, particularly at a measured pace, would not remove the liquidity trap
when long term rates stay flat because of excess liguidity.
The debt bubble in the US is clearly having problems, as evident in
the bond market. With just 14 deals worth $2.9 billion, May 2005 was the
slowest month for high-yield bond issuance since October 2002. The late-April
downgrades of the debt of General Motors and Ford Motor to junk status roiled
the bond markets. The number of high-yield, or junk bond deals fell 55% in
the March-to-May 2005 period, compared with the same three months in 2004.
They were also down 45% from the December-through-February period. In dollar
value, junk bond deals totaled $17.6 billion in the March-to-May 2005 period,
compared with $39.5 billion during the same three months in 2004 and $36
billion from December through February 2005. There were 407 deals of
investment-grade bond underwriting during the March-to-May 2005 period,
compared with 522 in the same period 2004 - a decline of 22%. In dollar
volume, some $153.9 billion of high-grade bonds were underwritten from March
to May 2005, compared with $165.5 billion in the same period in 2004 - a 7%
decline. Oil at $50, along with astronomical asset price appreciation,
particularly in real estate, is giving the debt bubble additional borrowed
time. But this game cannot go on forever and the end will likely be triggered
by a new trade war's effect on reduced trade volume. The price of a reduced
US trade deficit is the bursting of the US debt bubble which can plunge the
world economy into a new depression. Given such options, the US has no choice
except to ride the trade deficit train for as long as the traffic will bear,
which may not be too long, particularly if protectionism begins to gather
force.
The transition to offshore outsourced production has been the source
of the productivity boom of the "New Economy" in the US in the last decade.
The productivity increase not attributable to the importing of other nations'
productivity is much less impressive. While published government figures of
the productivity index show a rise of nearly 70% since 1974, the actual rise
is between zero and 10% in many sectors if the effect of imports is removed
from the equation. The lower productivity values are consistent with the
real-life experience of members of the blue-collar working class and the
white collar middle class who have been spending the equity cash-outs from
the appreciated market value of their homes. World trade has become a network
of cross-border arbitrage on differentials in labor availability, wages,
interest rates, exchange rates, prices, saving rates, productive capacities,
liquidity conditions and debt levels. In some of these areas, the US is
becoming an underdeveloped economy.
The Bush Administration continues to assure the public that the state
of the economy is sound while in reality the US has been losing entire
sectors of its economy, such as manufacturing and information technology, to
foreign producers, while at the same time selling off the part of the nation
to finance its rising and unending trade deficit. Usually, when unjustified
confidence crosses over to fantasized hubris on the part of policymakers,
disaster is not far ahead.
To be fair, the problems of the US economy started before the second
Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration's annual economic report for
2000 claimed that the longest economic expansion in US history could continue
"indefinitely" as long as "we stick to sound policy", according to Chairman
Martin Baily of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) as reported in the
Wall Street Journal . The New York Times report differed
somewhat by quoting Baily as saying: "stick to fiscal policy." Putting the
two newspaper reports together, one got the sense that the Clinton
Administration thought that its fiscal policy was the sound policy needed to
put an end to the business cycle. Economics high priests in government,
unlike the rest of us mortals who are unfortunate enough to have to float in
the daily turbulence of the market, can afford to aloofly focus on long-term
trends and their structural congruence to macro-economic theories. Yet,
outside of macro-economics, long-term is increasingly being re-defined in the
real world. In the technology and communication sectors, long-term evokes
periods lasting less than 5 years. For hedge funds and quant shops, long-term
can mean a matter of weeks.
Two factors were identified by the Clinton CEA Year 2000 economic
report as contributing to the "good" news: technology-driven productivity and
neo-liberal trade globalization. Even with somewhat slower productivity and
spending growth, the CEA believed the economy could continue to expand
perpetually. As for the huge and growing trade deficit, the CEA expected
global recovery to boost demand for US exports, not withstanding the fact
that most US exports are increasingly composed of imported parts. Yet the US
has long officially pursued a strong dollar policy which weakens world demand
for US exports. The high expectation on e-commerce was a big part of
optimism, which had yet to be substantiated by data. In 2000, the CEA
expected the business to business (B2B) portion of e-commerce to rise to $1.3
trillion by 2003 from $43 billion in 1998. Goldman Sachs claimed in 1999 that
B2B e-commerce would reach $1.5 trillion by 2004, twice the size of the
combined 1998 revenues of the US auto industry and the US telecom sector.
Others were more cautious. Jupiter Research projected that companies around
the globe would increase their spending on B2B e-marketplaces from US$2.6
billion in 2000 to only $137.2 billion by 2005 and spending in North America
alone would grow from $2.1 billion to only $80.9 billion. North American
companies accounted for 81% of the total spending in 1998, but by 2005, that
figure was expected to drop to 60% of the total. The fact of the matter is
that Asia and Europe are now faster growth market for communication and
technology.
Reality proved disappointing. A 2004 UN Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) report said: In the United States, e-commerce between
enterprises (B2B), which in 2002 represented almost 93% of all e-commerce,
accounted for 16.28% of all commercial transactions between enterprises.
While overall transactions between enterprises (e-commerce and non
e-commerce) fell in 2002, e-commerce B2B grew at an annual rate of 6.1%. As
for business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce, UNCTAD reported that sales in the
first quarter of 2004 amounted to 1.9 per cent of total retail sales, a
proportion that is nearly twice as large as that recorded in 2001. The annual
rate of growth of retail e-commerce in the US in the year to the end of the
first quarter of 2004 was 28.1%, while the growth of total retail in the same
period was only 8.8%. Dow Jones reported on May 20, 2005 that first-quarter
retail e-commerce sales in the U.S. rose 23.8% compared with the year-ago
period to $19.8 billion from $16 billion, according to preliminary numbers
released by the Department of Commerce. E-commerce sales during the first
quarter rose 6.4% from the fourth quarter, when they were $18.6 billion.
Sales for all periods are on an adjusted basis, meaning the Commerce
Department adjusts them for seasonal variations and holiday and trading-day
differences but not for price changes.
E-commerce sales accounted for 2.2% of total retail sales in the
first quarter of 2005, when those sales were an estimated $916.9 billion,
according to the Commerce Department. Walmart, the low-priced retailer that
imports outsourced goods from overseas, grew only 2%, indicating spending
fatigue on the part of low-income US consumers, while Target Stores, the
upscale retailer that also imports outsourced goods, continues to grow at 7%,
indicating the effects of rising income disparity.
The CEA 2000 report did not address the question whether e-commerce
was merely a shift of commerce or a real growth. The possibility exists for
the new technology to generate negative growth. It happened to IBM –
the increased efficiency (lower unit cost of calculation power) of IBM big
frames actually reduced overall IBM sales, and most of the profit and growth
in personal computers went to Microsoft, the software company that grew on
business that IBM, a self-professed hardware manufacturer, did not consider
worthy of keeping for itself. The same thing happened to Intel where Moore's
Law declared in 1965 an exponential growth in the number of transistors per
integrated circuit and predicted that this trend would continue the doubling
of transistors every couple of years. But what Moore's Law did not predict
was that this growth of computing power per dollar would cut into company
profitability. As the market price of computer power continues to fall, the
cost to producers to achieve Moore's Law has followed the opposite trend:
R&D, manufacturing, and test costs have increased steadily with each new
generation of chips. As the fixed cost of semiconductor production continues
to increase, manufacturers must sell larger and larger quantities of chips to
remain profitable. In recent years, analysts have observed a decline in the
number of "design starts" at advanced process nodes. While these observations
were made in the period after the year 2000 economic downturn, the decline
may be evidence that the long-term global market cannot economically sustain
Moore's Law. Is the Google Bubble a replay of the AOL fiasco?
Schumpeter's creative destruction theory, while revitalizing the
macro-economy with technological obsolescence in the long run, leaves real
corporate bodies in its path, not just obsolete theoretical concepts.
Financial intermediaries and stock exchanges face challenges from Electronic
Communication Networks (ECNs) which may well turn the likes of NYSE into
sunset industries. ECNs are electronic marketplaces which bring buy/sell
orders together and match them in virtual space. Today, ECNs handle roughly
25% of the volume in NASDAQ stocks. The NYSE and the Archipelago Exchange
(ArcaEx) announced on April 20, 2005 that they have entered a definitive
merger agreement that will lead to a combined entity, NYSE Group, Inc.,
becoming a publicly-held company. If approved by regulators, NYSE members and
Archipelago shareholders, the merger will represent the largest-ever among
securities exchanges and combine the world's leading equities market with the
most successful totally open, fully electronic exchange. Through Archipelago,
the NYSE will compete for the first time in the trading of NASDAQ-listed
stocks; it will be able to indirectly capture listings business that
otherwise would not qualify to list on the NYSE. Archipelago lists stocks of
companies that do not meet the NYSE's listing standards.
On fiscal policy, US government spending, including social programs
and defense, declined as a share of the economy during the eight years of the
Clinton watch. This in no small way contributed to a polarization of both
income and wealth, with visible distortions in both the demand and supply
sides of the economy. This was the opposite of the FDR record of increasing
income and wealth equality by policy. The wealth effect tied to bloated
equity and real estate markets could reverse suddenly and did in 2000, bailed
out only by the Bush tax cut and the deficit spending on the War on Terrorism
after 2001. Private debt kept making all time highs throughout the 1990s and
was celebrated by neo-liberal economists as a positive factor. Household
spending was heavily based on expected rising future earnings or paper
profits, both of which might and did vanished on short notice. By election
time in November 1999, the Clinton economic miracle was fizzling. The
business cycle had not ended after all, and certainly not by
self-aggrandizing government policies. It merely got postponed for a more
severe crash later. The idea of ending the business cycle in a market economy
was as much a fantasy as Vice President Cheney's assertion in a speech before
the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 26, 2002 that "the Middle East expert
Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra
and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy ."
In their 1991 populist campaign for the White House, Bill Clinton and
Al Gore repeatedly pointed out the obscenity of the top 1% of Americans
owning 40% of the country's wealth. They also said that if you eliminated
home ownership and only counted businesses, factories and offices, then the
top 1% owned 90% of all commercial wealth. And the top 10%, they said, owned
99%. It was a situation they pledged to change if elected. But once in
office, Clinton and Gore did nothing to redistribute wealth more equally -
despite the fact that their two terms in office spanned the economic joyride
of the 1990s that would eventually hurt the poor much more severely than the
rich. On the contrary, economic inequality only continued to grow under the
Democrats. Reagan spread the national debt equally among the people while
Clinton gave all the wealth to the rich.
Geopolitically, trade globalization was beginning to face complex
resistance worldwide by the second term of the Clinton presidency. The
momentum of resistance after Clinton would either slow further globalization
or force the terms of trade to be revised. The Asian financial crises of 1997
revived economic nationalism around the world against US-led neo-liberal
globalization, while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) attack on
Yugoslavia in 1999 revived militarism in the EU. Market fundamentalism as
espoused by the US, far from being a valid science universally, was
increasingly viewed by the rest of the world as merely US national ideology,
unsupported even by US historical conditions. Just as anti-Napoleonic
internationalism was essentially anti-French, anti-globalization and
anti-moral-imperialism are essentially anti-US. US unilateralism and
exceptionism became the midwife for a new revival of political and economic
nationalism everywhere. The Bush Doctrine of monopolistic nuclear posture,
pre-emptive wars, "either with us or against us" extremism, and no compromise
with states that allegedly support terrorism, pours gasoline on the
smoldering fire of defensive nationalism everywhere.
Alan Greenspan in his October 29, 1997 Congressional testimony on
Turbulence in World Financial Markets before the Joint Economic
Committee said that "it is quite conceivable that a few years hence we will
look back at this episode [Asian financial crisis of 1997] . as a salutary
event in terms of its implications for the macro-economy." When one is
focused only on the big picture, details do not make much of a difference:
the earth always appears more or less round from space, despite that some
people on it spend their whole lives starving and cities get destroyed by war
or natural disasters. That is the problem with macroeconomics. As Greenspan
spoke, many around the world were waking up to the realization that the
turbulence in their own financial markets was viewed by the US central banker
as having a "salutary effect" on the US macro-economy. Greenspan gave anti-US
sentiments and monetary trade protectionism held by participants in these
financial markets a solid basis and they were no longer accused of being mere
paranoia.
Ironically, after the end of the Cold War, market capitalism has
emerged as the most fervent force for revolutionary change. Finance
capitalism became inherently democratic once the bulk of capital began to
come from the pension assets of workers, despite widening income and wealth
disparity. The monetary value of US pension funds is over $15 trillion, the
bulk of which belong to average workers. A new form of social capitalism has
emerged which would gladly eliminate the worker's job in order to give
him/her a higher return on his/her pension account. The capitalist in the
individual is exploiting the worker in same individual. A conflict of
interest arises between a worker's savings and his/her earnings. As Pogo used
to say: "The enemy: they are us." This social capitalism, by favoring return
on capital over compensation for labor, produces overinvestment, resulting in
overcapacity. But the problem of overcapacity can only be solved by high
income consumers. Unemployment and underemployment in an economy of
overcapacity decrease demand, leading to financial collapse. The world
economy needs low wages the way the cattle business need foot and mouth
disease.
The nomenclature of neo-classical economics reflects, and in turn
dictates, the warped logic of the economic system it produces. Terms such as
money, capital, labor, debt, interest, profits, employment, market, etc, have
been conceptualized to describe synthetic components of an artificial
material system created by the power politics of greed. It is the capitalist
greed in the worker that causes the loss of his/her job to lower wage earners
overseas. The concept of the economic man who presumably always acts in his
self-interest is a gross abstraction based on the flawed assumption of market
participants acting with perfect and equal information and clear
understanding of the implication of his actions. The pervasive use of these
terms over time disguises the artificial system as the logical product of
natural laws, rather than the conceptual components of the power politics of
greed.
Just as monarchism first emerged as a progressive force against
feudalism by rationalizing itself as a natural law of politics and eventually
brought about its own demise by betraying its progressive mandate, social
capitalism today places return on capital above not only the worker but also
the welfare of the owner of capital. The class struggle has been internalized
within each worker. As people facing the hard choice of survival in the
present versus wellbeing in the future, they will always choose survival,
social capitalism will inevitably go the way of absolute monarchism, and make
way for humanist socialism.
Global trade has forced all countries to adopt market economy. Yet the market
is not the economy. It is only one aspect of the economy. A market economy
can be viewed as an aberration of human civilization, as economist Karl
Polanyi (1886-1964) pointed out. The principal theme of Polanyi's Origins
of Our Time: The Great Transformation (1945) was that market economy was
of very recent origin and had emerged fully formed only as recently as the
19th century, in conjunction with capitalistic industrialization. The current
globalization of markets following the fall of the Soviet bloc is also of
recent post-Cold War origin, in conjunction with the advent of the electronic
information age and deregulated finance capitalism. A severe and prolonged
depression can trigger the end of the market economy, when intelligent human
beings are finally faced with the realization that the business cycle
inherent in the market economy cannot be regulated sufficiently to prevent
its innate destructiveness to human welfare and are forced to seek new
economic arrangements for human development. The principle of diminishing
returns will lead people to reject the market economy, however
sophisticatedly regulated.
Prior to the coming of capitalistic industrialization, the market played only
a minor part in the economic life of societies. Even where market places
could be seen to be operating, they were peripheral to the main economic
organization and activities of society. In many pre-industrial economies,
markets met only twice a month. Polanyi argued that in modern market
economies, the needs of the market determined social behavior, whereas in
pre-industrial and primitive economies the needs of society determined market
behavior. Polanyi reintroduced to economics the concepts of reciprocity and
redistribution in human interaction, which were the original aims of trade.
Reciprocity implies that people produce the goods and services they are
best at and enjoy most in producing, and share them with others with joy.
This is reciprocated by others who are good at and enjoy producing other
goods and services. There is an unspoken agreement that all would produce
that which they could do best and mutually share and share alike, not just
sold to the highest bidder, or worse to produce what they despise to meet the
demands of the market. The idea of sweatshops is totally unnatural to human
dignity and uneconomic to human welfare. With reciprocity, there is no need
for layers of management, because workers happily practice their livelihoods
and need no coercive supervision. Labor is not forced and workers do not
merely sell their time in jobs they hate, unrelated to their inner callings.
Prices are not fixed but vary according to what different buyers with
different circumstances can afford or what the seller needs in return from
different buyers. The law of one price is inhumane, unnatural, inflexible and
unfair. All workers find their separate personal fulfillment in different
productive livelihoods of their choosing, without distortion by the need for
money. The motivation to produce and share is not personal profit, but
personal fulfillment, and avoidance of public contempt, communal ostracism,
and loss of social prestige and moral standing.
This motivation, albeit distorted today by the dominance of money, is
still fundamental in societies operating under finance capitalism. But in a
money society, the emphasis is on accumulating the most financial wealth,
which is accorded the highest social prestige. The annual report on the
world's richest 100 as celebrities by Forbes is a clear evidence of this
anomaly. The opinion of figures such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are
regularly sought by the media on matters beyond finance, as if the possession
of money itself represents a diploma of wisdom. In the 1960s, wealth was an
embarrassment among the flower children in the US. It was only in the 1980s
that the age of greed emerged to embrace commercialism. In a speech on June 3
at the Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C, Bill Moyers drew
attention to the conclusion by the editors of The Economist , all
friends of business and advocates of capitalism and free markets, that "the
United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society." A
front-page leader in the May 13, 2005 Wall Street Journal concluded that "as
the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child
born in poverty will climb to wealth - or that a rich child will fall into
middle class - remain stuck....Despite the widespread belief that the U.S.
remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say
that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in
continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity."
The New York Times ran a 12-day series in June 2005 under the heading
of "Class Matters" which observed that class is closely tied to money
in the US and that " the movement of families up and down the economic ladder
is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. But it does not
seem to be happening quite as often as it used to." The myth that free
markets spread equality seems to be facing challenge in the heart of market
fundamentalism.
People trade to compensate for deficiencies in their current state of
development. Free trade is not a license for exploitation. Exploitation is
slavery, not trade. Imperialism is exploitation by systemic coercion on an
international level. Neo-imperialism after the end of the Cold War takes the
form of neo-liberal globalization of systemic coercion. Free trade is
hampered by systemic coercion. Resistance to systemic coercion is not to be
confused with protectionism. To participate in free trade, a trader must have
something with which to trade voluntarily in a market free of systemic
coercion. All free trade participants need to have basic pricing power which
requires that no one else commands monopolistic pricing power. That tradable
something comes from development, which is a process of self-betterment. Just
as equality before the law is a prerequisite for justice, equality in pricing
power in the market is a prerequisite for free trade. Traders need basic
pricing power for trade to be free. Workers need pricing power for the value
of their labor to participate in free trade.
Yet trade in a market economy by definition is a game to acquire
overwhelming pricing power over one's trading partners. Wal-Mart for example
has enormous pricing power both as a bulk buyer and a mass retailer. But it
uses its overwhelming pricing power not to pay the highest wages to workers
in factories and in its store, but to deliver the lowest price to its
customers. The business model of Wal-Mart, whose sales volume is greater than
the GDP and trade volume of many small countries, is anti-development. The
trade off between low income and low retail price follows a downward spiral.
This downward spiral has been the main defect of trade de-regulation when low
prices are achieved through the lowering of wages. The economic purpose of
development is to raise income, not merely to lower wages to reduce expenses
by lowering quality. International trade cannot be a substitute for domestic
development, or even international development, although it can contribute to
both domestic and international development if it is conducted on an equal
basis for the mutual benefit of both trading partners. And the chief benefit
is higher income.
The terms of international trade needs to take into consideration local
conditions not as a reluctant tolerance but with respect for diversity.
Former Japanese Vice Finance Minister for International Affairs, Eisuke
Sakakibara, in a speech "The End of Market Fundamentalism" before the
Foreign Correspondent's Club, Tokyo, Jan. 22, 1999, presented a coherent and
wide ranging critique of global macro orthodoxy. His view, that each national
economic system must conform to agreed international trade rules and
regulations but needs not assimilate the domestic rules and regulations of
another country, is heresy to US-led one-size-fits-all globalization. In a
computerized world where output standardization has become unnecessary, where
the mass production of customized one-of-a-kind products is routine,
one-size-fit all hegemony is nothing more than cultural imperialism. In a
world of sovereign states, domestic development must take precedence over
international trade, which is a system of external transactions made
supposedly to augment domestic development. And domestic development means
every nation is free to choose its own development path most appropriate to
its historical conditions and is not required to adopt the US development
model. But neo-liberal international trade since the end of the Cold War has
increasingly preempted domestic development in both the center and the
periphery of the world system. Quality of life is regularly compromised in
the name of efficiency.
This is the reason the French and the Dutch voted against the EU
constitution, as a resistance to the US model of globalization. Britain has
suspended its own vote on the constitution to avoid a likely voter rejection.
In Italy, cabinet ministers suggested abandoning the euro to return to an
independent currency in order to regain monetary sovereignty. Bitter battles
have erupted between member nations in the EU over national government
budgets and subsidies. In that sense, neo-liberal trade is being increasingly
identified as an obstacle, even a threat, to diversified domestic development
and national culture. Global trade has become a vehicle for exploitation of
the weak to strengthen the strong both domestically and internationally.
Culturally, US-style globalization is turning the world into a dull market
for unhealthy MacDonald fast food, dreary Walt-Mart stores, and automated
Coca Cola and ATM machines. Every airport around the world is a replica of a
giant US department store with familiar brand names, making it hard to know
which city one is in. Aside from being unjust and culturally destructive,
neo-liberal global trade as it currently exists is unsustainable, because the
perpetual transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is unsustainable
anymore than drawing from a dry well is sustainable in a drought, nor can a
stagnant consumer income sustain a consumer economy. Neo-liberal claims of
fair benefits of free trade to the poor of the world, both in the center and
the periphery, are simply not supported by facts. Everywhere, people who
produce the goods cannot afford to buy the same goods for themselves and the
profit is siphoned off to invisible investors continents away.
Trade and Money
Trade is facilitated by money. Mainstream monetary economists view
government-issued money as a sovereign debt instrument with zero maturity,
historically derived from the bill of exchange in free banking. This view is
valid only for specie money, which is a debt certificate that entitles the
holder to claim on demand a prescribed amount of gold or other specie of
value. Government-issued fiat money, on the other hand, is not a sovereign
debt but a sovereign credit instrument, backed by government acceptance of it
for payment of taxes. This view of money is known as the State Theory of
Money, or Chartalism. The dollar, a fiat currency, entitles the holder to
exchange for another dollar at any Federal Reserve Bank, no more, no less.
Sovereign government bonds are sovereign debts denominated in money.
Sovereign bonds denominated in fiat money need never default since sovereign
government can print fiat money at will. Local government bonds are not
sovereign debt and are subject to default because local governments do not
have the authority to print money. When fiat money buys bonds, the
transaction represents credit canceling debt. The relationship is rather
straightforward, but of fundamental importance.
Credit drives the economy, not debt. Debt is the mirror reflection of
credit. Even the most accurate mirror does violence to the symmetry of its
reflection. Why does a mirror turn an image right to left and not upside down
as the lens of a camera does? The scientific answer is that a mirror image
transforms front to back rather than left to right as commonly assumed. Yet
we often accept this aberrant mirror distortion as uncolored truth and we
unthinkingly consider the distorted reflection in the mirror as a perfect
representation. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?
The answer is: your backside.
In the language of monetary economics, credit and debt are opposites but
not identical. In fact, credit and debt operate in reverse relations. Credit
requires a positive net worth and debt does not. One can have good credit and
no debt. High debt lowers credit rating. When one understands credit, one
understands the main force behind the modern finance economy, which is driven
by credit and stalled by debt. Behaviorally, debt distorts marginal utility
calculations and rearranges disposable income. Debt turns corporate shares
into Giffen goods, demand for which increases when their prices go up, and
creates what Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan calls "irrational
exuberance", the economic man gone mad. <> If fiat money is not
sovereign debt, then the entire financial architecture of fiat money
capitalism is subject to reordering, just as physics was subject to
reordering when man's world view changed with the realization that the earth
is not stationary nor is it the center of the universe. For one thing, the
need for capital formation to finance socially useful development will be
exposed as a cruel hoax. With sovereign credit, there is no need for capital
formation for socially useful development in a sovereign nation. For another,
savings are not necessary to finance domestic development, since savings are
not required for the supply of sovereign credit. And since capital formation
through savings is the key systemic rationale for income inequality, the
proper use of sovereign credit will lead to economic democracy.
Sovereign Credit and Unemployment
In an economy financed by sovereign credit, labor should be in perpetual
shortage, and the price of labor should constantly rise. A vibrant economy is
one in which there is a persistent labor shortage and labor enjoys basic,
though not monopolistic, pricing power. An economy should expand until a
labor shortage emerges and keep expanding through productivity rise to
maintain a slight labor shortage. Unemployment is an indisputable sign that
the economy is underperforming and should be avoid as an economic
plague.
The Phillips curve, formulated in 1958, describes the systemic
relationship between unemployment and wage-pushed inflation in the business
cycle. It represented a milestone in the development of macroeconomics .
British economist A. W. H. Phillips observed that there was a consistent
inverse relationship between the rate of wage inflation and the rate of
unemployment in the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1957. Whenever unemployment
was low, inflation tended to be high. Whenever unemployment was high,
inflation tended to be low. What Phillips did was to accept a defective labor
market in a typical business cycle as natural law and to use the tautological
data of the flawed regime to prove its validity, and made unemployment
respectable in macroeconomic policymaking, in order to obscure the
irrationality of the business cycle. That is like observing that the sick are
found in hospitals and concluding that hospitals cause sickness and that a
reduction in the number of hospitals will reduce the number of the sick. This
theory will be validated by data if only hospital patients are counted as
being sick and the sick outside of hospitals are viewed as "externalities" to
the system. This is precisely what has happened in the US where an oversupply
of hospital beds has resulted from changes in the economics of medical
insurance, rather than a reduction of people needing hospital care. Part of
the economic argument against illegal immigration is based on the overload of
non-paying patients in a health care system plagued with overcapacity.
Nevertheless, Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow led an army
of government economists in the 1960s in using the Phillips curve as a guide
for macro-policy trade-offs between inflation and unemployment in market
economies. Later, Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman independently challenged
the theoretical underpinnings by pointing out separate effects between the
"short-run" and "long-run" Phillips curves, arguing that the
inflation-adjusted purchasing power of money wages, or real wages, would
adjust to make the supply of labor equal to the demand for labor, and the
unemployment rate would rest at the real wage level to moderate the business
cycle. This level of unemployment they called the "natural rate" of
unemployment. The definitions of the natural rate of unemployment and its
associated rate of inflation are circularly self-validating. The natural rate
of unemployment is that at which inflation is equal to its associated
inflation. The associated rate of inflation rate is that which prevails when
unemployment is equal to its natural rate.
A monetary purist, Friedman correctly concluded that money is all
important, but as a social conservative, he left the path to truth half
traveled, by not having much to say about the importance of the fair
distribution of money in the market economy, the flow of which is largely
determined by the terms of trade. Contrary to the theoretical relationship
described by Phillips curve, higher inflation was associated with higher, not
lower, unemployment in the US in the 1970s and contrary to Friedman's claim,
deflation was associated also with high unemployment in Japan in the 1990s.
The fact that both inflation and deflation accompanied high unemployment
ought to discredit the Phillips curve and Friedman's notion of a natural
unemployment rate. Yet most mainstream economists continue to accept a
central tenet of the Friedman-Phelps analysis that there is some rate of
unemployment that, if maintained, would be compatible with a constant rate of
inflation. This they call the "non-accelerating inflation rate of
unemployment" (NAIRU), which over the years has crept up from 4% to 6%.
It is hard to see how sound money can ever lead to full employment when
unemployment is necessary to keep money sound. Within limits and within
reason, unemployment hurts people and inflation hurts money. And if money
exists to serve people, then the choice between inflation and unemployment
becomes obvious. The theory of comparative advantage in world trade is merely
Say's Law internationalized. It requires full employment to be operative.
Wages and Profit
And neoclassical economics does not allow the prospect of employers having
an objective of raising wages, as Henry Ford did, instead of minimizing wages
as current corporate management, such as General Motors, routinely practices.
Henry Ford raised wages to increase profits by selling more cars to workers,
while Ford Motors today cuts wages to maximize profit while adding to
overcapacity. Therein resides the cancer of market capitalism: falling wages
will lead to the collapse of an overcapacity economy. This is why global wage
arbitrage is economically destructive unless and until it is structured to
raise wages everywhere rather than to keep prices low in the developed
economies. That is done by not chasing after the lowest price made possible
by the lowest wages, but by chasing after a bigger market made possible by
rising wages. The terms of global trade need to be restructured to reward
companies that aim at raising wages and benefits globally through
internationally coordinated transitional government subsidies, rather than
the regressive approach of protective tariffs to cut off trade that exploits
wage arbitrage. This will enable the low-wage economies to begin to be able
to afford the products they produce and to import more products from the high
wage economies to move towards balanced trade. Eventually, certainly within a
decade, wage arbitrage would cease to be the driving force in global trade as
wage levels around the world equalize. When the population of the developing
economies achieves per capita income that matches that in developed
economies, the world economy will be rid of the modern curse of overcapacity
caused by the flawed neoclassical economics of scarcity. When top executives
are paid tens of million of dollars in bonuses to cut wages and worker
benefits, it is not fair reward for good management; it is legalized theft.
Executives should only receive bonuses if both profit and wages in their
companies rise as a result of their management strategies.
Sovereign Credit and Dollar Hegemony
In an economy that can operate on sovereign credit, free from dollar
hegemony, private savings are needed only for private investment that has no
clear socially redeeming purpose or value. Savings are deflationary without
full employment, as savings reduces current consumption to provide investment
to increase future supply. Savings for capital formation serve only the
purpose of bridging the gap between new investment and new revenue from
rising productivity and increased capacity from the new investment. With
sovereign credit, private savings are not needed for this bridge financing.
Private savings are also not needed for rainy days or future retirement in an
economy that has freed itself from the tyranny of the business cycle through
planning. Say's Law of supply creating its own demand is a very special
situation that is operative only under full employment, as eminent
post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson has pointed out. Say's Law ignores a
critical time lag between supply and demand that can be fatal to a
fast-moving modern economy without demand management. Savings require
interest payments, the compounding of which will regressively make any
financial system unsustainable by tilting it toward overcapacity caused by
overinvestment. The religions forbade usury also for very practical reasons.
Yet interest on money is the very foundation of finance capitalism, held up
by the neoclassical economic notion that money is more valuable when it is
scarce. Aggregate poverty then is necessary for sound money. This was what
President Reagan meant when he said that there is always going to be poor
people.
The Bank of International Finance (BIS) estimated that as of the end of
2004, the notional value of global OTC interest rate derivatives is around
$185 trillion, with a market risk exposure of over $5 trillion, which is
almost half of US 2004 GDP. Interest rate derivatives are by far the largest
category of structured finance contracts, taking up $185 trillion of the
total $250 trillion of notional values. The $185 trillion notional value of
interest rate derivatives is 41 times the outstanding value of US Treasury
bonds. This means that interest rate volatility will have a disproportioned
impact of the global financial system in ways that historical data cannot
project.
Fiat money issued by government is now legal tender in all
modern national economies since the 1971 collapse of the Bretton Woods regime
of fixed exchange rates linked to a gold-backed dollar. The State Theory of
Money (Chartalism) holds that the general acceptance of government-issued
fiat currency rests fundamentally on government's authority to tax.
Government's willingness to accept the currency it issues for payment of
taxes gives the issuance currency within a national economy. That currency is
sovereign credit for tax liabilities, which are dischargeable by credit
instruments issued by government, known as fiat money. When issuing fiat
money, the government owes no one anything except to make good a promise to
accept its money for tax payment.
A central banking regime operates on the notion of government-issued fiat
money as sovereign credit. That is the essential difference between central
banking with government-issued fiat money, which is a sovereign credit
instrument, and free banking with privately issued specie money, which is a
bank IOU that allows the holder to claim the gold behind it.
With the fall of the USSR, US attitude toward the rest of the world
changed. It no longer needs to compete for the hearts and minds of the masses
of the Third /Fourth Worlds. So trade has replaced aid. The US has embarked
on a strategy to use Third/Fourth-World cheap labor and non-existent
environmental regulation to compete with its former Cold War Allies, now
industrialized rivals in trade, taking advantage of traditional US anti-labor
ideology to outsource low-pay jobs, playing against the strong pro-labor
tradition of social welfare in Europe and Japan. In the meantime, the US
pushed for global financial deregulation based on dollar hegemony and emerged
as a 500-lb gorilla in the globalized financial market that left the Japanese
and Europeans in the dust, playing catch up in an un-winnable game. In the
game of finance capitalism, those with capital in the form of fiat money they
can print freely will win hands down.
The tool of this US strategy is the privileged role of the dollar as the
key reserve currency for world trade, otherwise known as dollar hegemony. Out
of this emerges an international financial architecture that does real damage
to the actual producer economies for the benefit of the financier economies.
The dollar, instead of being a neutral agent of exchange, has become a weapon
of massive economic destruction (WMED) more lethal than nuclear bombs and
with more blackmail power, which is exercised ruthlessly by the IMF on behalf
of the Washington Consensus. Trade wars are fought through volatile currency
valuations. Dollar hegemony enables the US to use its trade deficits as the
bait for its capital account surplus.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) under dollar hegemony has changed the face
of the international economy. Since the early 1970s, FDI has grown along with
global merchandise trade and is the single most important source of capital
for developing countries, not net savings or sovereign credit. FDI is mostly
denominated in dollars, a fiat currency that the US can produce at will since
1971, or in dollar derivatives such as the yen or the euro, which are not
really independent currencies. Thus FDI is by necessity concentrated in
exports related development, mainly destined for US markets or markets that
also sell to US markets for dollars with which to provide the return on
dollar-denominated FDI. US economic policy is shifting from trade promotion
to FDI promotion. The US trade deficit is financed by the US capital account
surplus which in turn provides the dollars for FDI in the exporting
economies. A trade spat with the EU over beef and bananas, for example, risks
large US investment stakes in Europe. And the suggestion to devalue the
dollar to promote US exports is misleading for it would only make it more
expensive for US affiliates to do business abroad while making it cheaper for
foreign companies to buy dollar assets. An attempt to improve the trade
balance, then, would actually end up hurting the FDI balance. This is the
rationale behind the slogan: a strong dollar is in the US national
interest.
Between 1996 and 2003, the monetary value of US equities rose around 80%
compared with 60% for European and a decline of 30% for Japanese. The 1997
Asian financial crisis cut Asia equities values by more than half, some as
much as 80% in dollar terms even after drastic devaluation of local
currencies. Even though the US has been a net debtor since 1986, its net
income on the international investment position has remained positive, as the
rate of return on US investments abroad continues to exceed that on foreign
investments in the US. This reflects the overall strength of the US economy,
and that strength is derived from the US being the only nation that can enjoy
the benefits of sovereign credit utilization while amassing external debt,
largely due to dollar hegemony.
In the US, and now also increasingly so in Europe and Asia, capital
markets are rapidly displacing banks as both savings venues and sources of
funds for corporate finance. This shift, along with the growing global
integration of financial markets, is supposed to create promising new
opportunities for investors around the globe. Neo-liberals even claim that
these changes could help head off the looming pension crises facing many
nations. But so far it has only created sudden and recurring financial crises
like those that started in Mexico in 1982, then in the UK in 1992, again in
Mexico in 1994, in Asia in 1997, and Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey
subsequently.
The introduction of the euro has accelerated the growth of the EU
financial markets. For the current 25 members of the European Union, the
common currency nullified national requirements for pension and insurance
assets to be invested in the same currencies as their local liabilities, a
restriction that had long locked the bulk of Europe's long-term savings into
domestic assets. Freed from foreign-exchange transaction costs and risks of
currency fluctuations, these savings fueled the rise of larger, more liquid
European stock and bond markets, including the recent emergence of a
substantial euro junk bond market. These more dynamic capital markets, in
turn, have placed increased competitive pressure on banks by giving
corporations new financing options and thus lowering the cost of capital
within euroland. How this will interact with the euro-dollar market is still
indeterminate. Euro-dollars are dollars outside of US borders everywhere and
not necessarily Europe, generally pre-taxed and subject to US taxes if they
return to US soil or accounts. The term also applies to euro-yens and
euro-euros. But the idea of French retirement accounts investing in
non-French assets is both distasteful and irrational for the average French
worker, particularly if such investment leads to decreased job security in
France and jeopardizes the jealously guarded 35-hour work-week with 30 days
of paid annual vacation which has been part of French life.
Take the Japanese economy as an example, the world's largest creditor
economy. It holds over $800 billion in dollar reserves in 2005. The Bank of
Japan (BoJ), the central bank, has bought over 300 billion dollars with yen
from currency markets in the last two years in an effort to stabilize the
exchange value of the yen, which continued to appreciate against the dollar.
Now, BoJ is faced with a dilemma: continue buying dollars in a futile effort
to keep the yen from rising, or sell dollars to try to recoup yen losses on
its dollar reserves. Japan has officially pledged not to diversify its dollar
reserves into other currencies, so as not to roil currency markets, but many
hedge funds expect Japan to soon run out of options.
Now if the BoJ sells dollars at the rate of $4 billion a day, it will take
some 200 trading days to get out of its dollar reserves. After the initial 2
days of sale, the remaining unsold $792 billion reserves would have a market
value of 20% less than before the sales program began. So the BoJ will suffer
a substantial net yen paper loss of $160 billion. If the BoJ continues its
sell-dollar program, everyday Y400 billion will leave the yen money supply to
return to the BoJ if it sells dollars for yen, or the equivalent in euro if
it sells dollars for euro. This will push the dollar further down against the
yen or euro, in which case the value of its remaining dollar reserves will
fall even further, not to mention a sharp contraction in the yen money supply
which will push the Japanese economy into a deeper recession.
If the BoJ sells dollars for gold, two things may happen. There would be
not enough sellers because no one has enough gold to sell to absorb the
dollars at current gold prices. Instead, while price of gold will rise, the
gold market may simply freezes with no transactions. Gold holders will not
have to sell their gold; they can profit from gold derivatives on notional
values. Also, the reverse market effect that faces the dollar would hit gold.
After two days of Japanese gold buying, everyone would hold on to their gold
in anticipation for still higher gold prices. There would be no market
makers. Part of the reason central banks have been leasing out their gold in
recent years is to provide liquidity to the gold market. The second thing
that may happen is that price of gold will sky rocket in currency terms,
causing a great deflation in gold terms. The US national debt as of June 1,
2005 was $7.787 trillion. US government gold holding is about 261,000,000
ounces. Price of gold required to pay back the national debt with US-held
gold is $29,835 per ounce. At that price, an ounce of gold will buy a car.
Meanwhile, market price of gold as of June 4, 2005 was $423.50 per ounce.
Gold peaked at $850 per ounce in 1980 and bottom at $252 in 1999 when oil was
below $10 a barrel. At $30,000 per ounce, governments then will have to made
gold trading illegal, as FDR did in 1930 and we are back to square one. It is
much easier for a government to outlaw the trading of gold within its borders
than it is for it to outlaw the trading of its currency in world markets. It
does not take much to conclude that anyone who advices any strategy of
long-term holding of gold will not get to the top of the class.
Heavily indebted poor countries need debt relief to get out of virtual
financial slavery. Some African governments spend three times as much on debt
service as they do on health care. Britain has proposed a half measure that
would have the IMF sell about $12 billion worth of its gold reserves, which
have a total current market value of about $43 billion to finance debt
relief. The US has veto power over gold decisions in the IMF. Thus Congress
holds the key. However, the mining industry lobby has blocked a vote. In
January, a letter opposing the sale of IMF gold was signed by 12 US senators
from Western mining states, arguing that the sale could drive down the price
of gold. A similar letter was signed in March by 30 members of the House of
Representatives. Lobbyists from the National Mining Association and gold
mining companies, such as Newmont Mining and Barrick Gold Corp, persuaded the
Congressional leadership that the gold proposal would not pass in Congress,
even before it came up for debate. The BIS reports that gold derivatives took
up 26% of the world's commodity derivatives market yet gold only composes 1%
of the world's annual commodity production value, with 26 times more
derivatives structured against gold than against other commodities, including
oil. The Bush administration, at first apparently unwilling to take on a
congressional fight, began in April to oppose gold sales outright. But
President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on June 7 that the
US and UK are "well on their way" to a deal which would provide 100% debt
cancellation for some poor nations to the World Bank and African Development
Fund as a sign of progress in the G-8 debate over debt cancellation.
Jude Wanniski, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal, commenting in
his Memo on the Margin on the Internet on June 15, 2005, on the headline of
Pat Buchanan's syndicated column of the same date: Reviving the Foreign-Aid
Racket, wrote: "This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American
peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank and the African
Development Bank . The second part of the racket is that in exchange for
getting debt relief, the poor countries will have to spend the money they
save on debt service on "infrastructure projects," to directly help their
poor people with water and sewer line, etc., which will be constructed by
contractors from the wealthiest nations What comes next? One of the worst
economists in the world, Jeffrey Sachs, is in charge of the United Nations
scheme to raise mega-billions from western taxpayers for the second leg of
this scheme. He wants $25 billion A YEAR for the indefinite future, as I
recall, and he has the fervent backing of The New York Times , which
always weeps crocodile tears for the racketeers. It was Jeffrey Sachs, in
case you forgot, who, with the backing of the NYTimes persuaded Moscow
under Mikhail Gorbachev to engage in "shock therapy" to convert from
communism to capitalism. It produced the worst inflation in the history of
Russia, caused the collapse of the Soviet federation, and sank the Russian
people into a poverty they had never experienced under communism."
The dollar cannot go up or down more than 20% against any other major
currencies within a short time without causing a major global financial
crisis. Yet, against the US equity markets the dollar appreciated about 40%
in purchasing power in the 2000-02 market crash, so had gold. And against
real estate prices between 2002 and 2005, the dollar has depreciated 60% or
more. According to Greenspan's figures, the Fed can print $8 trillion more
fiat dollars without causing inflation. The problem is not the money
printing. The problem is where that $8 trillion is injected. If it is
injected into the banking system, then the Fed will have to print $3 trillion
every subsequent year just to keep running in place. If the $8 trillion is
injected into the real economy in the form of full employment and higher
wages, the US will have a very good economy, and much less need for paranoia
against Asia or the EU. But US wages cannot rise as long as global wage
arbitrage is operative. This is one of the arguments behind protectionism. It
led Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to say on May 5 he feared what
appeared to be a growing move toward trade protectionism, saying it could
lessen the US and the world's economy ability to withstand shock. Yet if
democracy works in the US, protectionism will be unstoppable as long as free
trade benefits the elite at the expense of the voting masses.
Fiat Money is Sovereign Credit
Money is like power: use it or lose it. Money unused (not circulated) is
defunct wealth. Fiat money not circulated is not wealth but merely pieces of
printed paper sitting in a safe. Gold unused as money is merely a shiny metal
good only as ornamental gifts for weddings and birthdays. The usefulness of
money to the economy is dependent on its circulation, like the circulation of
blood to bring oxygen and nutrient to the living organism. The rate of money
circulation is called velocity by monetary economists. A vibrant economy
requires a high velocity of money. Money, like most representational
instruments, is subject to declaratory definition. In semantics, a
declaratory statement is self validating. For example: "I am King" is a
statement that makes the declarer king, albeit in a kingdom of one citizen.
What gives weight to the declaration is the number of others accepting that
declaration. When sufficient people within a jurisdiction accept the kingship
declaration, the declarer becomes king of that jurisdiction instead of just
his own house. When an issuer of money declares it to be credit it will be
credit, or when he declares it to be debt it will be debt. But the social
validity of the declaration depends on the acceptance of
others.
Anyone can issue money, but only sovereign government can
issue legal tender for all debts, public and private, universally accepted
with the force of law within the sovereign domain. The issuer of private
money must back that money with some substance of value, such as gold, or the
commitment for future service, etc. Others who accept that money have
provided something of value for that money, and have received that money
instead of something of similar value in return. So the issuer of that money
has given an instrument of credit to the holder in the form of that money,
redeemable with something of value on a later date.
When the state issues fiat money under the principle of Chartalism, the
something of value behind it is the fulfillment of tax obligations. Thus the
state issues a credit instrument, called (fiat) money, good for the
cancellation of tax liabilities. By issuing fiat money, the state is not
borrowing from anyone. It is issuing tax credit to the economy.
Even if money is declared as debt assumed by an issuer who is not a
sovereign who has the power to tax, anyone accepting that money expects to
collect what is owed him as a creditor. When that money is used in a
subsequent transaction, the spender is parting with his creditor right to buy
something of similar value from a third party, thus passing the "debt" of the
issuer to the third party. Thus no matter what money is declared to be, its
functions is a credit instrument in transactions. When one gives money to
another, the giver is giving credit and the receiver is incurring a debt
unless value is received immediately for that money. When debt is repaid with
money, money acts as a credit instrument. When government buys back
government bonds, which is sovereign debt, it cannot do so with fiat money it
issues unless fiat money is sovereign credit.
When money changes hands, there is always a creditor and a debtor.
Otherwise there is no need for money, which stands for value rather than
being value intrinsically. When a cow is exchanged for another cow, that is
bartering, but when a cow is bought with money, the buyer parts with money
(an instrument of value) while the seller parts with the cow (the substance
of value). The seller puts himself in the position of being a new creditor
for receiving the money in exchange for his cow. The buyer exchanges his
creditor position for possession of the cow. In this transaction, money is an
instrument of credit, not a debt.
When private money is issued, the only way it will be accepted generally
is that the money is redeemable for the substance of value behind it based on
the strong credit of the issuer. The issuer of private money is a custodian
of the substance of value, not a debtor. All that is logic, and it does not
matter how many mainstream monetary economists say money is debt.
Economist Hyman P Minsky (1919-1996) observed correctly that money is
created whenever credit is issued. He did not say money is created when debt
is incurred. Only entities with good credit can issue credit or create money.
Debtors cannot create money, or they would not have to borrow. However, a
creditor can only be created by the existence of a debtor. So both a creditor
and a debtor are needed to create money. But only the creditor can issue
money, the debtor accepts the money so created which puts him in debt.
The difference with the state is that its power to levy taxes exempts it
from having to back its creation of fiat money with any other assets of
value. The state when issuing fiat money is acting as a sovereign creditor.
Those who took the fiat money without exchanging it with things of value is
indebted to the state; and because taxes are not always based only on income,
a tax payer is a recurring debtor to the state by virtue of his citizenship,
even those with no income. When the state provides transfer payments in the
form of fiat money, it relieves the recipient of his tax liabilities or
transfers the exemption from others to the recipient to put the recipient in
a position of a creditor to the economy through the possession of fiat money.
The holder of fiat money is then entitled to claim goods and services from
the economy. For things that are not for sale, such as political office,
money is useless, at least in theory. The exercise of the fiat money's claim
on goods and services is known as buying something that is for sa <>
le.
There is a difference between buying a cow with fiat money and buying a
cow with private IOUs (notes). The transaction with fiat money is complete.
There is no further obligation on either side after the transaction. With
notes, the buyer must either eventually pay with money, which cancels the
notes (debt) or return the cow. The correct way to look at sovereign
government-issued fiat money is that it is not a sovereign debt, but a
sovereign credit good for canceling tax obligations. When the government
redeems sovereign bonds (debt) with fiat money (sovereign credit), it is not
paying off old debt with new debt, which would be a Ponzi scheme.
Government does not become a debtor by issuing fiat money, which in the US
is a Federal Reserve note, not an ordinary bank note. The word "bank" does
not appear on US dollars. Zero maturity money (ZMM), which grew from $550
billion in 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off gold, to $6.63 trillion as of
May 30, 2005 is not a Federal debt. It is a Federal credit to the economy
acceptable for payment of taxes and as legal tender for all debts, public and
private. Anyone refusing to accept dollars within US jurisdiction is in
violation of US law. One is free to set market prices that determine the
value, or purchasing power of the dollar, but it is illegal on US soil to
refuse to accept dollars for the settlement of debts. Instruments used for
settling debts are credit instruments. When fiat money is used to buy
sovereign bonds (debt), money cannot be anything but an instrument of
sovereign credit. If fiat money is sovereign debt, there is no need to sell
government bonds for fiat money. When a sovereign government sells a
sovereign bond for fiat money issues, it is withdrawing sovereign credit from
the economy. And if the government then spends the money, the money supply
remains unchanged. But if the government allows a fiscal surplus by spending
less than its tax revenue, the money supply shrinks and the economy slows.
That was the effect of the Clinton surplus which produce the recession of
2000. While run-away fiscal deficits are inflationary, fiscal surpluses lead
to recessions. Conservatives who are fixated on fiscal surpluses are simply
uninformed on monetary economics. <>
For euro-dollars, meaning fiat dollars outside of the US, the reason those
who are not required to pay US taxes accept them is because of dollar
hegemony, not because dollars are IOUs of the US government. Everyone accept
dollars because dollars can buy oil and all other key commodities. When the
Fed injects money into the US banking system, it is not issuing government
debt; it is expanding sovereign credit which would require higher government
tax revenue to redeem. But if expanding sovereign credit expands the economy,
tax revenue will increase without changing the tax rate. Dollar hegemony
exempts the dollar, and only the dollar, from foreign exchange implication on
the State Theory of Money. To issue sovereign debt, the Treasury issues
treasury bonds. Thus under dollar hegemony, the US is the only nation that
can practice and benefit from sovereign credit under the principle of
Chartalism .<>
Money and bonds are opposite instruments that cancel each other. That is
how the Fed Open Market Committee (FOMC) controls the money supply, by buying
or selling government securities with fiat dollars to set a fed funds rate
target. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each
other overnight. As such, it is a market interest rate that influences market
interest rates throughout the world in all currencies through exchange rates.
Holders of a government bond can claim its face value in fiat money at
maturity, but holder of a fiat dollar can only claim a fiat dollar
replacement at the Fed. Holders of fiat dollars can buy new sovereign bonds
at the Treasury, or outstanding sovereign bond in the bond market, but not at
the Fed. The Fed does not issue debts, only credit in the form of fiat money.
When the Fed FOMC buys or sells government securities, it does on behalf of
the Treasury. When the Fed increases the money supply, it is not adding to
the national debt. It is increasing sovereign credit in the economy. That is
why monetary easing is not deficit financing.
Money and Inflation
It is sometimes said that war's legitimate child is revolution and war's
bastard child is inflation. World War I was no exception. The US national
debt multiplied 27 times to finance the nation's participation in that war,
from US$1 billion to $27 billion. Far from ruining the United States, the war
catapulted the country into the front ranks of the world's leading economic
and financial powers. The national debt turned out to be a blessing, for
government securities are indispensable as anchors for a vibrant credit
market. <>
Inflation was a different story. By the end of World War I, in 1919, US
prices were rising at the rate of 15% annually, but the economy roared ahead.
In response, the Federal Reserve Board raised the discount rate in quick
succession, from 4 to 7%, and kept it there for 18 months to try to rein in
inflation. The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks
and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional
Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window. The result was
that in 1921, 506 banks failed. Deflation descended on the economy like a
perfect storm, with commodity prices falling 50% from their 1920 peak,
throwing farmers into mass bankruptcies. Business activity fell by one-third;
manufacturing output fell by 42%; unemployment rose fivefold to 11.9%, adding
4 million to the jobless count. The economy came to a screeching halt. From
the Fed's perspective, declining prices were the goal, not the problem;
unemployment was necessary to restore US industry to a sound footing, freeing
it from wage-pushed inflation. Potent medicine always came with a bitter
taste, the central bankers explained.
At this point, a technical process inadvertently gave the New York Federal
Reserve Bank, which was closely allied with internationalist banking
interest, preeminent influence over the Federal Reserve Board in Washington,
the composition of which represented a more balanced national interest. The
initial operation of the Fed did not use the open-market operation of
purchasing or selling government securities to set interest rate policy as a
method of managing the money supply. The Fed could not simply print money to
buy government securities to inject money into the money supply because the
dollar was based on gold and the amount of gold held by the government was
relatively fixed. Money in the banking system was created entirely through
the discount window at the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Instead of buying
or selling government bonds, the regional Feds accepted "real bills" of
trade, which when paid off would extinguish money in the banking system,
making the money supply self-regulating in accordance with the "real bills"
doctrine to maintain the gold standard. The regional Feds bought government
securities not to adjust money supply, but to enhance their separate
operating profit by parking idle funds in interest-bearing yet super-safe
government securities, the way institutional money managers do today.
Bank economists at that time did not understand that when the regional
Feds independently bought government securities, the aggregate effect would
result in macro-economic implications of injecting "high power" money into
the banking system, with which commercial banks could create more money in
multiple by lending recycles based on the partial reserve principle. When the
government sold bonds, the reverse would happen. When the Fed made open
market transactions, interest rates would rise or fall accordingly in
financial markets. And when the regional Feds did not act in unison, the
credit market could become confused or become disaggregated, as one regional
Fed might buy while another might sell government securities in its open
market operations.
Benjamin Strong, first president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, saw
the problem and persuaded the other 11 regional Feds to let the New York Fed
handle all their transactions in a coordinated manner. The regional Feds
formed an Open Market Investment Committee, to be run by the New York Fed for
the purpose of maximizing overall profit for the whole system. This committee
became dominated by the New York Fed, which was closely linked to big-money
center bank interests which in turn were closely tied to international
financial markets. The Federal Reserve Board approved the arrangement without
full understanding of its full implication: that the Fed was falling under
the undue influence of the New York internationalist bankers. For the US,
this was the beginning of financial globalization. This fatal flaw would
reveal itself in the Fed's role in causing and its impotence in dealing with
the 1929 crash.
The deep 1920-21 depression eventually recovered by the lowering of the
Fed discount rate into the Roaring Twenties, which, like the New Economy
bubble of the 1990s, left some segments of economy and the population in them
lingering in a depressed state. Farmers remained victimized by depressed
commodity prices and factory workers shared in the prosperity only by working
longer hours and assuming debt with the easy money that the banks provided.
Unions lost 30% of their membership because of high unemployment in boom
time. The prosperity was entirely fueled by the wealth effect of a
speculative boom in the stock market that by the end of the decade would face
the 1929 crash and land the nation and the world in the Great Depression.
Historical data showed that when New York Fed president Strong leaned on the
regional Feds to ease the discount rate on an already overheated economy in
1927, the Fed lost its last window of opportunity to prevent the 1929 crash.
Some historians claimed that Strong did so to fulfill his internationalist
vision at the risk of endangering the national interest. It is an issue of
debate that continues in Congress today. Like Greenspan, Strong argued that
it was preferable to deal with post-crash crisis management by adding
liquidity than to pop a bubble prematurely with preventive measures of tight
money. It is a strategy that requires letting a bubble to pop only inside a
bigger bubble.
The speculative boom of easy credit in the 1920s attracted many to buy
stocks with borrowed money and used the rising price of stocks as new
collateral for borrowing more to buy more stocks. Broker's loans went from
under $5 million in mid 1928 to $850 million in September of 1929. The market
capitalization of the 846 listed companies of the New York Stock Exchange was
$89.7 billion, at 1.24 times 1929 GDP. By current standards, a case could be
built that stocks in 1929 were in fact technically undervalued. The 2,750
companies listed in the New York Stock Exchange had total global market
capitalization exceeding $18 trillion in 2004, 1.53 times 2004 GDP of $11.75
trillion. <>
On January 14, 2001, the DJIA reached its all time high to date at 11,723,
not withstanding Greenspan's warning of "irrational exuberance" on December
6, 1996 when the DJIA was at 6,381. From its August 12, 1982 low of 777, the
DJIA began its most spectacular bull market in history. It was interrupted
briefly only by the abrupt and frightening crash on October 19, 1987 when the
DJIA lost 22.6% on Black Monday, falling to 1,739. It represented a
1,020-point drop from its previous peak of 2,760 reached less than two months
earlier on August 21. But Greenspan's easy money policy lifted the DJIA to
11,723 in 13 years, a 674% increase. In 1929 the top came on September 4,
with the DJIA at 386. A headline in The New York Times on October 22,
1929, reported highly-respected economist Irving Fisher as saying: "Prices of
Stocks Are Low." Two days later, the stock market crashed, and by the end of
November, the New York Stock Exchange shares index was down 30%. The index
did not return to the 9/3/29 level until November, 1954. At its worst level,
the index dropped to 40.56 in July 1932, a drop of 89%. Fisher had based his
statement on strong earnings reports, few industrial disputes, and evidence
of high investment in research and development (R&D) and in other
intangible capital. Theory and supportive data not withstanding, the reality
was that the stock market boom was based on borrowed money and false
optimism. In hindsight, many economists have since concluded that stock
prices were overvalued by 30% in 1929. But when the crash came, the overshoot
dropped the index by 89% in less than three years <> .
Money and Gold
When money is not backed by gold, its exchange value must be managed by
government, more specifically by the monetary policies of the central bank.
No responsible government will voluntarily let the market set the exchange
value of its currency, market fundamentalism notwithstanding. Yet central
bankers tend to be attracted to the gold standard because it can relieve them
of the unpleasant and thankless responsibility of unpopular monetary policies
to sustain the value of money. Central bankers have been caricatured as party
spoilers who take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.
Yet even a gold standard is based on a fixed value of money to gold, set
by someone to reflect the underlying economical conditions at the time of its
setting. Therein lies the inescapable need for human judgment. Instead of
focusing on the appropriateness of the level of money valuation under
changing economic conditions, central banks often become fixated on merely
maintaining a previously set exchange rate between money and gold, doing
serious damage in the process to any economy temporarily out of sync with
that fixed rate. It seldom occurs to central bankers that the fixed rate was
the problem, not the dynamic economy. When the exchange value of a currency
falls, central bankers often feel a personal sense of failure, while they
merely shrug their shoulders to refer to natural laws of finance when the
economy collapses from an overvalued currency.
The return to the gold standard in war-torn Europe in the 1920s was
engineered by a coalition of internationalist central bankers on both sides
of the Atlantic as a prerequisite for postwar economic reconstruction.
Lenders wanted to make sure that their loans would be repaid in money equally
valuable as the money they lent out, pretty much the way the IMF deals with
the debt problem today. President Strong of the New York Fed and his former
partners at the House of Morgan were closely associated with the Bank of
England, the Banque de France, the Reichsbank, and the central banks of
Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium, as well as with leading
internationalist private bankers in those countries. Montagu Norman, governor
of the Bank of England from 1920-44, enjoyed a long and close personal
friendship with Strong as well as ideological alliance. Their joint
commitment to restore the gold standard in Europe and so to bring about a
return to the "international financial normalcy" of the prewar years was well
documented. Norman recognized that the impairment of British financial
hegemony meant that, to accomplish postwar economic reconstruction that would
preserve pre-war British interests, Europe would "need the active cooperation
of our friends in the United States."
Like other New York bankers, Strong perceived World War I as an
opportunity to expand US participation in international finance, allowing New
York to move toward coveted international-finance-center status to rival
London's historical preeminence, through the development of a commercial
paper market, or bankers' acceptances in British finance parlance, breaking
London's long monopoly. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 permitted the Federal
Reserve Banks to buy, or rediscount, such paper. This allowed US banks in New
York to play an increasingly central role in international finance in
competition with the London market.
Herbert Hoover, after losing his second-term US presidential election to
Franklin D Roosevelt as a result of the 1929 crash, criticized Strong as "a
mental annex to Europe", and blamed Strong's internationalist commitment to
facilitating Europe's postwar economic recovery for the US stock-market crash
of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression that robbed Hoover of a second
term. Europe's return to the gold standard, with Britain's insistence on what
Hoover termed a "fictitious rate" of US$4.86 to the pound sterling, required
Strong to expand US credit by keeping the discount rate unrealistically low
and to manipulate the Fed's open market operations to keep US interest rate
low to ease market pressures on the overvalued pound sterling. Hoover, with
justification, ascribed Strong's internationalist policies to what he viewed
as the malign persuasions of Norman and other European central bankers,
especially Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank and Charles Rist of the Bank of
France. From the mid-1920s onward, the US experienced credit-pushed
inflation, which fueled the stock-market bubble that finally collapsed in
1929.
Within the Federal Reserve System, Strong's low-rate policies of the
mid-1920s also provoked substantial regional opposition, particularly from
Midwestern and agricultural elements, who generally endorsed Hoover's
subsequent critical analysis. Throughout the 1920s, two of the Federal
Reserve Board's directors, Adolph C Miller, a professional economist, and
Charles S Hamlin, perennially disapproved of the degree to which they
believed Strong subordinated domestic to international considerations.
The fairness of Hoover's allegation is subject to debate, but the fact
that there was a divergence of priority between the White House and the Fed
is beyond dispute, as is the fact that what is good for the international
financial system may not always be good for a national economy. This is
evidenced today by the collapse of one economy after another under the
current international finance architecture that all central banks support
instinctively out of a sense of institutional solidarity. The same issue has
surfaced in today's China where regional financial centers such as Hong Kong
and Shanghai are vying for the role of world financial center. To do this,
they must play by the rules of the international financial system which
imposes a cost on the national economy. The nationalist vs. internationalist
conflict, as exemplified by the Hoover vs. Strong conflict of the 1930s, is
also threatening the further integration of the European Union. Behind the
fundamental rationale of protectionism is the rejection of the claim that
internationalist finance places national development as its priority. The
Richardian theory of comparative advantage of free trade is not the
issue.
The issue of government control over foreign loans also brought the Fed,
dominated by Strong, into direct conflict with Hoover when the latter was
Secretary of Commerce. Hoover believed that the US government should have
right of approval on foreign loans based on national-interest considerations
and that the proceeds of US loans should be spent on US goods and services.
Strong opposed all such restrictions as undesirable government intervention
in free trade and international finance and counterproductively
protectionist. Businesses should be not only allowed, but encouraged to buy
when it is cheapest anywhere in the world, including shopping for funds to
borrow, a refrain that is heard tirelessly from free traders also today. Of
course, the expanding application of the law of one price to more and more
commodities, including the price of money, i.e. interest rates adjusted by
exchange rates, makes such dispute academic. The only commodity exempt from
the law of one price is labor. This exemption makes the trade theory of
comparative advantage a fantasy.
In July and August 1927, Strong, despite ominous data on mounting market
speculation and inflation, pushed the Fed to lower the discount rate from 4
to 3 percent to relieve market pressures again on the overvalued British
pound. In July 1927, the central bankers of Great Britain, the United States,
France, and Weimar Germany met on Long Island in the US to discuss means of
increasing Britain's gold reserves and stabilizing the European currency
situation. Strong's reduction of the discount rate and purchase of 12 million
pound sterling, for which he paid the Bank of England in gold, appeared to
come directly from that meeting. One of the French bankers in attendance,
Charles Rist, reported that Strong said that US authorities would reduce the
discount rate as "un petit coup de whisky for the stock exchange".
Strong pushed this reduction through the Fed despite strong opposition from
Miller and fellow board member James McDougal of the Chicago Fed, who
represented Midwestern bankers, who generally did not share New York's
internationalist preoccupation.
Frank Altschul, partner in the New York branch of the transnational
investment bank Lazard Freres, told Emile Moreau, the governor of the Bank of
France, that "the reasons given by Mr Strong as justification for the
reduction in the discount rate are being taken seriously by no one, and that
everyone in the United States is convinced that Mr Strong wanted to aid Mr
Norman by supporting the pound." Other correspondence in Strong's own files
suggests that he was giving priority to international monetary conditions
rather than to US export needs, contrary to his public arguments. Writing to
Norman, who praised his handling of the affair as "masterly", Strong
described the US discount rate reduction as "our year's contribution to
reconstruction." The Fed's ease in 1927 forced money to flow not into the
overheated real economy, which was unable to absorb further investment, but
into the speculative financial market, which led to the crash of 1929. Strong
died in October 1928, one year before the crash, and was spared the pain of
having to see the devastating results of his internationalist policies.
Scholarly debate still continues as to whether Strong's effort to
facilitate European economic reconstruction compromised the US domestic
economy and, in particular, led him to subordinate US monetary policies to
internationalist demands. In 1930, the US economy had yet to dominate the
world economy as it does now. There is, however, little disagreement that the
overall monetary strategy of European central banks had been misguided in its
reliance on the restoration of the gold standard. Critics suggest that the
ambitious but misguided commitment of Strong, Norman, and other
internationalist bankers to returning the pound, the mark, and other major
European currencies to the gold standard at overly-high parities to gold,
which they were then forced to maintain at all costs, including indifference
to deflation, had the effect of undercutting Europe's postwar economic
recovery. Not only did Strong and his fellow central bankers through their
monetary policies contribute to the Great Depression, but their continuing
fixation on gold also acted as a straitjacket that in effect precluded
expansionist counter-cyclical measures.
The inflexibility of the gold standard and the central bankers'
determination to defend their national currencies' convertibility into gold
at almost any cost drastically limited the policy options available to them
when responding to the global financial crisis. This picture fits the
situation of the fixed-exchange-rates regime based on the fiat dollar that
produced recurring financial crises in the 1990s and that has yet to run its
full course by 2005. In 1927, Strong's unconditional support of the gold
standard, with the objective of bringing about the rising financial
predominance of the US which had the largest holdings of gold in the world,
exacerbated nascent international financial problems. In similar ways, dollar
hegemony does the same damage to the global economy today. Just as the
international gold standard itself was one of the major factors underlying
and exacerbating the Great Depression that followed the 1929 crash, since the
conditions that had sustained it before the war no longer existed, the
breakdown of the fixed-exchange-rates system based on a gold-backed dollar
set up by the Bretton Woods regime after World War II, without the removal of
the fiat dollar as a key reserve currency for trade and finance, will cause a
total collapse of the current international financial architecture with
equally tragic outcomes. Stripped of its gold backing, the fiat dollar has to
rely on geopolitical factors for its value, which push US foreign policy
towards increasing militaristic and belligerent unilateralism. With dollar
hegemony today, as it was with the gold standard of 1930, the trade war is
fought through currencies valuations on top of traditional tariffs.
The nature of and constraints on US internationalism after World War I had
parallels in US internationalism after World War II and in US-led
globalization after the Cold War. Hoover bitterly charged Strong with
reckless placement of the interests of the international financial system
ahead of US national interest and domestic development needs. Strong
sincerely believed his support for European currency stabilization also
promoted the best interests of the United States, as post-Cold War
neo-liberal market fundamentalists sincerely believe its promotion enhances
the US national interest. Unfortunately, sincerity is not a vaccine against
falsehood.
Strong argued relentlessly that exchange rate volatility, especially when
the dollar was at a premium against other currencies, made it difficult for
US exporters to price their goods competitively. As he had done during the
war, on numerous later occasions, Strong also stressed the need to prevent an
influx of gold into the US and the consequent domestic inflation, by the US
making loans to Europe, pursuing lenient debt policies, and accepting
European imports on generous terms. Strong never questioned the gold parities
set for the mark and the pound sterling. He merely accepted that returning
the pound to gold at prewar exchange rates required British deflation and US
efforts to use lower dollar interest rates to alleviate market pressures on
sterling. Like Fed chairman Paul Volcker in the 1980s, but unlike Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin in the 1990s, Strong mistook a cheap dollar as serving
the national interest, while Rubin understood correctly that a strong dollar
is in the national interest by sustaining dollar hegemony. In either case,
the price for either an over-valued or under-valued dollar is the same:
global depression. Dollar hegemony in the 1990s pushed Japan and Germany into
prolonged depression. <>
The US position in 2005 is that a strong dollar is still in the US
national interest, but a strong dollar requires an even stronger Chinese yuan
in the 21 st century. Just as Strong saw the need for a strong
British pound paid for by deflation in Britain in exchange for the carrot of
continuing British/European imports to the US, Bush and Greenspan now want a
stronger Chinese yuan, paid for with deflation in China in exchange for
curbing US protectionism against Chinese imports. The 1985 Plaza Accord to
force the appreciation of the Japanese yen marked the downward spiral of the
Japanese economy via currency-induced deflation. Another virtual Plaza Accord
forced the rise of the euro that left Europe with a stagnant economy. A new
virtual Plaza Accord against China will also condemn the Chinese economy into
a protracted period of deflation. Deflation in China at this time will cause
the collapse of the Chinese banking system which is weighted down by the BIS
regulatory regime that turned national banking subsidies to
state-own-enterprises into massive non-performing loans. A collapse of the
Chinese banking system will have dire consequences for the global financial
system since the robust Chinese economy is the only engine of growth in the
world economy at this time.
When Norman sent Strong a copy of John Maynard Keynes' Tract on
Monetary Reform (1923), Strong commented "that some of his [Keynes']
conclusions are thoroughly unwarranted and show a great lack of knowledge of
American affairs and of the Federal Reserve System." Within a decade, Keynes,
with his advocacy of demand management via deficit financing, became the most
influential economist in post-war history.
The major flaw in the European effort for post-World War I economic
reconstruction was its attempt to reconstruct the past through its attachment
to the gold standard, with little vision of a new future. The democratic
governments of the moneyed class that inherited power from the fall of
monarchies did not fully comprehend the implication of the disappearance of
the monarch as a ruler, whose financial architecture they tried to continue
for the benefit of their bourgeois class. The broadening of the political
franchise in most European countries after the war had made it far more
difficult for governments and central bankers to resist electoral pressures
for increased social spending and the demand for ample liquidity with low
interest rates, as well as high tolerance for moderate inflation to combat
unemployment, regardless of the impact of national policies on the
international financial architecture. The Fed, despite its claim of
independence from politics, has never been free of US presidential-election
politics since its founding. Shortly before his untimely death, Strong took
comfort in his belief that the reconstruction of Europe was virtually
completed and his internationalist policies had been successful in preserving
world peace. Within a decade of his death, the whole world was aflame with
World War II. <>
But in 1929, the dollar was still gold-backed. The government fixed the
dollar at 23.22 grains of gold, at $20.67 per troy ounce. When stock prices
rose faster than real economic growth, the dollar in effect depreciated. It
took more dollars to buy the same shares as prices rose. But the price of
gold remained fixed at $20.67 per ounce. Thus gold was cheap and the dollar
was overvalued and the trading public rushed to buy gold, injecting cash into
the economy which fueled more stock buying on margin. Price of gold mining
shares rose by 600%. But with a gold standard, the Fed could not print money
beyond its holding of gold without revaluing the dollar against gold. The
Quantity Theory of Money caught up with the financial bubble as prices for
equity rose but the quantity of money remained constant and it came into play
with a vengeance. Because of the gold standard, there reached a time when
there was no more money available to buy without someone first selling. When
the selling began, the debt bubble burst, and panic took over. When the stock
market collapsed, panic selling quickly wiped out most investors who bought
shares instead of gold. As gold price was fixed, it could not fall with the
general deflation and owners of gold did exceptionally well by comparison to
share owners.
What Strong did not figure was that when the Fed lowered the discount rate
to relieve market pressure on the overvalued British pound sterling after its
gold convertibility had been restored in 1925, the world economy could not
expand because money tied to gold was inelastic, leaving the US economy with
a financial bubble that was not supported by any rise in earnings. The
British-controlled gold standard proved to be a straightjacket for world
economic growth, not unlike the deflationary Maastricht "convergence
criteria" based on the strong German mark of the late 1990's. The speculation
of the Coolidge-Hoover era was encouraged by Norman and Strong to fight
gold-induced deflation. The accommodative monetary policy of the US Federal
Reserve led to a bubble economy in the US, similar to Greenspan's bubble
economy since 1987. There were two differences: the dollar was gold-backed in
1930 while in 1987 it was a fiat currency; and in 1930, the world monetary
system was based on sterling pound hegemony while today it is based on dollar
hegemony. When the Wall Street bubble was approaching unsustainable
proportions in the autumn of 1929, giving the false impression that the US
economy was booming, Norman sharply cut the British bank rate to try to
stimulate the British economy in unison. When short-term rates fell, it
created serious problems for British transnational banks which were stuck
with funds borrowed long-term at high interest rates that now could only be
lent out short-term at low rates. They had to repatriating British hot money
from New York to cover this ruinous interest rate gap, leaving New York
speculators up the creek without an interest rate paddle. This was the first
case of hot money contagion, albeit what hit the Asian banks in 1997 was the
opposite: they borrowed short-term at low interest rates to lend out
long-term at high rates. And when interest rates rose because of falling
exchange rate of local currencies, borrowers defaulted and the credit system
collapsed. <>
The contagion in the 1997 Asian financial crisis devastated all Asian
economies. The financial collapse in Thailand and Indonesia in July 1997
caused the strong markets of high liquidity such as Hong Kong and Singapore
to collapse when investors sold in these liquid markets to raise funds to
rescue their positions in illiquid markets that were wrongly diagnosed by the
IMF as mere passing storms that could be weathered with a temporary shift of
liquidity. Following badly flawed IMF advice, investors threw good money
after bad and brought down the whole regional economy while failing to
contain the problem within Thailand. <>
The financial crises that began in Thailand in July 1997 caused sell-downs
in other robust and liquid markets in the region such as Hong Kong and
Singapore that impacted even Wall Street in October. But prices fell in
Thailand not because domestic potential buyers had no money. The fact was
that equity prices in Thailand were holding in local currency terms but
falling fast in foreign exchange terms when the peg of the baht to the dollar
began to break. Then as the baht devalued in a free fall, stocks of Thai
companies with local currency revenue, including healthy export firms that
contracted local currency payments, logically collapsed while those with hard
currency revenue actually appreciated in local currency terms. The margin
calls were met as a result of investors trying not to sell, rather than
trying to liquidate at a loss. The incentive for holding on with additional
margin payments was based on IMF pronouncements that the crisis was only
temporary and imminent help was on the way and that the problem would
stabilize within months. But the promised help never come. What came was an
IMF program of imposed "conditionalities" that pushed the troubled Asian
economies off the cliff, designed only to save the foreign creditors. The
"temporary" financial crisis was pushed into a multi-year economic crisis.
<>
Geopolitics played a large role. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin
decided very early the Thai crisis was a minor Asian problem and told the IMF
to solve it with an Asian solution but not to let Japan take the lead. Hong
Kong contributed US$1 billion and China contributed US$1 billion on blind
faith on Rubin's assurance that the problem would be contained within Thai
borders (after all, Thailand was a faithful US ally in the Cold War). Then
Korea was hit in December 1997. Rubin again thought it was another temporary
Asian problem. The Korean Central Bank was bleeding dollar reserves trying to
support an overvalued won pegged to the dollar, and by late December had only
several days left before its dollar reserves would run dry. Rubin was holding
on to his moral hazard posture until his aides in the Department of Treasury
told him one Sunday morning that the Brazilians were holding a lot of Korean
bonds. If Korea were to default, Brazil would collapse and land the US banks
in big trouble. Only then did Rubin get Citibank to work out a restructuring
the following Tuesday in Korea by getting the Fed to allow the American banks
to roll over the short-term Korean debts into non-interest paying long-term
debts without having to register them as non-performing, thus exempting the
US banks from the adverse impacts of the required capital injection that
would drag down their profits. <>
The Great Depression that started in 1929 was made more severe and
protracted by the British default on gold payment in September, 1931 and
subsequent British competitive devaluations as a national strategy for a new
international trade war. British policy involved a deliberate use of pound
sterling hegemony, the only world monetary regime at that time, as a national
monetary weapon in an international trade war, causing an irreversible
collapse of world trade. In response to British monetary moves, alternative
currency blocs emerged in rising economies such as the German Third Reich and
Imperial Japan. It did not take these governments long to realize that they
had to go to war to obtain the oil and other natural resources needed to
sustain their growing economies that collapsed world trade could no longer
deliver in peace. For Britain and the US, a quick war was exactly what was
needed to bring their own economies out of depression. No one anticipated
that WWII would be so destructive. German invasion of Poland on September 1,
1939 caused Britain and France to declared war on Germany on September 3, but
the British and French stayed behind the Maginot Line all winter, content
with a blockade of Germany by sea. The inactive period of the "phony war"
lasted 7 months until April 9, 1940 when Germany invaded Demark and Norway.
On May 10, German forces overrun Luxemburg and invaded the Netherlands and
Belgium. On March 13, they outflanked the Maginot Line and German panzer
divisions raced towards the British Channel, cut off Flanders and trapped the
entire British Expeditionary Force of 220,000 and 120,000 French troops at
Dunkirk. The trapped Allied forces had to be evacuated by civilian small
crafts from May 26 to June 4. On June 22, France capitulated. If Britain had
failed to evacuate its troops from Dunkirk, it would have to sue for peace as
many had expected, the war would have been over with German control of
Europe. Unable to use Britain as a base, US forces would never be able to
land in Europe. Without a two-front war, Germany might have been able to
prevail over the USSR. Germany might have then emerged as the hegemon.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president on March 4, 1933. In
his first fireside chat radio address, Roosevelt told a panicky public that
"the confidence of the people themselves" was "more important than gold." On
March 9, the Senate quickly passed the Emergency Banking Act giving the
Secretary of the Treasury the power to compel every person and business in
the country to relinquish their gold and accept paper currency in exchange.
The next day, Friday March 10, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6073,
forbidding the public from sending gold overseas and forbidding banks from
paying out gold for dollar. On April 5, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No.
6102 to confiscate the public's gold, by commanding all to deliver their gold
and gold certificates to a Federal Reserve Bank, where they would be paid in
paper money. Citizens could keep up to $100 in gold, but anything above that
was illegal. Gold had become a controlled substance by law in the US.
Possession was punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up
to 10 years. On January 31, 1934, Roosevelt issued another Executive Order to
devalue the dollar by 59.06% of its former gold quantum of 23.22 grains,
pushing the dollar down to be worth only13.71 grains of gold, at $35 per
ounce, which lasted until 1971.
1929 Revisited and More
Shortsighted government monetary policies were the main factors that led
to the market collapse but the subsequent Great Depression was caused by the
collapse of world trade. US policymakers in the 1920s believed that business
was the purpose of society, just as policymakers today believe that free
trade is the purpose of civilization. Thus, the government took no action
against unconstructive speculation believing that the market knew best and
would be self-correcting. People who took risks should bear the consequences
of their own actions. The flaw in this view was that the consequences of
speculation were largely borne not by professional speculators, but by the
unsophisticated public who were unqualified to understand how they were being
manipulated to buy high and sell low. The economy had been based on
speculation but the risks were unevenly carried mostly by the innocent.
National wealth from speculation was not spread evenly. Instead, most money
was in the hands of a rich few who quickly passed on the risk and kept the
profit. They saved or invested rather than spent their money on goods and
services. Thus, supply soon became greater than demand. Some people profited,
but the majority did not. Prices went up faster than income and the public
could afford things only by going into debt while their disposable income
went into mindless speculation in hope of magically bailing borrowers out
from such debts. Farmers and factory/office workers did not profit at all.
Unevenness of prosperity made recovery difficult because income was
concentrated on those who did not have to spend it. The situation today is
very similar.
After the 1929 crash, Congress tried to solve the high unemployment
problem by passing high tariffs that protected US industries but hurt US
farmers. International trade came to a stand still both because of
protectionism and the freezing up of trade finance. <>
This time, world trade may also collapse, and high tariffs will again be the
effect rather than the cause. The pending collapse of world trade will again
come as a result of protracted US exploitation of the advantages of dollar
hegemony, as the British did in 1930 regarding sterling pound hegemony. The
dollar is undeservedly the main trade currency without either the backing of
gold or US fiscal and monetary discipline. Most of the things people want to
buy are no longer made in the US, so the dollar has become an unnatural trade
currency. The system will collapse because despite huge US trade deficits,
there is no global recycling of money outside of the dollar economy. All
money circulates only within the dollar money supply, overheating the US
economy, financing its domestic joyrides and globalization tentacles, not to
mention military adventurism, milking the rest of the global economy dry and
depriving the non-dollar economies of needed purchasing power independent of
the US trade deficit. World trade will collapse this time not because of
trade restricting tariffs, which are merely temporary distractions, but
because of a global mal-distribution of purchasing power created by dollar
hegemony.
Central banking was adopted in the US in 1913 to provide elasticity to the
money supply to accommodate the ebb and flow of the business cycle. Yet the
mortal enemy of elasticity is structural fatigue which is what makes the
rubber band snap. Today, dollar hegemony cuts off monetary recirculation to
all non-dollar economies, forcing all exporting nations with mounting trade
surpluses into the position of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Ancient Mariner:
"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink."
The USA elite might now want abandoning of GATT and even WTO as it does not like the results. That single fraud on the west has
had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought
outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics.
Notable quotes:
"... The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever. Here's the most current data while this chart shows importation history since 1980. ..."
"... the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when it no longer requires energy for its existence. ..."
"... A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production. ..."
"... The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors. ..."
"... In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly. ..."
"... I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good. ..."
"... That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics. ..."
"... Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets. ..."
The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever.
Here's the most current data
while this chart shows importation
history since 1980.
As I've said before, the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when
it no longer requires energy for its existence.
What I am looking at are strategic reserves, not how much oil is currently produced. With shale it now has those reserves and
shale oil I think is now at the point where production could quickly ramp up to full self sufficiency if required. Even if the
US were producing as much oil as they consumed, they would still be importing crude and exporting refined products.
A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also
they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production.
@Peter AU 1 #28 Thank you for that stimulating post. I just have to respond. And thanks to b and all the commenters here, it is
my daily goto post.
The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends
to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology
dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive
maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors.
In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers
are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly.
I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific
achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good.
That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all
because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific
and manufacturing politics.
By gross ignorance and foolish under-investment, the USA of WAR and its coterie of killers have eaten their future at their
people's expense.
Light sweet vs heavy sour. Light means it contains a lot of diesel/petrol. Sweet means low sulphur. Many oils are heavy sour.
Canada sand. the stuff they get from that is thick bitumen with high sulpher. The sulpher needs to be removed and the bitumen
broken down into light fuels like diesel and petrol.
Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the
US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets.
The great game for the US now is control or denial. Access to oil as a strategically critical resource is no longer a factor
for the US.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as
you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove.
The squealing and consternation coming from the UK indicates that the empire has changed course and the UK is left sitting
on its own shit pile.
What is happening in Germany? Is "open borders" that Merkel has championed on its last
legs? It seems that the CSU is worried about the coming elections in Bavaria where AfD might
do much better than expected. Just as the outcome of the Italian elections was for a
government coalition opposed to illegal economic immigration under the guise of asylum for
political persecution.
Hungarian foreign minister in an interview with a snowflake BBC reporter. It seems that
the political trend in central Europe is away from multi-culturalism. Hungary wants to
maintain its culture.
"... The loss of middle class jobs has had a dire effect on the hopes and expectations of Americans, on the American economy, on the finances of cities and states and, thereby, on their ability to meet pension obligations and provide public services, and on the tax base for Social Security and Medicare, thus threatening these important elements of the American consensus. In short, the greedy corporate elite have benefitted themselves at enormous cost to the American people and to the economic and social stability of the United States. ..."
"... With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit for the missing growth in consumer income in order to maintain aggregate consumer demand. Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied on an increase in consumer debt to fuel the economy. ..."
"... As a member of the Plunge Protection Team known officially as the Working Group on Financial Markets, the Federal Reserve has an open mandate to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday." In my opinion, the Federal Reserve would interpret this mandate as authority to directly intervene. ..."
"... As Washington's international power comes from the US dollar as world reserve currency, protecting the value of the dollar is essential to American power. Foreign inflows into US equities are part of the dollar's strength. Thus, the Plunge Protection Team seeks to prevent a market crash that would cause flight from US dollar assets. ..."
When are America's global corporations
and Wall Street going to sit down with President Trump and explain to him that his trade war is not
with China but with them?
The biggest chunk of America's trade deficit with China is
the offshored production of America's global corporations. When the corporations bring the products
that they produce in China to the US consumer market, the products are classified as imports from
China.
Six years ago when I was writing
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism
, I concluded
on the evidence that
half of US imports from China consist of the offshored production of
US corporations.
Offshoring is a substantial benefit to US corporations because of much
lower labor and compliance costs.
Profits, executive bonuses, and shareholders' capital
gains receive a large boost from offshoring. The costs of these benefits for a few fall on the many
- the former American employees who formerly had a middle class income and expectations for their
children.
In my book, I cited evidence that during the first decade of the 21st century
"the US lost
54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees. Over the decade, the
number of larger factories (those employing 1,000 or more employees) declined by 40 percent. US
factories employing 500-1,000 workers declined by 44 percent; those employing between 250-500
workers declined by 37 percent, and those employing between 100-250 workers shrunk by 30 percent.
These losses are net of new start-ups. Not all the losses are due to offshoring. Some are the
result of business failures"
(p. 100).
In other words, to put it in the most simple and clear terms,
millions of Americans lost
their middle class jobs not because China played unfairly, but because American corporations
betrayed the American people and exported their jobs.
"Making America great again"
means dealing with these corporations, not with China.
When Trump learns this, assuming anyone
will tell him, will he back off China and take on the American global corporations?
The loss of middle class jobs has had a dire effect
on the hopes and
expectations of Americans, on the American economy, on the finances of cities and states and,
thereby, on their ability to meet pension obligations and provide public services, and on the tax
base for Social Security and Medicare, thus threatening these important elements of the American
consensus. In short, the greedy corporate elite have benefitted themselves at enormous cost to the
American people and to the economic and social stability of the United States.
The job loss from offshoring also has had a huge and dire impact on Federal Reserve
policy.
With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal Reserve under Alan
Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit for the missing growth in consumer income in
order to maintain aggregate consumer demand.
Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied
on an increase in consumer debt to fuel the economy.
The credit expansion and consequent rise in real estate prices, together with the deregulation
of the banking system, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, produced the real estate
bubble and the fraud and mortgage-backed derivatives that gave us the 2007-08 financial crash.
The Federal Reserve responded to the crash not by bailing out consumer debt but by
bailing out the debt of its only constituency -- the big banks.
The Federal Reserve let
little banks fail and be bought up by the big ones, thus further increasing financial
concentration. The multi-trillion dollar increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet was
entirely for the benefit of a handful of large banks. Never before in history had an agency of the
US government acted so decisively in behalf only of the ownership class.
The way the Federal Reserve saved the irresponsible large banks, which should have failed and
have been broken up, was to raise the prices of troubled assets on the banks' books by lowering
interest rates. To be clear, interest rates and bond prices move in opposite directions. When
interest rates are lowered by the Federal Reserve, which it achieves by purchasing debt
instruments, the prices of bonds rise. As the various debt risks move together, lower interest
rates raise the prices of all debt instruments, even troubled ones.
Raising the prices of
debt instruments produced solvent balance sheets for the big banks.
To achieve its aim, the Federal Reserve had to lower the interest rates to zero, which even the
low reported inflation reduced to negative interest rates. These low rates had disastrous
consequences. On the one hand low interest rates caused all sorts of speculations. On the other low
interest rates deprived retirees of interest income on their retirement savings, forcing them to
draw down capital, thus reducing accumulated wealth among the 90 percent.
The
under-reported inflation rate also denied retirees Social Security cost-of-living adjustments,
forcing them to spend retirement capital.
The low interest rates also encouraged corporate boards to borrow money in order to buy back the
corporation's stock, thus raising its price and, thereby, the bonuses and stock options of
executives and board members and the capital gains of shareholders. In other words, corporations
indebted themselves for the short-term benefit of executives and owners. Companies that refused to
participate in this scam were threatened by Wall Street with takeovers.
Consequently today the combination of offshoring and Federal Reserve policy has left us
a situation in which every aspect of the economy is indebted - consumers, government at all levels,
and businesses.
A recent Federal Reserve study concluded that Americans are so indebted
and so poor that 41 percent of the American population cannot raise $400 without borrowing from
family and friends or selling personal possessions.
A country whose population is this indebted has no consumer market. Without a consumer market
there is no economic growth, other than the false orchestrated figures produced by the US
government by under counting the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.
Without economic growth, consumers, businesses, state, local, and federal governments
cannot service their debts and meet their obligations.
The Federal Reserve has learned that it can keep afloat the Ponzi scheme that is the US economy
by printing money with which to support financial asset prices. The alleged rises in interest rates
by the Federal Reserve are not real interest rates rises. Even the under-reported inflation rate is
higher than the interest rate increases, with the result that the real interest rate falls.
It is no secret that the Federal Reserve controls the price of bonds by openly buying and
selling US Treasuries.
Since 1987 the Federal Reserve can also support the price of US
equities.
If the stock market tries to sell off, before much damage can be done the
Federal Reserve steps in and purchases S&P futures, thus driving up stock prices.
In recent
years, when corrections begin they are quickly interrupted and the fall is arrested.
As a member of the Plunge Protection Team known officially as the Working Group on
Financial Markets, the Federal Reserve has an open mandate to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday."
In my opinion, the Federal Reserve would interpret this mandate as authority to directly intervene.
However,
just as the Fed can use the big banks as agents for its control over the price
of gold, it can use the Wall Street banks dark pools to manipulate the equity markets.
In
this way the manipulation can be disguised as banks making trades for clients. The Plunge
Protection Team consists of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the SEC, and the Commodity Futures
Trading Corporation. As Washington's international power comes from the US dollar as world reserve
currency, protecting the value of the dollar is essential to American power. Foreign inflows into
US equities are part of the dollar's strength.
Thus, the Plunge Protection Team seeks to
prevent a market crash that would cause flight from US dollar assets.
Normally so much money creation by the Federal Reserve, especially in conjunction with such a
high debt level of the US government and also state and local governments, consumers, and
businesses, would cause a falling US dollar exchange rate.
Why hasn't this happened?
For three reasons.
One is that the central banks of the other three reserve currencies -- the Japanese central
bank, the European central bank, and the Bank of England -- also print money. Their Quantitative
Easing, which still continues, offsets the dollars created by the Federal Reserve and keeps the
US dollar from depreciating.
A second reason is that when suspicion of the dollar's worth sends up the gold price, the
Federal Reserve or its bullion banks short gold futures with naked contracts. This drives down
the gold price. There are numerous columns on my website by myself and Dave Kranzler proving
this to be the case. There is no doubt about it.
The third reason is that money managers, individuals, pension funds, everyone and all the
rest had rather make money than not. Therefore, they go along with the Ponzi scheme. The people
who did not benefit from the Ponzi scheme of the past decade are those who understood it was a
Ponzi scheme but did not realize the corruption that has beset the Federal Reserve and the
central bank's ability and willingness to continue to feed the Ponzi scheme.
As I have explained previously,
the Ponzi scheme falls apart when it becomes
impossible to continue to support the dollar as burdened as the dollar is by debt levels and
abundance of dollars that could be dumped on the exchange markets.
This is why Washington is determined to retain its hegemony.
It is Washington's hegemony
over Japan, Europe, and the UK that protects the American Ponzi scheme.
The moment one of
these central banks ceases to support the dollar, the others would follow, and the Ponzi scheme
would unravel. If the prices of US debt and stocks were reduced to their real values, the United
States would no longer have a place in the ranks of world powers.
The implication is that war, and not economic reform, is America's most likely future.
In a subsequent column I hope to explain why neither US political party has the awareness
and capability to deal with real problems.
Roberts is totally correct that Trump's trade war is with US
corporations and their offshoring. I think Trump knows this
and that's why he's cutting regulations and red tape at
home. We've gone too far left on regs. As for labor costs,
most factories are highly automated here but labor cost
includes disability, pensions, 'diversity' harassment
lawsuits, etc. This overhead doesn't exist in China or
Vietnam where my LL Bean t-shirts are made.
Trump's war is with the a corporate ideology that says
profit is primary to nationality or normal morality. He gave
the biggest corporations a huge tax cut. Now they need to
play ball with America's workers.
They need to acknowledge that we're all Americans and our
legal system, which protects their solvency, will not
survive if today's angry politics continues for two more
years.
The S&P500 needs to think about their future and getting
Bernie or worse in 2020. There's all these trade tirades
going on - good time to give Trump a win and then another to
let him feel some support. Then let the wise men of
government policy step in for a sit-down and determine the
best policy for America's survival. Is it either becoming
fascist or a pleading for a negotiated bankruptcy with all
the geopolitical implications? It can't be either extreme so
plan and do it. Otherwise, Mr. Roberts will be remembered as
a sage.
"To continue allowing these products into our country will
ultimately bring their standard of living here also."
This
is the most incisive comment I've seen on ZH in quite awhile. It's
like a balance beam scale that swings back and forth as weight is
added to or subtracted from one side or the other. Ultimately, the
scale will balance out as everyone attains the same standard of
living . Our government and economy has been surviving on borrowed
money (ie; paper fiat currency) since at least 1971, and now even
common people are living on borrowed paper fiat currency. Most of
the common people in China that I have known live in small rented
apartments and mostly eat the cheapest foods they can find; ie,
rice, vegetables, tofu, pumpkin, etc. At least the downward
trajectory of our economy will cure the obesity epidemic, but many
will likely starve. The big question is when? We are on the
downward slope already, but how steep it will be is a question no
one seems to be able to answer.
"when I was writing
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism
,
I concluded on the evidence that
half of US imports from
China consist of the offshored production of US corporations"
Escaping government taxes and regulations has NOTHING to do with
Laissez Faire Capitalism, it's not even capitalism at that point!
Most of the people on this site already know what Roberts just
summarized. Other than referring to the Fed as a government agency
rather than a private corporation, he was mainly correct in what he
wrote. Most of the American sheeple do not. They do know that they
were sold out, but they don't know the details; how, why, by whom.
It's common knowledge that the people's gold was stolen by the Bush
and Clinton crime families along with Robert Rubin. There is a
persistent rumor out that Trump is in the process of successfully
recovering it. If China and Russia force the world back on a real
gold standard and Trump's recovery is unsuccessful, the USA will be
swimming naked when the tide goes out.
As to how long can the Fed
keep their Ponzi going. The answer would be a lot longer if they
still controlled the planet. But they no longer do and their bluff
is being called right now by Putin, Xi and others. As Göring wrote
at his Nuremberg trial, "Truth is the enemy of the State."
Roberts should be the one explaining. He makes sweeping assertions like:
" With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled." When
exactly? What year are you talking about? And he seemingly leaves out
demographics completely in his analysis. He's just looking at everything
through the lens of central banking, and when all you have is a hammer,
everything tends to look like a nail. I'm thinking that, like Rudy
Giuliani, he lost his fastball a while back and maybe should just stick
to writing about 1987.
Finally, we have an
economist who reveals the ugly truth behind what the criminal corporate
class has done and is doing to America. See also Dr. Michael Hudson and
his work.
As for Trump, I suspect he understands what's really going on, but a
lot of his pals are billionaires involved in this corruption. Obviously,
he can't name names otherwise, the 1% elite would eliminate his
administration.
It may be that Trump is using the only "out" left in causing these
tariff wars. If you read other online reports in China, Russia, a seldom
few from the EU, you see enormous amounts of trade between China,
Russia, Iran, Germany, and other Asian nations. This American senses we
are being left in the dust by all this vitality.
It's recognized many multi-millionaire/billionaires in both the US &
other parts of the world are making lots of money from the system.
However, I'm beginning to sense that ALL these US elites recognize
the US financial system is deteriorating and there's no way to turn
back.
It happens to every "empire" throughout history, but, other than
about 10% of population who are informed, the real tragedy is about 80%
of the American public who haven't a clue.
"With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal
Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit
for the missing growth in consumer income in order to maintain aggregate
consumer demand. Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied on an increase
in consumer debt to fuel the economy."
"The credit expansion and
consequent rise in real estate prices, together with the deregulation of
the banking system, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act,
produced the real estate bubble and the fraud and mortgage-backed
derivatives that gave us the 2007-08 financial crash."
"The Federal Reserve responded to the crash not by bailing out consumer
debt but by bailing out the debt of its only constituency -- the big banks."
Yes, It is wash, rinse, repeat but Glass Steagal is irrelevant. The
criminaliy is the actual issue. Rules and regs are meaningless when the
bankers are also in charge of the regulation. Another layer is the
multinational corporations / banks that operate in between nations. What
may be illegal in one jurisdiction is protected in another. Without a
will to enforce, the crime is unstoppable.
The bankers did the end run round Glass Steagal long before
Clinton and his banking pals killed it officially. Killing it was
simply the formality, making things all legal like.
I had to laugh when I read it given all the irreversible mistakes that have
been made for decades in that city given how vital it once was to the U.S.
economy. But it makes you want to cry given the delusion on display of it's
leadership that could have made Ford embarrass itself like this with that
announcement so late in our "game"!
PCR of course does not explain how a nation of 320 million people with bountiful
natural resources and extensive industrial, services, and education
infrastructure would *not* be a world power, save for the fact that he really
really wishes America wasn't.
I bet what happened was these same multinationals stoked the fire about
China because they were concerned about the China 2030 plan. They wanted
China for production and a market, not for competition. They poured lots
of money into lobbying.
When Trump was elected instead of acting how they
predicted he's off script now and could hurt them. The nuisance of being a
democracy.
Barter. Happens all the time. There is NO alternative so long as we
are going to continue to believe in fantasy. Specifically, the
fantasy that economies can grow exponentially and forever in a
biosphere with finite resources. The only solution is a monetary
system that remains attached to reality, period. Keeping in mind
that no system will ever be perfect, but a system that insures bad
behavior and bad management
suffer real consequences
would be a good start! Remind me, how many bankers/financiers went to
prison for those MBS that almost destroyed the world?
A great deal of the BS is being hidden away in an explosion of large
Public-Private Partnerships projects.
Over the years we have been
hearing a lot of good things about "Public-Private Partnerships" and how they
can propel forward needed projects by adding an incentive for the private
sector to undertake projects they might choose not to do alone. Often this is
because the numbers often simply don't work. The truth is that history is
littered with these failed projects.
Often their announcements are
accompanied by promises and hype but sadly the synergy these projects are
intended to create never occurs. These so-called, "bridges to nowhere" and
boondoggles tend to be forgotten and brushed aside each time public servants
and their cronies get together. The article below delves into this tool often
used to line the pockets of those with influence.
You've well penned an Excellent Summation Piece of
not so well known behind the scenes economic conditions and factors.
As I've said many times:
UNFORESEEN WAR IS THE ONLY THING THAT DISRUPTS THE AMERICAN PONZI KNOWN AS
THE COLLUSIVE BIG BANKSTERS AKA THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
There is one point, however, where you are mistaken:
"The way the Federal Reserve saved the irresponsible large banks, which
should have failed and have been broken up, was to raise the prices of
troubled assets on the banks' books by lowering interest rates"
Wrong.
Instead, this was accomplished by the Banksters paying off the American
Congress to suspend the accounting rule called "mark to market". It was very
simple. The banks went to the government and said:
"you can print $2 trillion to bail us out, OR you can suspend mark to
market and we can show that we have NO losses on our books."
The FASB under pressure from Congress chose the prudent (at that time) but
dishonest approach and allowed the banks to suspend the mark to market
accounting rule, which is a basic rule of financial accounting. The sacrifice
was in banking transparency, which of course, is an oxymoron in 2018.
But that action essentially robbed an entire group of market speculators in
risky securities like FAZ (a 3x inverse ETF play on the banks, essentially
shorting the big banks) who bet that the US Government would not break the law
and suspend mark to market for the banks.
They were wrong and a lot of those honest speculators lost a lot of money
very quickly.
It was an "Aha!" Epiphanous moment on Thursday, April 2, 2009 for many
American equities speculators as they quickly realized that the American
government was indeed provably in the pocket of the Banksters Cartel and
likely had been for a very long time.
Interest rates way up or the dollar is toast if not for the Euro and Yen. I
have always felt the Euro was established as a shield for the USD and not so
much some European union of countries. The union of those countries will
always be difficult but controlling the currency of all those countries is
very important to the USA. Imagine all the dollar sellers today if the Euro
was not established.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who
makes it's laws" Roth
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle
class population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing
and technology ''have got out of the barn'' and successfully transplanted to... greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. (''Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of... Latties lately?.puffpuff...
// Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!'')
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in the
sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad... depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club'' and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then Austerity
for real.
Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in
the world is over
Bull's eye. That is an under-appreciated dynamic driving everything from economic policies
to the hatred of Trump and populists in general. The narcissistic Western elites cannot stand
their own people. One sees it in the culture, academia, economic policies, and the insane
attempt to dilute native population and replace them with new migrants. (It is amusing that
sophisticated Westerners often boringly allude to the evil 'commies' who 'wanted to elect new
people', and of course never did, but they are unwilling to see it happening at home.)
The purpose for creating the Western middle class after WWII was to prevent a revolution.
That is no longer a threat, so why coddle the deplorables?
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the
USA into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle class
population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing and
technology "have got out of the barn" and successfully transplanted to greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. ("Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of Latties lately?.puffpuff //
Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!")
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in
the sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club" and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then
Austerity for real.
Much better articles in italian or spanish. They basically say that's because of 'recent'
events of P2 sect fraud in 1981. More sensible to think they don't want globalist with hidden
loyalties infiltrating a new inexperienced government, but I don't follow italian
developments closely. Any thoughts?
Trump's "national neoliberalism" has some interesting side effects...
Notable quotes:
"... All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down ..."
"... I have felt for a long time that our consumption based economy is a way to keep people so self absorbed that they don't ask too many questions . ..."
"... As tempting as it is to attribute this to personality failings, I don't believe that Mr. Trump's China tantrum is geopolitical one-upmanship. It is more likely a reaction to the annual Industrial Capabilities Report released on May 17 by the Pentagon's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, in parallel to a similar review being conducted internally by the White House. ..."
"... The Pentagon has concluded that two decades of financially-engineered corporate concentration and out-sourcing of skilled work to China has stripped the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex of its "organic industrial base." It appears evident that the White House has decided that tariff barriers on China are the only way to rebuild a population of of "qualified workers to meet current demands as well as needing to integrate a younger workforce with the 'right skills, aptitude, experience, and interest to step into the jobs vacated by senior-level engineers and skilled technicians' as they exit the workforce." ..."
"... I find myself confused and in a quandary. Is it not neoliberalism and global trade that over the past 25 years or so has led to corporate mega-wealth and the beginning of the end of the US middle class, and the further impoverishment of the working class? If so, then as a good progressive, should I not welcome a trade war or whatever economic change will end this global economic tyranny? Is the skepticism or outright opposition to a trade war of so many progressives simply based on the fact taht t's being initiated by the colossal idiot in the White House who may inadvertently be doing something beneficial? ..."
The White House's tough stance represents the ascendancy, for now, of trade hawks in the administration, particularly White
House senior trade adviser Peter Navarro and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer
"It's clear that China has much more to lose" than the U.S. from a trade fight, said Mr. Navarro.
Mr. Lighthizer said additional tariffs wouldn't be imposed until the U.S. picked the products, and received industry comment,
a process that will take months and leaves open the possibility of additional negotiations. But so far there is no indication
that such talks are on the horizon, and the Trump administration is signaling that it is increasingly confident of achieving goals
through a dramatically more confrontational approach to China
Next up from the administration is a plan to halt Chinese investment in U.S. technology, due to be released by the Treasury
Department by June 30 .
Mr. Trump has backed away from threats before .In April, Mr. Trump threatened a dramatic increase in tariffs on Chinese goods,
but didn't follow through. Instead, he approved negotiations Mr. Mnuchin led to get China to buy more U.S. goods and make changes
to its tariffs and other trade barriers. That led to a temporary reprieve in the tensions as the two sides sought to negotiate
a truce.
The White House has since judged those efforts a failure, especially after Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Trump were criticized by cable
TV hosts and some lawmakers of being weak on China. During a June trade mission to China by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Beijing
offered to buy nearly $70 billion in U.S. farm, manufacturing and energy products if the Trump administration abandoned tariff
threats. Mr. Trump rejected that offer as another empty promise.
Trump's negotiating strategy, if you can call it that, appears unlikely to work with China . If one were to try to ascribe logic
to Trump picking and then escalating a fight with China, it is presumably in the end to bring them to the negotiating table. But
China is not North Korea, where the US threatened the Hermit Kingdom with nuclear devastation and Kim Jong Un with being the next
Gaddafi and then dialed the bluster way down as China pushed and South Korea pulled North Korea to the negotiating table. And the
good luck of the Olympics being in South Korea facilitated the process.
One could argue that all of the theatrics was to enable Trump to talk with Kim Jong Un and not look like a wus.
With China, Trump's escalation to threatening another $200 billion of Chinese goods after his initial $50 billion shot is a reaction
to China going into tit for tat mode as opposed to negotiating. This should not be a surprise. The more detailed press reports were
making clear that China was initially not engaging with the US (as in making clear that they weren't receptive to US demands and
accordingly weren't deploying meaningful resources to talks).
Even if China incurs meaningful economic costs in hitting back at the US, politically it's a no brainer. China's sense of itself
as the power that will displace the US means it's unacceptable to be bullied. China has been bizarrely sensitive to slights, for
instance, lashing out during the 2007 IPCC negotiations and getting testy when the US put countervailing duties
on a mere $224 million
of goods . Recall that when the US put sanctions on Russia, its strategists seemed to genuinely believe that Russians would rise
up and turf Putin out. Instead, his popularity ratings rose and even the Moscow intelligentsia rallied to support him.
Oh, and while we are speaking about North Korea,
Kim Jong Un is in Beijing . It's not hard to get the message: there's no reason for China to play nicely in the face of US trade
brinksmanship.
Trump appears to be relying on the idea that since the US imports more than China exports, we can do more damage to them in a
tariff game of chicken . On the one hand, as Marshall Auerback has pointed out, in trade wars, the creditor nation, which would be
China, typically fares worse than the debtor nation. However, China can do a lot a damage to US companies in China. The US has long
had a policy of promoting the interests of US multinationals based on the claim that deeper trade relations would reduce the odds
of war and make countries more disposed towards democracy. And when "free trade" ideology got a life of its own, economists and pundits
regularly treated the idea of trying to protect domestic jobs as retrograde, even when many of our trade partners negotiated their
deals with that consideration in mind.
American businesses from Apple Inc. and Walmart Inc. to Boeing Co. and General Motors Co. all operate in China and are keen
to expand. That hands Xi room to impose penalties such as customs delays, tax audits and increased regulatory scrutiny if Trump
delivers on his threat of bigger duties on Chinese trade. U.S. shares slumped Tuesday as part of a broad sell-off in global markets
in response to Trump's threat.
The total amount of U.S. goods exports to China only amounted to $130 billion last year, meaning Trump's potential tariffs
on $250 billion or more of Chinese imports can't be matched, at least directly. But if you measure both exports and sales of U.S.
companies inside China, the U.S. has a surplus of $20 billion with China, according to Deutsche Bank AG .
One advantage of this tactic for Xi is that this time the numbers are on his side, as U.S. investment in China is far larger
than the reverse. American companies had $627 billion in assets and $482 billion in sales in China in 2015, compared to just $167
billion in U.S. assets and $26 billion in U.S. sales for Chinese companies .
A change in trade priorities to focus on domestic employment isn't nuts . It's hard to know what Trump is trying to achieve as
he calls for China to reduce its trade deficit by $200 billion. Given that the Administration said it will focus on the sectors depicted
as priorities in China's "Made-in-China 2025" plans in next round to tariff targets, China has good reason to think Trump's real
aim is to check its rise as a superpower.
Even though Trump is giving trade negotiations a bad name, there's every reason to give domestic employment higher priority in
trade negotiation. The reason Trump is so fond of tariffs is that they are a weapon he can deploy quickly and unilaterally, while
negotiations and WTO cases take time. And even though the pundit class likes to decry manufacturing as oh-so-20th century, Ford's
Rouge plant employed more people than Apple does in the entire US. Restoring infrastructure would create a lot of employment, as
would increasing domestic manufacturing.
But the US has eliminated the supervisor and middle managers that once ran operations like these. If we were to seek to build
some areas of manufacturing, the US would have to engage in industrial policy, which is something we do now, but only by default,
with the defense industry, financial services, health care, housing, and higher education among the favored sectors. So given our
political constraints, it's hard to see how we get there from here.
Mr. Market is anxious . Anxious is well short of panicked. Chinese stocks took the worst hit, but the latest round of threats
took 4% off the Shanghai composite, taking it back to its level of 20 months ago.
Chinese indexes were mixed today .
By contrast, the Dow was down 1.15% and the S&P 500, 0.4%.
Having said that, the Fed is in a tightening cycle and stock valuations already looked pretty attenuated. Trade tensions and the
uncertainty over how the threat to global supply chains will play out may lead investors to curb their enthusiasm, particularly if
the Trump initiative starts looking less like another fit of pique and more like a change in the rules of the game that looks unlikely
to work out well.
I think the Chinese response depends on the great unknown of the Chinese Communist Parties long term strategy. One line of
thought is that the 'Asian model' of trade surpluses is for them just the means to an end for China to reach 'high development'
status, from which point they would seek a much more balanced internal economy. The other, sees Chinas trade surplus – in particular
the deliberate over production of strategic products such as microprocessors and pharmaceuticals as an end itself – warfare by
means of trade. Both aspects are variations on the Japanese
Yoshida Doctrine , something the Chinese have studied
in detail.
If the former, then its entirely possible that the Chinese see Trump's threat not as a challenge, but an opportunity to carry
out the necessary deep structural changes to balance their economy. A populist trade war would be the cover the government needs
to dramatically cut over-production and focus instead on ensuring China has all the strategic products it needs (the most crucial
of course is food). The CCP's fear is always inflation in food prices – this is historically the trigger for urban unrest, as
in the 1980's. But if they have a foreign scapegoat for that, they may see it as a risk worth taking. Urban riots where people
attack CCP buildings terrifies the leadership. Urban riots where people burn Trump effigies, less so.
If the true strategy is the second, then Trumps attacks are an obvious threat. The Chinese are aware now of the growing awareness
in the US of just how vulnerable the US has become to shortages of products which are now almost entirely Chinese made or controlled
– many processed metals, pharmaceuticals, key electronic components, etc. If it is indeed Chinese strategy to use these for leverage
at some future date, then they won't want to risk undermining this in a tit for tat war. In this situation, they will tread much
more carefully and won't be worried about a minor loss of face if they stand down and give Trump the victory headlines he craves.
In a broader sense, Trump believes that the biggest stick always wins a war like this, and he and his advisor clearly believe
the US has the biggest stick. But in military terms, the winner in a war is not the country who has the biggest army, but the
country that can bring the biggest army to the right field of battle. The Chinese (along perhaps with the Europeans and Mexicans)
may believe that if they fight smart and focus on specific battles – such as US farm goods or key US aerospace and consumer electronics
companies – they can make Trump and the Republicans really hurt. They know the electoral cycle in the US, which gives them a big
advantage. It will be interesting to see if Trump forces all sorts of new and unlikely alliances in opposition.
Interesting analysis. Do you think Trump's aim could be to throw a spanner into their works, whatever the plan is, thereby
buying more time to re-industrialize and wean US industries off of China? Also, it strikes me that Trump is consciously disciplining
US-based businesses like Apple every bit as much as he is China.
It would also require companies like Apple to show some interest in U.S. manufacturing, which is not the case at this time.
I'm all for whatever barriers are necessary to re-invigorate and modernize U.S. manufacturing. But it will be impossible to
make progress if U.S. multi-nationals refuse to go along. Trump doesn't play the long game and there is really no evidence that
he is willing to challenge/threaten U.S. firms in substantive ways. Remember the campaign threats against Ford? Since then, Ford
has not upped its U.S. investment but instead chosen to get completely out of the small car business. And that is a company that
still has an extensive U.S. manufacturing presence, unlike, say, Apple.
I think this is what the Chinese understand (maybe Trump does too and this is all just theater for 2020). They can play hardball
with Trump as long as US MNC's are on the side of China against the U.S. In the last 6 months, have you heard a single large U.S.
manufacturer voice support for Trump's trade policies? I haven't.
If the Chinese focus on key areas that can 'make Trump and the Republicans really hurt. They know the electoral cycle in the
US ,' wouldn't that be outright election meddling?
There is the same logic, possibility, at work in Trump's thinking (and thinking may be too generous a term for it but we do
I suppose have to assign some sort of plan being pushed through here) to that of the U.K.'s Brexit Ultras.
For the Ultras, reestablishing political and sovereignty independence is conflated and intertwined with economic independence
which all -- through a mechanism which is never adequately explained -- will result in domestic economic revitalisation that doesn't
require government direct intervention.
No, it doesn't stack up or make a great deal of sense, but having been around many hard-core Brexit'eers in the Brexit heartland
(and the Conservative party's local association in a Brexit stronghold) the people who hold this worldview do make it work
within the confines of their own minds. It goes something like: if you neutralise or at least weaken the power blocks which are
winning out politically and you'll reap a reward economically. The fallacy assumes that you can give Johnny Foreigner a good kicking
at the sovereignty and international power-broker level and because you're a geopolitical shaker and mover, that'll pay off in
trade terms. All without consequences.
But of course there are always consequences. Other countries can decide to endure downsides (not least because the
various ruling elites don't end up on the receiving end of these, usually) -- this was the same gamble the U.K. government made,
unsuccessfully, with the EU ("we're in the unassailable position because we import from them more than we export"). And so also
with China. If Beijing is prepared to play a long game, it can tough it out with the US, potentially longer than the US is prepared
to tolerate.
This has always been the case with the US (and the U.K. too, for that matter) -- they never expect anyone else to tolerate
any downside which is imposed. They're astonished when Cuba, the DPRK, Iran, Russia, China and even to a lesser extent the EU
don't simply fall into line when they click their fingers.
There are different power centers operating in the Trump administration's trade policy. Trump himself may be motivated by no
more than a desire to appear tough -- and as Yves notes, tariffs are one of the few ways a US president can act swiftly and unilaterally
to do so.
His advisers are another matter. They would like to pressure China to have more open and fair policies, but are OK with the
consequences if China refuses -- i.e., an extremely large decrease in US trade volumes with China, and, indeed, the entire world.
They have probably performed a calculation similar to the one outlined by Paul Krugman
in his June
17 column on trade wars . Basically, a global trade war would not have a giant impact on global GDP -- perhaps 2-3 percent
assuming tariffs on everything in the neighborhood of 30 percent. There would be displacement of jobs and workers while everyone
readjusted, but that's a price the Trump administration would probably be willing to pay. And, what Krugman does not mention,
the United States as a very large economy would in fact do less badly in a trade war than most others countries. By losing less,
it would "win" in the zero-sum universe Trump seems to inhabit.
That's a difference between Trumpers and Brexiters. Britain is an island that has always depended on trade. The US has two
oceans around it, still the world's largest economy (more or less), adequate natural resources, and a whole hemisphere to pick
on.
I think you are right in suggesting that the calculation is that even an all out trade war would not be catastrophic, and the
US would come out best.
I think the problem with this thinking is that it assumes symmetric actions by all the major parties, but in this sort of trade
war it will be more targeted and asymmetric. By which I mean that the Chinese and Europeans in particular have immediately targetted
more obvious, vulnerable US sectors. At first, these are just rather obvious ones, like Harley Davidson bikes or Levi Jeans, but
its not hard to see that if it gets serious there might be co-operation to target what they see as Trumps heartlands. As I suggested
above, a targeted attempt to hit key US food exports at the strategically right time could be devastating for US farmers, and
domestically China and other countries may accept the 'hit' domestically as they have a convenient scapegoat.
I should say though that whatever the outcome, the uncertainty created by Trumps action is likely to make all investors much
more wary of businesses which depend on widespread global supply chain networks, which can only be a good thing for people trying
to keep jobs local and to reduce emissions. Its unfortunate that when these come about through trade wars the impacts (as usual)
will hit ordinary people first, at least in the initial stage
I do agree that the zenith of long, complex and ultimately not especially resilient global supply chains has passed. For at
least 20, possibly 30 years these have received and been able to rely on unstinting political aircover and hidden subsidies.
Not any more. There's some minor tremors already being felt with the distinct possibility of some bigger systemic shocks in
store.
I do agree that the zenith of long, complex and ultimately not especially resilient global supply chains has passed.
Indeed – anecdotally and slightly tangentially – the days of outsourcing call-centres etc are numbered. Whilst many knowledgable
people have shown that the cost savings have not turned out to be anything like as large as the corporations predicted, consumer
hatred cannot be understated. I have gone through several weeks of arguing with Three over their service, being bounced around
various call-centres offshore. Finally, an email to the CEO, pointing out (in a measured way) how my business calls and those
of other businesses who use them will very quickly be affected, it was amazing how quickly things progressed, with my complaint
being escalated to the CEO executive group. I phrased it in terms of the fact their business model now actively encouraged (and
in many cases only supported) people to use phones known to be vulnerable to hackers and companies are really not going to like
that, even if they're cheap. Furthermore Three are immensely vulnerable come the next 5G spectrum auction (they are significantly
in trouble spectrum-wise) and I was about to be escalated to the Ombudsman, and told the CEO I'd be highlighting their security
vulnerabilities – something they really don't want, even though they'd done it to save a bob or two in outsourcing.
Things were sorted ASAP; it was obvious that a UK programmer redid the whole Three app and web interface over a weekend (I
used to program in Fortran in my PhD and diagnosed their problem straightaway). Three used to be innovative in carving out a niche
segment regarding its roaming plans – but has not kept innovating, and EU laws on roaming now mean its advantage is largely gone
whilst Vodafone staff in stores gleefully tell customers that you'll talk to a British call-centre – they have calculated that
the price premium is worth it, if people don't have to go through what I did, particularly high-value customers.
The days of long supply chains are numbered, most definitely. Systemic breakdowns would simply kill a company that operated
as they did. Now rapid changes seem to be in motion to make supply chains more robust and acceptable .
I hope its true – the fascinating shipping stats that Lambert posts in WaterCooler most days shows that transport is still
a huge and growing business, and seems to have recovered from the changes made 5 years ago when the oil price peak made a lot
of companies think twice about long supply chains. But there do seem to be a converging set of factors which must surely make
companies think twice. If you combine energy price risks, political risks, increasing tarrifs, consumer resistence, etc., there
are more and more incentives for companies to tighten and simplify supply chains. But I think it will be quite a while before
we see the impacts (and I'd never underestimate the power of inertia behind globilisation either).
Its often forgotten of course – mostly by economists who never study history – that we've been here before, most notably in
the late 19th Century when the trade was highly globilised, thanks to the major empires. That unravelled with startling speed.
Indeed, I see his statistics and agree regarding interia. But, as you say, economists are rubbish at history – and coupled
with their fascination with models that are ergodic (when the climate models suggest we are entering new territory with complete
"breaks" in the relationships and possible sudden shifts to new equilibria with associated huge, fast, cyclical changes) I can't
help but wonder if the supply chain models simply must collapse if the climate scientists are right and the economists are wrong.
But only time will tell .
Speaking of 'bigger systemic shocks,' Doug Kass puts a finer point on it [lifted from the Z site this morning]:
[Trump's] policy and negotiating tactics hold the risk that business confidence could be jeopardized and supply chains
may be disrupted.
I have long argued that the "Orange Swan" would ultimately be market unfriendly – that an untethered Trump would "Make Uncertainty
and Volatility (in the markets) Great Again." (#MUVGA)
And, I have recently argued over the last few months that the president's behavior is now beginning to impact the capital
markets.
Acting upon his impulses, growing more isolated and becoming more unhinged -- the Supreme Tweeter is now an Orange Swan
headwind.
" Rex, eat your salad " – President Trump
What numerical analyses such as Kurgman's miss is confidence. Popular mood has propelled Bubble III to stratospheric
heights, with equities and property dear worldwide.
All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down with a crash far out of proportion
to the minor changes in economic stats that will be visible at the time. ' No one could have foreseen ' etc
Bubbles, and their aftermaths, are self-reinforcing both on the way up and the way down. A manly square jaw and a glorious
orange helmet will take you only so far when you haven't a clue what you're doing. :-(
Since Kass mentioned 'negotiating tactics,' presumably many now also are aware that factor.
Judging by how the bubble is holding up, can we say that, so far, the key market players are receiving that message and remain
(again, so far the Nasdaq dropped just a bit yesterday after the additional $200 billion tariffs news) confident on this front
(but whose confidence can be shaken on other fronts for example, perhaps by others who worry openly and warn that the sky is,
at this moment, falling).
Who needs confidence when the Fed has proved it will just step in and buy whatever's necessary to prop up the market. Loot
on the way up, loot on the way down. Fearing volatility is for smallfolk.
All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down
But U.S. MNCs have had no confidence in U.S. manufacturing for decades. Which is why we need to never anger the bubble-driven
"confidence fairy." On the fundamentals that affect most people, the house blew down long ago.
What's amazing, is that right at the time when being part of a large trading block would seem to be an imperative and not just
an advantage, Britain decides to leave the EU. Even the very timing is wrong.
Much as I would like one, I am quite confident there will not be a global trade war. Trump has no long game and in any event
no stomach for taking on the entire U.S. business class. There will negotiations, flip-flops, photo-ops, some marginal claimed
"wins," no real change, and on to 2020.
'Basically, a global trade war would not have a giant impact on global GDP -- perhaps 2-3 percent assuming tariffs on everything
in the neighborhood of 30 percent.'
Kurgman seems to assume that the radical adjustment to supply chains is nearly frictionless. But it's not. Vast capital investment
will be needed, at a time when corporations are already highly leveraged by piling up debt to buy back shares.
A trade war is just the pin we need to pop Bubble III and send it crashing to earth like the Hindenburg -- oh the humanity!
It's a heavy price to pay, just to turf out Herbert Hoover Trump after one term and highlight Peter Rabbit Navarro as the PhD
Econ know nothing who wrecked the global economy. Even the benighted Kurgman sees that Navarro is a total charlatan.
It has been interesting for the last few years watching the pigs cotillion that passes for a "western elite" pull pin after
pin after pin on what have been assumed to be grenades thus far without any detonation.
Though we'll never know for sure, the Fed's bond dumping is a financial pin, while trade wars are a confidence smasher.
Once a stampede starts, it acquires a momentum of its own: you're obliged to run, not because you were scared, but because
a thundering herd is coming at you.
I'd agree very much with this, Clive. I would add that this sort of delusion seems largely restricted to major powers who haven't
suffered a major loss (or at least not one that couldn't be quietly forgotten) in a century or so. Those of us who live in smaller
countries always know that true absolute 'sovereignty' in the real world is a chimera. What matters is what areas you maintain
control, and which ones you let go – and its always better to let some go than have them ripped from your hands. And those countries
who have suffered humiliations in the recent past (Germany, France, China, Japan) have fewer delusions about the dangers of arrogance
and powerplay, although the French in particular are prone to forget.
An overly dynamic situation is one thing so long as it does not end up in a 'kinetic' situation. I am going to go out on a
limb here and say that Trump's threats against China are a gamble but will have to explain it a bit. For about two decades after
the collapse of the USSR we lived in a unipolar world with the axis located in Washington DC. You had people like McCain, Rubio,
Navarro, Lighthizer and Graham working through their careers in this 'golden age' but those times are now definitely over. The
world is once more reverting to its normal state of a multipolar world and people like the aforementioned people cannot tolerate
this.
To push back against this reversion, they have been trying on a wide front to use American military and economic power to make
countries bend to their will. Threatening allies if they purchase Russian weapons, blackmailing the EU to abandon Iran in preparation
for a cruel embargo, threatening Turkey by withholding sales of the F35 fighter, etc. have all been tried. For several reasons,
this approach is not working so well anymore. So at this point, after wrestling some time with countries like Russia and Iran,
the US has decided that they need to attack the center of gravity in this new multipolar world and that means China.
The US demanded that China reconfigure their entire economy to enable US corporations to have more power and say in China while
demanding that China curtail their advancing their technological development program. China balked at this but did offer compromises
to no effect. With the lunatic policy of pushing China and Russia together, a massive political and economic federation is slowly
forming on the mass of lands from Vladivosok all the way through to Europe. If that happens, then the US definitely becomes a
second rate power. The clock is ticking on this development hence the attempt to cower China which is the linchpin for this.
Trump has been convinced that the US holds the upper hand and decided on a gamble, a doubling down if you will, so that a decisive
victory will be achieved on the cusp of the 2018 US midterm elections. The trouble with all this is that the US is hemorrhaging
both soft and hard power and is in a weaker position now. There is more and more countries seeking to bypass use of the US dollar
as being too dangerous to use for some countries and working with an American company and buying America products is also being
seen as risky. An example is when the US forbid Airbus selling its own aircraft to Iran due to the presence of US parts. I am
willing to bet that a lot of other companies sat up and took notice of this. So now for Trump he is going all in to try to overturn
these developments but as we say in Australia, he has two chances – his and Buckleys
They do seem to be caught in something of a chinese finger puzzle alright. Everything they do seems to make their opponents
stronger in some fashion or another. As per PK above, I wonder if Trump is not, unwittingly, doing the Chinese a favour?
There's a reason historical trade routes followed the Silk Road, a reason horsemen swept out of the Mongolian plains to conquer
the world time and again. The axis of human trade runs through Europe/Asia. It has never run through North America and never will.
The US can't be the axis of the world because it quite simply isn't located in the right place along the right population vectors.
This is a fact the US military is well aware of. If the US tries to maintain its position in the long run it will fail. That's
just the way it is, and the sooner US stops propagandizing its own citizens to the contrary, the better.
to throw out an unconventional thought: if you're an environmentalist/anti-climate change, you should want a trade war. I guess
per the media and Democratic pundits it's: Reduce, reuse, recycle–Unless your goals align with a Trump policy on a discrete issue.
you should want to stop the government-subsidized 5/10,000-mile supply chain. Government-subsidized as in: favorable taxation
for fuel oil, government subsidized port facilities/roads, lax emissions regulations, lax labor laws, etc.
to throw out an unconventional thought: if you're an environmentalist/anti-climate change, you should want a trade war
That thought occurred to me too. Of course this is one of those situations in which the supply conditions support this but
the demands of the population ? Nasty situation ..People are going to have to learn (maybe the hard way via the oft-quoted "war-like
BREXIT economy on here") that lots of foodstuffs currently grown between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are simply going
to become unavailable. A 2-5 degree increase in average temperature in many of the countries there – particularly those with high
humidity – means that unless they have a LOT of energy to air condition people for large parts of the day, then human life will
be impossible – the body can't sweat enough to eliminate excess body heat if not cooled and death is inevitable. Nasty times ahead
for lots of countries in the "middle" of the planet ..and besides the (obviously) huge human cost to them, the days of producing
nice vegetables out of season for us at higher latitudes will soon be over.
But the US has eliminated the supervisor and middle managers that once ran operations like these. If we were to seek
to build some areas of manufacturing, the US would have to engage in industrial policy, which is something we do now, but only
by default, with the defense industry, financial services , health care, housing, and higher education among the favored
sectors. So given our political constraints, it's hard to see how we get there from here.
Perhaps, Trump is using the method of obliquity to get what is important to the powers that be, the fraudsters of Wall Street.
For instance, three nano seconds after the billionaire's tax cut was passed his top economic advisor, Gary Cohn
resigned , and the reason given was his opposition to the direction trade policy was going, but really,
who is dumb enough to believe that?
Quoting Trump:
"Gary has been my chief economic adviser and did a superb job in driving our agenda, helping to deliver historic tax
cuts and reforms and unleashing the American economy once again," Trump said in a statement to Times. "He is a rare talent,
and I thank him for his dedicated service to the American people."
Substitute "billionaire class" for "American people" to get closer to the truth. Gary is a venal mercenary that went to Washington
to get a jawb done.
Two of the "demands" by the US when it comes to "trade" is that intellectual property be respected and that US "companies"
operating in China be permitted to do so without the requirement to form partnerships with Chinese (CCP offshoots really) companies,
and to get there, my cynical self suspects that all peasants are nothing more than cannon fodder in this trade war so that the
fraudsters of Wall Street can go into China unfettered and loot the Chinese as much as they have looted Americans, and without
sharing a cut with Chinese "partners".
Sadly, the Europeans are key to preventing this. Only they have the purchasing power to offload China's current surplus, and
eventually proceed to an even trade relationship as the other terminus of the Belt.
I say sadly because they are the wimps of all time, and they will simply not let go of Mother America's apron strings. So at
least for my lifetime (another 20-30 years I'm expecting) things aren't going to change -- well, they will actually get worse
for the 90% in the US as well as everywhere else, but the overall state-level power dynamics will remain.
Funny also because the F35 sucks, you can barely tell where they detonated the MOAB, Elon Musk is building strange, badly-thought
out tunnels, our military is just tired, tired tired . yet still everybody cowers. What are they afraid of?
You make a good point in deriding Trump's vacillating positions as not a policy. (For comparison, Kirstjen Nielsen's consistent
behavior in having her dept. separate would be immigrant adults from children – without tracking who belongs to whom – is a policy.)
Trump's focus on domestic jobs would be an excellent, indeed, a necessary policy. Successful economic competitors in Asia and
Europe do exactly that. For Trump, however, it's not a policy, it's a talking point.
As you say, American mythology is that it has no industrial policy. The reality is that it has one, but it's written, implemented
and policed by the private sector. It does not want government to make a priority of domestic employment because it has largely
abandoned the idea as impossibly unprofitable.
In that, Elon Musk's reduction of at least 9% of his manufacturing workforce is the standard antediluvian response to management's
inability to meet its self-imposed objectives. He has decided, all evidence to the contrary, that his line workers and the processes
they are implementing are adequate to meet his objectives. They just need someone to crack the whip a tad harder.
But which jobs is Musk cutting? Largely middle management supervisors and technical staff. These are the people with manufacturing
know-how, the very people most likely to fix Musk's manufacturing-cum-quality process defects.
Musk is throwing out the people who could most help him meet his objectives. Adopting policies to which Detroit has long been
addicted will produce the consequences they always have before.
Krugman is not to be taken seriously on anything. He may actually know economic theory but he sold out so long ago that anything
he writes I dismiss out of hand as propaganda . I don't think he even has the potential to be stopped clock right about anything
. Every column is econo-babble designed to support whatever message his handlers need put out there. I think of him as the Baghdad
Bob of the economics bloggers.
As far as trade wars go I say bring it on. We have gotten so soft here in the US that everyone seems to walk around wringing
their hands and moaning all the time. My parents grew up during WW2 they had ration coupons and no passenger cars , no gasoline
, full on recycling of everything. I'd like to see some belt tightening of that sort in the here and now. I grew up in the 70's
I remember the energy crisis clearly, and people under 45 or 40 maybe literally have no clue what it means to have limitations
on basic necessities , not I can't afford the new Iphone but that it just can't be bought period.
Where ever one is in the golbal warming spectrum or the environmental spectrum personally , we just can not go on the way we
are . We need to put pressure on people to think about how they live and how they spend and what our government is doing in our
name.
many, many thing of which I do not approve, and wish to have no part of. However, in some manner I feel responsible as this
is a democracy, and I should have some influence (minuscule as it is).
The US is an oligarchy, even Princeton academics agree. Part of the way to end that problem, is seize control back from the
tyrants. My suggestion is to join the poor people's campaign, and do whatever you can do for them, whether it is protest, make
signs, or send small donations.
Don't let the oligarchs make you believe that what they do is in your name. It is not, and the only way to stop them is to
make them fear the population.
Elections won't do it – not as long as black-box voting machines and interstate cross-check ensure that the poor voice is as
quiet as possible.
I have felt for a long time that our consumption based economy is a way to keep people so self absorbed that they don't
ask too many questions .
WHEEE I got a new Iphone , instead of why are we bombing these people. Looking back I was a happier person when I had less
possessions. I don't know when the cut off point was though. I mean as a young man I did without and wanted things and then there
was a period of fuzziness and now my house is full of shit that I don't even care about.
I can remember waiting in line at a gas pump with my dad so we could go to nantasket beach. I didn't mind waiting in a hot
car for an hour because I was excited to go. Now you see a family out in a car everyone has their device and do they even care
where they are going?
In a world of plenty everything seems cheap and tawdry . Bring on the trade war , lets see people start to do without and then
realize the garbage they can't get isn't even important.
> One advantage of this tactic for Xi is that this time the numbers are on his side, as U.S. investment in China is far larger
than the reverse.
That's a really weird definition of the word "advantage". The factories and plants US companies built in China employ Chinese
workers and consist of infrastructure that exists in China. If China cracks down on those plants it's basically punching itself
in the face. Share prices for those US companies would fall, but as a working class American I honestly DGAF.
The American companies get far more revenue from their Chinese operations than their Chinese workers can get from their salaries.
So China's retaliation will disproportionately affect the revenue of these companies instead of the income of their Chinese workers.
As tempting as it is to attribute this to personality failings, I don't believe that Mr. Trump's China tantrum is geopolitical
one-upmanship. It is more likely a reaction to the annual Industrial Capabilities Report released on May 17 by the Pentagon's
Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, in parallel to a similar review being conducted internally by the White House.
The Pentagon has concluded that two decades of financially-engineered corporate concentration and out-sourcing of skilled
work to China has stripped the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex of its "organic industrial base." It appears evident that the
White House has decided that tariff barriers on China are the only way to rebuild a population of of "qualified workers to meet
current demands as well as needing to integrate a younger workforce with the 'right skills, aptitude, experience, and interest
to step into the jobs vacated by senior-level engineers and skilled technicians' as they exit the workforce."
It's good to have an 'organic industrial base.' And Chins is well aware of the Japanese Judo, which advocates using someone's
energy to do the work for you. Here, workers in the US can take advantage of the energy of the MIC to achieve the goal of making
American manufacturing and employment great again.
Mr. Market is anxious. Anxious is well short of panicked.
When was "the market" not anxious? It appears to me that fear, anxiety, is paramount. They, the market participants, are anxious
where they are making money, they are anxious when not making money, they are anxious when they have money, and they are anxious
when they don't have money.
I find myself confused and in a quandary. Is it not neoliberalism and global trade that over the past 25 years or so has
led to corporate mega-wealth and the beginning of the end of the US middle class, and the further impoverishment of the working
class? If so, then as a good progressive, should I not welcome a trade war or whatever economic change will end this global economic
tyranny? Is the skepticism or outright opposition to a trade war of so many progressives simply based on the fact taht t's being
initiated by the colossal idiot in the White House who may inadvertently be doing something beneficial?
Decimation of anti-war forces and flourishing of Russophobia are two immanent features of the US neoliberalism. As long as
the maintinace fo the US global neoliberal empire depends of weakening and, possibly, dismembering Russia it is naive to expect any
change. Russian version of soft "national neoliberalism" is not that different, in principle form Trump version of hard
"netional neoliberalism" so those leaders might have something to talk about. In other words as soon as the USA denounce
neoliberal globalization that might be some openings.
Ten ways the new US-Russian Cold War is increasingly becoming more dangerous than the one we survived.
The political epicenter of the new Cold War is not in far-away Berlin, as it was from the late 1940s on, but directly on
Russia's borders, from the Baltic states and Ukraine to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Each of these new Cold War fronts
is, or has recently been, fraught with the possibly of hot war. US-Russian military relations are especially tense today in the Baltic
region, where a large-scale NATO buildup is under way, and in Ukraine, where a US-Russian proxy war is intensifying. The "Soviet
Bloc" that once served as a buffer between NATO and Russia no longer exists. And many imaginable incidents on the West's new Eastern
Front, intentional or unintentional, could easily trigger actual war between the United States and Russia. What brought about this
unprecedented situation on Russia's borders -- at least since the Nazi German invasion in 1941 -- was, of course, the exceedingly
unwise decision, in the late 1990s, to expand NATO eastward. Done in the name of "security," it has made all the states involved
only more insecure.
Proxy wars were a feature of the old Cold War, but usually small ones in what was called the "Third World" -- in Africa,
for example -- and they rarely involved many, if any, Soviet or American personnel, mostly only money and weapons. Today's US-Russian
proxy wars are different, located in the center of geopolitics and accompanied by too many American and Russian trainers, minders,
and possibly fighters. Two have already erupted: in Georgia in 2008, where Russian forces fought a Georgian army financed, trained,
and minded by American funds and personnel; and in Syria, where in February
scores
of Russians were killed by US-backed anti-Assad forces . Moscow did not retaliate, but it has pledged to do so if there is "a
next time," as there very well may be. If so, this would in effect be war directly between Russia and America. Meanwhile, the risk
of such a direct conflict continues to grow in Ukraine, where the country's US-backed but politically failing President Petro Poroshenko
seems increasingly tempted to launch another all-out military assault on rebel-controlled Donbass, backed by Moscow. If he does so,
and the assault does not quickly fail as previous ones have, Russia will certainly intervene in eastern Ukraine with a truly tangible
"invasion." Washington will then have to make a fateful war-or-peace decision. Having already reneged on its commitments to the Minsk
Accords, which are the best hope for ending the four-year Ukrainian crisis peacefully, Kiev seems to have an unrelenting impulse
to be a tail wagging the dog of war. Certainly, its capacity for provocations and disinformation are second to none, as evidenced
again last week by the faked "assassination and resurrection" of the journalist Arkady Babchenko.
The Western, but especially American, years-long demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, is also unprecedented. Too
obvious to reiterate here, no Soviet leader, at least since Stalin, was ever subjected to such prolonged, baseless, crudely derogatory
personal vilification. Whereas Soviet leaders were generally regarded as acceptable negotiating partners for American presidents,
including at major summits, Putin has been made to seem to be an illegitimate national leader -- at best "a KGB thug," at worst a
murderous "mafia boss."
Still more, demonizing Putin has generated a
widespread Russophobic vilification
of Russia itself , or what The New York Times and other mainstream-media outlets have taken to calling "
Vladimir Putin's Russia ." Yesterday's enemy was Soviet Communism. Today it is increasingly Russia, thereby also delegitimizing
Russia as a great power with legitimate national interests. "The Parity Principle," as Cohen termed it during the preceding Cold
War -- the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations,
and symbolized by leadership summits -- no longer exists, at least on the American side. Nor does the acknowledgment that both sides
were to blame, at least to some extent, for that Cold War. Among influential American observers
who at least
recognize the reality of the new Cold War , "Putin's Russia" alone is to blame. When there is no recognized parity and shared
responsibility, there is little space for diplomacy -- only for increasingly militarized relations, as we are witnessing today.
Meanwhile, most of the Cold War safeguards -- cooperative mechanisms and mutually observed rules of conduct that evolved
over decades in order to prevent superpower hot war -- have been vaporized or badly frayed since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014,
as the
UN General Secretary António Guterres, almost alone, has recognized : "The Cold War is back -- with a vengeance but with a difference.
The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." Trump's
recent missile strike on Syria carefully avoided killing any Russians there, but here too Moscow has vowed to retaliate against US
launchers or other forces involved if there is a "next time," as, again, there may be. Even the decades-long process of arms control
may, we are told by an
expert , be coming to an "end." If so, it will mean an unfettered new nuclear-arms race but also the termination of an ongoing
diplomatic process that buffered US-Soviet relations during very bad political times. In short, if there are any new Cold War rules
of conduct, they are yet to be formulated and mutually accepted. Nor does this semi-anarchy take into account the new warfare technology
of cyber-attacks. What are its implications for the secure functioning of existential Russian and American nuclear command-and-control
and early-warning systems that guard against an accidental launching of missiles still on high alert?
Russiagate allegations that the American president has been compromised by -- or is even an agent of -- the Kremlin are
also without precedent. These allegations have had profoundly dangerous consequences, among them the nonsensical but mantra-like
warfare declaration that "Russia attacked America" during the 2016 presidential election; crippling assaults on President Trump every
time he speaks with Putin in person or by phone; and making both Trump and Putin so toxic that even most politicians, journalists,
and professors who understand the present-day dangers are reluctant to speak out against US contributions to the new Cold War.
Mainstream-media outlets have, of course, played a woeful role in all of this. Unlike in the past, when pro-détente
advocates had roughly equal access to mainstream media, today's new Cold War media enforce their orthodox narrative that Russia is
solely to blame. They practice not diversity of opinion and reporting but "confirmation bias." Alternative voices (with, yes, alternative
or opposing facts) rarely appear any longer in the most influential mainstream newspapers or on television or radio broadcasts. One
alarming result is that "disinformation" generated by or pleasing to Washington and its allies has consequences before it can be
corrected. The fake Babchenko assassination (allegedly ordered by Putin, of course) was quickly exposed, but not the alleged Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK, which led to the largest US expulsion of Russian diplomats in history before London's official version
of the story began to fall apart. This too is unprecedented: Cold War without debate, which in turn precludes the frequent rethinking
and revising of US policy that characterized the preceding 40-year Cold War -- in effect, an enforced dogmatization of US policy
that is both exceedingly dangerous and undemocratic.
Equally unsurprising, and also very much unlike during the 40-year Cold War, there is virtually no significant opposition
in the American mainstream to the US role in the new Cold War -- not in the media, not in Congress, not in the two major political
parties, not in the universities, not at grassroots levels. This too is unprecedented, dangerous, and contrary to real democracy.
Consider only the thunderous silence of scores of large US corporations that have been doing profitable business in post-Soviet Russia
for years, from fast-food chains and automobile manufacturers to pharmaceutical and energy giants. And contrast their behavior to
that of CEOs of PepsiCo, Control Data, IBM, and other major American corporations seeking entry to the Soviet market in the 1970s
and 1980s, when they publicly supported and even funded pro-détente organizations and politicians. How to explain the silence of
their counterparts today, who are usually so profit-motivated? Are they too fearful of being labeled "pro-Putin" or possibly "pro-Trump"?
If so, will this Cold War continue to unfold with only very rare profiles of courage in any high places? 9. And then there is the
widespread escalatory myth that today's Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is too weak -- its economy too small and fragile, its leader
too "isolated in international affairs" -- to wage a sustained Cold War, and that eventually Putin, who is "punching above his weight,"
as the cliché has it, will capitulate. This too is a dangerous delusion.
As Cohen has shown previously ,
"Putin's Russia" is hardly isolated in world affairs, and is becoming even less so, even in Europe, where at least five governments
are tilting away from Washington and Brussels and perhaps from their economic sanctions on Russia. Indeed, despite the sanctions,
Russia's energy industry and agricultural exports are flourishing. Geopolitically, Moscow has many military and related advantages
in regions where the new Cold War has unfolded. And no state with Russia's modern nuclear and other weapons is "punching above its
weight." Above all, the great majority of Russian people have rallied behind Putin because t
hey believe
their country is under attack by the US-led West . Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russia's history understands it is
highly unlikely to capitulate under any circumstances.
Finally (at least as of now), there is the growing war-like "hysteria" often commented on in both Washington and Moscow. It
is driven by various factors, but television talk/"news" broadcasts, which are as common in Russia as in the United States, play
a major role. Perhaps only an extensive quantitative study could discern which plays a more lamentable role in promoting this frenzy
-- MSNBC and CNN or their Russian counterparts. For Cohen, the Russian dark witticism seems apt: "Both are worst" ( Oba khuzhe
). Again, some of this American broadcast extremism existed during the preceding Cold War, but almost always balanced, even
offset, by truly informed, wiser opinions, which are now largely excluded.
Is this analysis of the dangers inherent in the new Cold War itself extremist or alarmist? Even SOME usually reticent specialists
would seem to agree with Cohen's general assessment. Experts gathered by a centrist Washington think tank
thought that on a scale of 1 to 10,
there is a 5 to 7 chance of actual war with Russia. A former head of British M16 is
reported as saying
that "for the first time in living memory, there's a realistic chance of a superpower conflict." And a respected retired Russian
general tells
the same think tank that any military confrontation "will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and
Russia."
In today's dire circumstances, one Trump-Putin summit cannot eliminate the new Cold War dangers. But US-Soviet summits traditionally
served three corollary purposes. They created a kind of security partnership -- not a conspiracy -- that involved each leader's limited
political capital at home, which the other should recognize and not heedlessly jeopardize. They sent a clear message to the two leaders'
respective national-security bureaucracies, which often did not favor détente-like cooperation, that the "boss" was determined and
that they must end their foot-dragging, even sabotage. And summits, with their exalted rituals and intense coverage, usually improved
the media-political environment needed to enhance cooperation amid Cold War conflicts. If a Trump-Putin summit achieves even some
of those purposes, it might result in a turning away from the precipice that now looms
"... The United States, the EU and Canada are preparing tariffs impacting untold billions of dollars in goods and threatening tens of millions of jobs worldwide. As the remarks of Trudeau and Trump show, US tariff threats are setting into motion an escalatory spiral of tariffs and counter-tariffs with potentially devastating consequences. ..."
"... The collapse of the G7 talks cannot be explained by the personal peculiarities of Donald Trump. Rather, this historical milestone is an expression of US imperialism's desperate attempts to resolve insoluble contradictions of world capitalism. Not only Trump, but prominent Democrats and large sections of the European media and ruling elite are all recklessly calling for trade war measures against their rivals. ..."
"... Analyzing US imperialist policy in 1928, the year before the eruption of the Great Depression, Leon Trotsky warned: "In the period of crisis, the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia or Europe itself, whether this takes place peacefully or through war." ..."
"... After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, lifting the main obstacle to US-led neo-colonial wars, Washington tried to counterbalance its economic weakness by resort to its vast military superiority. ..."
"... Over decades of bloody neo-colonial wars that killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and beyond, the United States has sought to establish a powerful military position in the oil-rich Middle East. These wars placed its forces athwart key trade and energy supply routes of its main economic rivals. ..."
"... Amid growing tensions with the US, all of the European powers are rapidly rearming. ..."
The summit issued a final communiqué papering over the conflicts, as is usual in G7
summits, condemning protectionism but making a few criticisms of the World Trade Organization
in line with US complaints. The US was expected to sign, but Trump, after listening to Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's post summit press conference while en route to Singapore for a
summit with North Korean President Kim Jong-un, fired off a volley of tweets that signaled a
comprehensive breakdown of the G7 talks.
After Trudeau said that the communiqué criticized protectionism and that Canada would
maintain its $16 billion retaliatory tariffs on US goods, the biggest Canadian tariffs since
World War II, Trump hurled invective at Trudeau, warning that he "will not allow other
countries" to impose tariffs. He accused what are nominally the closest US allies of having
targeted the US for "Trade Abuse for many decades -- and that is long enough."
In another tweet, the US president threatened a major escalation of trade war measures with
tariffs on auto imports and announced the breakdown of talks: "Based on Justin's false
statements at his news conference and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our
US farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our US Reps not to endorse the
Communiqué as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the US market!"
This is the first time since G7 summits began in 1975 -- originally as the G5 with the
United States, Japan, Germany, Britain and France -- that all the heads of state could not
agree on a communiqué.
What is unfolding is a historic collapse of diplomatic and economic relations between the
major imperialist powers. For the three quarters of a century since World War II, a broad
consensus existed internationally in the ruling class that the trade wars of the 1930s Great
Depression played a major role in triggering that war, and that trade wars should be avoided at
all costs. This consensus has now broken down.
Explosive conflict and uncertainty dominate the world economy. The United States, the EU
and Canada are preparing tariffs impacting untold billions of dollars in goods and threatening
tens of millions of jobs worldwide. As the remarks of Trudeau and Trump show, US tariff threats
are setting into motion an escalatory spiral of tariffs and counter-tariffs with potentially
devastating consequences.
The collapse of the G7 talks cannot be explained by the personal peculiarities of Donald
Trump. Rather, this historical milestone is an expression of US imperialism's desperate
attempts to resolve insoluble contradictions of world capitalism. Not only Trump, but prominent
Democrats and large sections of the European media and ruling elite are all recklessly calling
for trade war measures against their rivals.
Analyzing US imperialist policy in 1928, the year before the eruption of the Great
Depression, Leon Trotsky warned: "In the period of crisis, the hegemony of the United States
will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The
United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies
primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South
America, Australia or Europe itself, whether this takes place peacefully or through
war."
The G7 summits were launched to manage conflicts between the major powers as the industrial
and economic dominance established by US imperialism in World War II rapidly eroded, and after
Washington ended dollar-gold convertibility in 1971. Still unable to catch up to its European
and international competitors, the United States has for decades posted ever-larger trade
deficits with rivals in Europe and Asia.
After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, lifting the main
obstacle to US-led neo-colonial wars, Washington tried to counterbalance its economic weakness
by resort to its vast military superiority.
Over decades of bloody neo-colonial wars that killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria and beyond, the United States has sought to establish a powerful military position in the
oil-rich Middle East. These wars placed its forces athwart key trade and energy supply routes
of its main economic rivals.
Trump's election and his denunciations of "trade abuse" of the United States by Europe,
Japan and Canada marks a new stage in the crisis of world capitalism. Bitter US-EU divisions
are growing not only over trade, but over EU opposition to the US policy of threatening Iran
with war by ending the Iranian nuclear deal. After decades of economic crisis and neo-colonial
war, the danger is rapidly emerging of a 1930s-style disintegration of the world economy into
rival trading blocs and, as in that decade, the eruption of military conflict between them.
... ... ...
The European powers have responded to Trump with stepped-up threats of retaliatory measures.
Following the summit, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called on the European powers to
respond "together" in order to defend their "interests even more offensively."
Historically, trade war has been a precursor to military conflict. Prior to the summit,
French President Emmanuel Macron responded angrily to Trump's threatened sanctions, declaring,
"This decision is not only unlawful but it is a mistake in many respects. Economic nationalism
leads to war. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s."
Amid growing tensions with the US, all of the European powers are rapidly rearming.
Just one week before the G7 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel signalled her support for
Macron's proposal to create a joint European defence force, open to British participation and
independent of NATO.
Then Trump demanded that the other G7 members remove their "ridiculous and unacceptable"
tariffs on U.S. goods – which would be hard for them to do, because their actual tariff
rates are very low. The European Union, for example, levies an average tariff of only three
percent on US goods. Who says so? The U.S. government's own guide to exporters
.
True, there are some particular sectors where each country imposes special barriers to
trade. Yes, Canada imposes high tariffs on certain dairy products. But it's hard to make the
case that these special cases are any worse than, say, the 25 percent tariff the U.S. still
imposes on light
trucks . The overall picture is that all of the G7 members have very open markets.
So what on earth was Trump even talking about? His trade advisers have repeatedly claimed
that value-added taxes, which play an important role in many countries, are a form of unfair trade
protection . But this is sheer ignorance: VATs don't convey any
competitive advantage – they're just a way of implementing a sales tax -- which is
why they're legal under the WTO. And the rest of the world isn't going to change its whole
fiscal system because the U.S. president chooses to listen to advisers who don't understand
anything.
He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan.
I encountered the late Bernard Lewis (1916-2018) during the 1990s culture
wars, when historians and educators met full-frontal multiculturalism, a thematic force
beginning to reshape U.S. and world history curricula in schools and colleges.
The two of us shared early, firsthand experience with Islamist disinformation campaigns on
and off campus. Using sympathetic academics, curriculum officers, and educational publishers as
tools, Muslim activists were seeking to rewrite Islamic history in textbooks and state and
national standards.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, created in 1994, was complaining of anti-Muslim
"bigotry," "racial profiling," "institutional racism," and "fear-mongering," while trying to
popularize the word "Islamophobia," and stoking the spirit of ethnic injustice and prejudice in
Washington politics.
Lewis and I were of different generations, he a charming academic magnifico long associated
with Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study. He had just retired from
teaching and was widely regarded as the nation's most influential scholar of Islam. "Islam has
Allah," he said sardonically at the time. "We've got multiculturalism."
Long before I met him, Lewis had alerted those who were listening to rising friction between
the Islamic world and the West. This was, in his mind, the outcome of Islam's centuries-long
decline and failure to embrace modernity. In thinking this way, Lewis had earned the fury of
the professor and Palestinian activist Edward Said at Columbia University, who wrote
Orientalism in 1978.
Said's influential book cast previous Western studies of the Near and Middle East as
Eurocentric, romantic, prejudiced, and racist. For Said, orientalism was an intellectual means
to justify Western conquest and empire. Bernard Lewis's outlook epitomized this approach and
interpretation. Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate student Barack
Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and geopolitics as
president.
For some years, Lewis had warned of the ancient feuds between the West and Islam: in 1990
he'd
forecast a coming "clash of civilizations" in Atlantic magazine, a phrase
subsequently popularized by Harvard professor Samuel E. Huntington.
Throughout his long career, Lewis warned that Western guilt over its conquests and past was
not collateral. "In the Muslim world there are no such inhibitions," Lewis once observed. "They
are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they
want, a quality which we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength
in the one, of weakness in the other."
Other examples of Lewis's controversial, persuasive observations include:
During the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lewis suddenly gained immense political
influence, love-bombed by White House neocons Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, and other
policymakers to a degree that preyed on the old man's vanity and love of the spotlight.
Anti-war feeling in official Washington then was unpopular. Among Republicans and Democrats
alike, to assert that Israel and oil were parts of the equation appeared uncouth. Insisted the
neocons and White House: the aim of the war was to bring democratic government and regional
order to the Mideast. Rescued from despotism, Iraqis would cheer invasion, Lewis and his allies
claimed, as Afghanis welcomed relief from Taliban fundamentalists.
In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised
what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast
states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect,
had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also revealed that Lewis had long been politically
involved with Israel and a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel
Sharon.
"Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's
diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed
democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50
years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test," the Journal
proclaimed.
And so it has gone. After 15 years of many hard-to-follow shifts in policy and force, with
vast human and materiel costs, some analysts look upon U.S. policy in Iraq and the Mideast as a
geopolitical disaster, still in shambles and not soon to improve.
In other eyes Lewis stands guilty of devising a sophistic rationale to advance Israel's
security at the expense of U.S. national interests. In 2006, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer
accused Lewis of consciously providing intellectual varnish to an Israel-centered policy
group inside the George W. Bush administration that was taking charge of Mideast policies. The
same year, Lewis's reckless alarmism on Iranian nukes on behalf of Israeli interests drew
wide ridicule and contempt.
A committed Zionist, Lewis conceived of Israel as an essential part of Western civilization
and an island of freedom in the Mideast. Though, acutely aware of Islam's nature and history,
he must have had doubts about the capacity to impose democracy through force. Later, he stated
unconvincingly that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the facts of the matter point in
another direction.
Lewis thus leaves a mixed legacy. It is a shame that he shelved his learned critiques and
compromised his scholarly stature late in life to pursue situational geopolitics. With his role
as a government advisor before the Iraq war, academic Arabists widely took to calling Lewis
"the Great Satan," whereas Edward Said's favored position in academic circles is almost
uncontested.
Yet few dispute that Lewis was profoundly knowledgeable of his subject. His view that
Islamic fundamentalism fails all liberal tests of toleration, cross-cultural cooperation,
gender equality, gay rights, and freedom of conscience still holds. Most Islamic authorities
consider separation of church and state either absurd or evil. They seek to punish free
inquiry, blasphemy, and apostasy. Moreover, it is their obligation to do so under holy law.
Wearing multicultural blinders, contemporary European and American progressives pretend none of
this is so. As has been demonstrated since 2015, Europe provides opportunities for territorial
expansion, as do open-borders politics in the U.S. and Canada.
In 1990, long before his Washington adventures, Lewis wrote in the American Scholar
, "We live in a time when great efforts are being made to falsify the record of the past and to
make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties,
and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have
been."
On and off campus, Islamists today use Western progressive politics and ecumenical dreams to
further their holy struggle.
Lewis would point out that this force is completely understandable; in fact, it is a sacred
duty. What would disturb him more is that in the name of diversity, Western intellectuals and
journalists, government and corporate officials, and even military generals have eagerly
cooperated.
This article is exactly what this so-called intellectual Lewis is:
opinion.
All that's said by this Lewis guy is his opinion and his goal was hatred of Islam, therefore,
he wanted it to then have people follow along with hatred for arabs and Palestinians.
This was, of course, because then, people would keep supporting Israel!
How 'bout that?
Who are we kidding?
When talking about the history of this nation or that religion, Lewis offers mostly his
opinion and takes whatever event out of context to try to prove all this anti-Islam
rubbish. There are nations that have a majority of people of the Moslem religion, that have
different systems of government and so, we have free voting, and had for decades, in Turkey,
Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and so on.
Pakistan and Turkey had female Prime Ministers decade ago how 'bout that! And so did
Indonesia, the nation most populated by Moslems, in the word, and so did Senegal, in
Africa.
These nations are thousands of miles apart, with different languages and cultures.
What is not pointed out, but I will, since I know, is that whenever there was turmoil in an
election in a mostly Moslem populated nation, why it was the meddling by the U.S. covertly
and with bribes and trouble making.
Like when the CIA did that in Iran in 1953 after a fellow, Mosaddegh was freely elected and
he was stopped and the dictator Shah was put in.
The U.S. constantly either installed or supported anti-democratic leaders in the Middle East
and Asia.
By the way, that's how you put the subject of Edward Said- that he was a professor and a
Palestinian activist? That's it?
How come you didn't tell us readers that he is a Christian?
Lewis knows no more about the makings, origins or history of religions that do many dozens of
thousands of professors in the U.S. alone.
But, he has been is given a lot of media, and still is, because he is liked by the neo-cons.
Also, I know more than Lewis did.
dig what I'm saying
"In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined
as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified
that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect, had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also
revealed that Lewis had long been politically involved with Israel and a confidant of
successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon."
In laymen's terms, Lewis was an Israeli operative working the academic beat. His American
citizenship meant about as much to him as his earlier British citizenship had, a matter of
convenience, nothing more. Stripped of the spurious Ivy League gloss, his "scholarship" was
tendentious; it served to advance a political agenda and was consistently tainted by his
entanglements with politicians and political institutions. Circa 2018 it reads as badly
dated, often wrong, and generally wrong-headed.
I see he died a few weeks ago. Good riddance. "Intellectual father of the Iraq War" isn't
the epitaph of a decent human being.
The consensus I'm aware of is that Obama's foreign policy was just a continuation of the
foreign policy pursued by Bush during his second term. How does Obama continuing the foreign
policy positions of Bush, who was influenced by Lewis, indicate that Obama's views on the
middle east were influenced by Said? It should similarly be noted that while academics are
practically universal in siding with Said over Lewis, they did not universally support him
against other orientalists. While I'm likely butchering his claims, I seem to recall that
Robert Irwin criticized Said's Orientalism for focusing too much on Bernard Lewis, ignoring
the work of German orientalists who would complicate Said's claims about the West's portrayal
of the middle east.
I admire his spirited defense of the Western canon in literature and culture based upon
Judeo-Christian values. But he lost me when he joined forces with the campaign to blacklist
Professors John Meanshimer and Steven Walt with their book The Israel Lobby. The book
originally was an article that was expanded into their book. But because of the blacklist
against them, they coildn't ge their critique published in America and had to go to The
London Review of Books. And of course the article was smeared as anti-Semitic because it was
critical of the Israeli lobby (namely AIPAC) and its influence over our foreign policy.
"He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan."
*****************
I'm missing how vanity & supporting Israel are connected?
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and trained
it. Our purpose was not to defang Islam but to superfang it, so we could have a new enemy to
justify ever-increasing budgets and power for Deepstate.
Now that we've switched back to Russia as the official enemy, our focus on Islam is
fading.
Saying that Lewis fell prey to vanity is easier than saying he, like the rest of the neocons,
was a hypocritical ethnic chauvinist.
In other words:
"Ethnic chauvinism is a sin and a great evil, or evidence of dangerous mental illness,
except for the Zionists who you need to support uncritically and unconditionally."
One thing to remember about zionists is that many of the christian ones are expecting to
trigger the second coming once certain things come to pass and this includes geography in
that region. I grew up with that. Anyway, to them it's not reckless, it's speeding the
prophecy along to its rightful end.
Lewis' so-called analysis and historiography was politicized and deeply flawed, so much so
that he showed himself to be a bigot against Arabs and Armenians – he was a scholar of
Turkish history, who had been, wined, dined, bought and sold, and corrupted by the Turkish
and Israeli governments to serves as their genocide denialist- and of Islam, and anything
else Middle Eastern, that did not serve Israel's interests. He offered himself to the neocons
as a willing academic and did much damage by 'legitimizing' their bogus 'war on terror'.
He should not be allowed to rest in peace or escape accountability in the judgment of
history.
i guess is the question . . . to decipher the depth and scope that islam poses to the US.
There are just not that many non-Muslims shooting people over cartoons, and insults in the
name of god. I have some very fine relational dynamics with muslims, but on occasion, i can't
help but wonder which one is going take me out because i don't use the term honorable when I
say mohammed's name.
The Nt doesn't even advocate throwing stones at people who steal my coat, I am supposed to
offer up the other.
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and
trained it.
Islamic fundamentalism blighted and extinguished the lives of millions of Armenians,
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others in the first half of the 20th century, long before dumb
Westerners funded it or armed it. The fact that people in the West are clueless about this
history does not mean it did not happen.
Obama had an English class with Said as an undergrad at Columbia. So did Leon Wieseltier
years earlier, as did many other Columbia students. Interestingly enough, Wiesaltier remained
an aggressive zionist. The claim that Said had any effect upon Obama's foreign policy ideas;
policies; or actions is profoundly silly.
To support your claim that "Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate
student Barack Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and
geopolitics as president," you need a great deal more evidence. Currently, you have none.
Islamic fundamentalism was created and funded by Israel and the US to compete with the then
Marxist PLO and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.You thought Marxist terrorism was
problematic,look at Islamic terrorism.
Looks like Trump adopted Victoria Nuland "Fuck the EU" attitude ;-). There might be nasty
surprises down the road as this is uncharted territory: destruction of neoliberal
globalization.
Trump proved to be a really bad negotiator. he reduced the USA to a schoolyard bully who
beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
As the owner of world reserve currency the USA is able to tax US denominated transactions both via conversion fees and
inflation. As long as the USA has dollar as a reserve currency the USA has so called "exorbitant priviledge" : "In the
Bretton Woods system put in place in
1944, US dollars were convertible to gold. In France, it was called "America's
exorbitant privilege"[219]
as it resulted in an "asymmetric financial system" where foreigners "see themselves supporting American living standards and
subsidizing American multinationals"."... "De Gaulle openly criticised the
United States intervention in Vietnam and the "exorbitant
privilege" of the United States dollar. In his later years, his support for the slogan "Vive
le Québec libre" and his two vetoes of Britain's entry into the
European Economic
Community generated considerable controversy." Charles de Gaulle -
Wikipedia
Notable quotes:
"... Errrr, that so-called "piggy bank' just happens to; ..."
"... have the world's reserve currency ..."
"... dominates the entire planet militarily since the end of the Cold War ..."
"... dictates "regime change" around the world ..."
"... manipulates and controls the world's entire financial system, from the price of a barrel to every financial transaction in the SWIFT system. ..."
"... And Trump has the ignorance, the arrogance and the audacity to be pleading 'poverty?' ..."
"We had productive discussion on having fair and reciprocal" trade and market access.
"We're linked in the great effort to create a more just and prosperous world. And from the
standpoint of trade and creating more prosperous countries, I think they are starting to be
committed to more fair trade. We as a nation lost $870 billion on trade...I blame our leaders
and I congratulate leaders of other countries for taking advantage of our leaders."
"If they retaliate they're making a tremendous mistake because you see we have a
tremendous trade imbalance...the numbers are so much against them, we win that war 1000 times
out of a 1000."
"We're negotiating very hard, tariffs and barriers...the European Union is brutal to the
United States....the gig is up...there's nothing they can say."
"We're like the piggy bank that everybody's robbing."
"I would say the level of relationship is a ten - Angela, Emmanuel and Justin - we have a very good relationship. I won't
blame these people, unless they don't smarten up and make the trades fair."
Trump is now making the 20-hour flight to Singapore, where he will attend a historic summit with North Korea leader Kim Jong
Un. We'll now keep our eye out for the finalized communique from the group. The US is typically a leader in the crafting of the
statement. But this time, it's unclear if the US had any input at all into the statement, as only the leaders from Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan as well as the presidents of the European Commission and European Council remain at the
meeting. But regardless of who writes it, the statement will probably be of little consequence, as UBS points out:
Several heads of state will be heading off on a taxpayer-financed "mini-break" in Canada today. In all of its incarnations
(over the past four years, we've gone from G-8 to G-6+1) the group hasn't really accomplished much since an initial burst of
enthusiasm with the Plaza Accords and Louvre Accords in the 1980s.
By the way, Trump is right on the tariffs in my view, Europeans should lower their tariffs
and not having the US raising it.
Trump: "We're The Piggy Bank That Everybody's Robbing"
Isn't Trump great in catch phrases? Trump's base will now regurgitate it to death.
Now reconcile Trump's remarks with reality:
Professor Werner: Germany is for instance not even allowed to receive delivery of US
Treasuries that it may have purchased as a result of the dollars earned through its current
account surplus: these Treasuries have to be held in custody by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, a privately owned bank: A promise on a promise. At the same time, German influence
over the pyramid structure of such promises has been declining rapidly since the abolition of
the German currency and introduction of the euro, controlled by an unaccountable
supranational international agency that cannot be influenced by any democratic assembly in
the eurozone. As a result, this structure of one-sided outflows of real goods and services
from Germany is likely to persist in the short and medium-term.
To add insult to injury:
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist
organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the
movement's funds.
Okay, everyone set your "team" aside for a few minutes and let's look at the facts and
reality.
Do you really believe the rest of the world has trade advantages over the US? Well, let's
consider major industries.
Agriculture.....maybe, but only sightly. Our farmers are the richest in the workd....by
far.
Manufacturers.....probably so....because we gave it away to countries with slave labor.
Manufacturers jobs were jobs where people could earn a decent living...and that had to
go..can't be cutting into corporate profits with all that high cost labor.
Defense.....need I go here? We spend more than the next 11 countries combined! We sell
more as well.
Energy.....we rule thus space because we buy it with worthless printed fiat
debt...whenever we want to....and nd if you deny us, we will bomb the hell out of you and
take it.
Technology. ....Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, Amazon, Oracle, Dell, Cisco.....who can
touch that line up....not to mention all the on-line outfits like Facebook and Twitter.
Finance.....the best for last. We control the printing press that prints the dollar the
rest of the world needs. We control energy and foreign policy. Don't do what we like and we
will cut you off from SWIFT and devalue the hell out of your currency...and then move in for
the "regime" change to some one who plays ball the way we like it. 85% of all international
trade takes place in dollars everyday. We have the biggest banks, Wall Street, and infest the
world with our virus called the dollar so that we can Jeri their chain at will.
Now I ask you....just where the hell is the "trade imbalances"? Sure there are some
companies or job sectors that get a raw deal because our politicians give some foreigners
unfair trade advantages here and there, but as a whole, we dominate trade by far. The poor in
our country lives like kings compared to 5.5 billion of the world's population. Trump knows
this.....or he is stupid. He is pandering to his sheeple voting base that are easily duped
into believing someone is getting what is their's.
Hey, I am thankful to be an American and enjoy the advantages we have. But I am not going
to stick my head up Trump's ass and agree with this bullshit. It is misdirection (corporate
America and politicians are the problem here, not foreign countries) and a major distraction.
Because all the trade in the world isn't going to pull us out of this debt catastrophe that's
coming.
But, if we cut through all the verbiage, we will arrive at the elephant in the room.
American manufacturing jobs have been off-shored to low wage countries and the jobs which
have replaced them are, for the most part, minium wage service jobs. A man cannot buy a
house, marry and raise a family on a humburger-flippers wage. Even those minimum wage jobs
are often unavailable to Americans because millions of illegal aliens have been allowed into
the country and they are undercutting wages in the service sector. At the same time, the
better paid positions are being given to H-1B visa holders who undercut the American worker
(who is not infrequently forced to train his own replacement in order to access his
unemployment benefits.)
As the above paragraph demonstrates the oligarchs are being permitted to force down
American wages and the fact that we no longer make, but instead import, the things we need,
thus exporting our wealth and damaging our own workers is all the same to them. They grow
richer and they do not care about our country or our people. If they can make us all into
slaves it will suit them perfectly.
We need tariffs to enable our workers to compete against third world wages in countries
where the cost-of-living is less. (American wages may be stagnating or declining but our
cost-of-living is not declining.) We need to deport illegal aliens and to stop the flow of
them over our borders. (Build the wall.) We need to severely limit the H-1B visa programme
which is putting qualified Americans out of work. (When I came to the US in 1967 I was
permitted entry on the basis that I was coming to do a job for which there were not enough
American workers available. Why was that rule ever changed?)
You are making my point. China didn't "off shore" our jobs....our politicians and
corporations did. You can't fix that by going after other countries. You fix that by
penalizing companies for using slave labor workers from other countries. Tariffs are not
going to fix this. They will just raise prices on everyone.
I can't believe you Trumptards can't see this! Once again we will focus on a symptom and
ignore the real problem. Boy, Trump and his buddies from NYC and DC have really suffered
because of unfair trade practices, right? Why can't you people see that "government is the
problem" and misdirection your attention to China, Canada, Germany, Mexico, or whomever is
just that....misdirection.
I would tax the shit out of companies like Apple that make everything overseas with slave
labor and then ship it in here to sell to Americans at ridiculous prices.
Plenty of down votes but no one has proven that I am wrong on one point.
The EU countries have free college, health care, day care and just about everything else.
All paid for because they have no military spending.
It's all on the backs of the US tax payer. Or the fed, if you prefer.
Trump is working both angles. Forcing them to pay for their own defense. Forcing them to
allow US products with no trade disadvantages. Go MAGA and fuck the EU.
"Once you get the genie out of the bottle, you cannot predict what will happen," says
Mohamed Kamal, a political science professor at Cairo University and a member of the
influential Policies Secretariat in the ruling National Democratic Party. "When you use a
religious discourse, no one can counter your argument or argue against you," he says. "In that
case, you'll be arguing against Islam and against the Koran. You'll no longer be a political
opponent. Rather, you'll be an infidel."" Shadid
Salman Rushdie recently wrote that the time is ripe for a transforming "Reformation" within
Islam. He said that the time had come for Muslims to see their revelation as occurring within
history rather than above it. Rushdie is probably more directly interested in the possibility
of this kind of Reform than most people since he has been the target of several "fatwas"
declaring him to be outside Islam, an "apostate" and therefore not protected from the wrath of
the Believers.
One might ask if his opinion in this matter is shared by many of the Believers, especially
since the opinion is his. There have been any number of attempts in Islamic history to place
Islam on a more "rationalist" and less "pietist" course. In the first centuries of Islam, one
of the most powerful competing schools of philosophy, theology and law in the Abbasid Caliphate
of Baghdad was that of the "Mu'taziliin" (my own peculiar transliteration). They sought to
relate the message of the Revelation to the knowledge they had acquired of classical
Hellenistic and Byzantine learning through their conquests. For a time they prospered, and
there was at least one Caliph who was a member of their school of thinking. Then, the forces of
reaction came to the fore, the "Mu'taziliin" were overthrown with much bloodshed, crucifixions,
beheading etc, and "pietism" became the guiding force of Sunni Islam and has remained such to
this day. Oddly enough, the thinking of the "Mu'taziliin" survives only among the Zaidi Shia of
Yemen and in Indonesia. As I mentioned, there have any number of attempts at reform, some of
them claiming large numbers of adherents, and having the protection of princes lucky enough to
live beyond the reach of majority opinion. All of them failed in the end. As a result, Sunni
Islam remains a faith so closely wedded to scripture, precedent and a consensus of conformity
that it has changed little in form or doctrine in a thousand years. It is not surprising that
pious Muslims still speak of the Crusades, they are still living in the mindset of that time.
Some will argue that we are as well. I think not.
The recent American wars against what is euphemistically called "Islamic Extremism" have
placed Islam under great stress. The survival and prosperity of the Islamic Community is always
at the front of the minds of Muslims. The level of pressure and violence against Jihadis is
seen by a lot of Muslims as something that threatens to spill over into a general hostility to
Muslims. This frightens them. As a result, there is now great ferment among the 'Ulema
(scholars) of the Sunni world to include such centers of fermentation as al-Azhar and
al-Zeituna in Cairo and Tunis respectively. The relevant discussion there seek a new consensus
(Ijma') centered around the question of what it means to be a Muslim in the 21st Century CE.
What could be a more important question?
Are the "moderate" Islamists of the type described in this article also seekers for a
"reasonable" answer to the same question or are they just "shamming" in order to reach power so
that they can impose their constipated view of religion and law on the unfortunate inhabitants
of Islamic countries? There are a lot of Islamists (both Sunni and Shia) who wear nice, Western
clothes. A lot of them are "shamming." The goal of every Islamist I ever met was ultimately to
impose Sharia law. Those of you who were trained in anthropology know the difference betwee
"Emic," and Etic" knowledge. This distinction is particularly important in this case.
Let us not be so foolish as to believe what they say of themselves. Let us find the truth
before we accept their words.
"... Back to Turkey. The largest net backstabbing of Turkish economy could be the slowdown of investments from the Gulf, where Erdogan bravely sided with Qatar. Erdogan engineered de facto confiscation of media assets owned by tycoons sympathetic to the opposition, to be purchased by Qataris, now Qatar is to Turkey what Adelson is to Israel. ..."
"... Add the effect of Iran sanctions -- it increased prices of oil and gas, but no associated increase the demand from the Gulf, on the northern shore there is a prospect of tightened belts, on the southern shore anti-Turkish policies, and Qatar alone is too small ..."
...Rusal,
the dominant aluminum maker in Russia recently was sanctioned by USA, while a while ago it
gained control of a large portion of alumina production -- aluminum ore, bauxite, has to be
processed into more pure feedstock for smelting factories, called alumina. Now aluminum
producers in many areas, notably, Europe, have a shortage of alumina that may lead to
mothballing of some smelters; the largest alumina facility in Europe is in Ireland and it is
owned by Rusal. Perhaps great for American smelter owners, but there has to be some teeth
gnashing in Europe.
Back to Turkey. The largest net backstabbing of Turkish economy could be the slowdown of
investments from the Gulf, where Erdogan bravely sided with Qatar. Erdogan engineered de facto
confiscation of media assets owned by tycoons sympathetic to the opposition, to be purchased by
Qataris, now Qatar is to Turkey what Adelson is to Israel.
Siding with Qatar would eliminate
investments from KSA and UAE, and draconian treatment of Saudi princes and other tycoons
probably led to their assets being under the control of the Crown Prince.
This is not
particularly recent, but financial markets tend to have delayed fuse. Add the effect of Iran
sanctions -- it increased prices of oil and gas, but no associated increase the demand from the
Gulf, on the northern shore there is a prospect of tightened belts, on the southern shore
anti-Turkish policies, and Qatar alone is too small.
Plus Erdogan himself promised to "pay more
attention to Turkish central bank", and justifiably or not, that is a very strong sell signal
for the currency.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister
Theresa May have agreed in phone talks that the European Union should be ready to defend its
trade interests if the United States takes any trade measures against the bloc, the German
government said Sunday.
"The chancellor also spoke with the president [Macron] and the prime minister [May] on trade
relations with the United States. They agreed that the United States should not take
trade-linked measures against the European Union and that, otherwise, the European Union should
be ready to defend its interests within the framework of the multilateral trading system," the
statement read.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history
and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris
climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve
and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than
yesterday. For the world he celebrates is receding into history. The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into
an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest
beneficiaries -- the EU. Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China
is exempt. As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have
plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But
does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic
methods and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive nationalisms that deny our history." Did Macron
not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration how the Americans acquired all that land? General
Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America's ties to the nation
under which he was born. How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico,
and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British,
French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes? Was it not nationalism that broke
up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem
and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the "suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence
from the Russian Federation. "Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron. Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now
194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem? "Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism
that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and
eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing
a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game:
dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them from third-world countries
that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into
what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the
presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent
power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and
16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
Support of Trump strikes after false flag in Douma characterizes him as neocon and imperialist.
Notable quotes:
"... I know nothing of France, but that Macron fellow seems to be a pure-blooded little weasel. ..."
"... His Rothschild past is well-know, his weasel-like behavior with Trump and Mayhem is typical, he cleverly outmaneuvered the electorate to put his "new party" in power, full of unknowns, after manipulating the weak "socialist" Hollande in the previous government. ..."
"... His domestic policy is to privatise everything, remove the rights workers have gained over the last 70 years, get rid of 120000 jobs (as if others have not tried this for 200 years in France, and it has not helped!) and to do it quickly before people can follow each step. ..."
Bashar was compelled to return to Syria and become the nominal political leader after the death of his very tough, ruthless
father, Hafez al-Assad.
The other day I saw a passing reference to something I'd never before known – that Richard Nixon paid a state visit to Damascus
to see that ruthless father. I was gratified the author mentioned the Bushie use of Syria as a place to torture people. Both the
Nixon visit and the routine torture transactions with Syria show that "we" were ok with Syrian dictators – just as we were with
all those other dictators coddled by the US.
But when Holy Israel finally gets around to setting up Land Grab #3, suddenly Assad is an obstacle.
France To Revoke Major Award From Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad Briana Koeneman , Katherine Biek Apr 17, 2018
The Legion of Honor is France's highest award. It's presented to citizens who have "demonstrated outstanding merits in the
service of the nation, in a military or a civilian capacity." .
.
.
The move comes just days after France, Britain and the U.S. launched military strikes on targets in Syria in response to the
reported chemical attack. Syria has denied any involvement in the alleged attack.
Genuine Hero Assad suddenly become dirtbag Assad. Except for his success in defeating the latest NATO aggression, what had
changed? I know nothing of France, but that Macron fellow seems to be a pure-blooded little weasel.
Micron(sic) has nothing to recommend him but deviousness. His Rothschild past is well-know, his weasel-like behavior with
Trump and Mayhem is typical, he cleverly outmaneuvered the electorate to put his "new party" in power, full of unknowns, after
manipulating the weak "socialist" Hollande in the previous government.
His domestic policy is to privatise everything, remove the rights workers have gained over the last 70 years, get rid of
120000 jobs (as if others have not tried this for 200 years in France, and it has not helped!) and to do it quickly before people
can follow each step.
If the workers do not work together, not only the railways, but the rest of public services, will go and we'll be as
bad as the USA, which Micron (sic) obviously admires.
We did not know of his likely international delusions of grandeur, but nothing would surprise me now.
backwardsevolution , April 21, 2018 at 9:18 pm
rosemerry – good post. I read where Macron's election team was composed of some of the same Americans that got Obama elected.
They just hopped on a plane and repeated the process in France.
"... In asserting that the EU was primarily formed to divert financial gains from the US, Trump promised that what he termed "disastrous trade deals" would stop, as he was going to personally "take on" the economic European powerhouse, as well as China, the largest economy in Asia and the second largest economy in the world. ..."
As the US president struggles at home with a legislature and judiciary increasingly
unwilling to do his bidding, new bluster and threats of a trade war with other nations appear
to have become Trump's rallying cry to the faithful. US President Donald Trump, at a meeting of
his followers in Michigan on Saturday, suggested that his administration would do everything
within its power to shift what the White House terms Washington DC's trade imbalance with the
European Union, and hinted darkly that Americans must prepare for a bumpy and uncomfortable
ride, according to RT.
In asserting that the EU was primarily formed to divert financial gains from the US,
Trump promised that what he termed "disastrous trade deals" would stop, as he was going to
personally "take on" the economic European powerhouse, as well as China, the largest economy in
Asia and the second largest economy in the world.
At a carefully curated supporters-only promotional speaking event in Michigan, the
strikingly unpopular US leader claimed that EU trade policies existed only "to take advantage
of the United States," cited by RT.
The US president warned of tough economic times for residents of the wealthiest country on
earth, declaring that, "In short term you may have to take some problems, long term -- you're
going to be so happy."
In keeping with an ongoing talking point repeatedly used by the president, Trump blamed
previous US administrations for the issues he describes as problems.
"I don't blame them," the US president declared -- referring to those nations with which he
seeks to engage in trade wars -- adding, "I blame past presidents and past leaders of our
country."
A May 1 deadline has been implemented for the March 1 Trump ultimatum to various nations --
including China and the EU -- to either curb aluminum and steel exports to the US or face
sharply-increased import taxes.
The ultimatum triggered a speedy global backlash alongside threats of retaliation from
China, the EU, and most other nations.
At a meeting of EU members in Sofia on Saturday, Belgian Finance Minister Johan Van
Overtveldt noted that Trump's strong-arm tactics will backfire, adding that trade wars are a
no-win scenario over the long term.
"A trade war is a losing game for everybody," Van Overtveldt observed.
The same for the un-elected Mandarins in Brussels. They are a real swamp. Lazy, clueless, overpaid and greedy still. They are
powerhungry despite their tremendous lack of any political clout.
Vasalls through blackmail by 3 letter agencies?
The same for german Mrs. Merkel. Being a german citizen, I am ashamed of thus woman and her orwellian ,politics'.
Today, the former CEO of Thyssen-Krupp, Prof. Dr. Dieter Spethmann, a lawyer, called for her urgent removal from the job by publishing
an Open Letter in mmnews (a blog).
With just days left until the May 1 deadline when a temporary trade waiver expires and the
US steel and aluminum tariffs kick in, and after last-ditch attempts first by Emmanuel Macron
and then Angela Merkel to win exemptions for Europe fell on deaf ears, the European Union is
warning about the costs of an imminent trade war with the US while bracing for one to erupt in
just three days after the White House signaled it will reject the bloc's demand for an
unconditional waiver from metals-import tariffs .
"A trade war is a losing game for everybody," Belgian Finance Minister Johan Van Overtveldt
told reporters in Sofia where Europe's finance ministers have gathered. " We should stay cool
when we're thinking about reactions but the basic point is that nobody wins in a trade war so
we try to avoid it at all costs. "
Well, Trump disagrees which is why his administration has given Europe, Canada and other
allies an option: accept quotas in exchange for an exemption from the steel and aluminum
tariffs that kick on Tuesday, when the temporary waiver expires. "We are asking of everyone:
quotas if not tariffs," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Friday. This, as
Bloomberg points out , puts the EU in the difficult position of either succumbing to U.S.
demands that could breach international commerce rules, or face punitive tariffs.
Forcing governments to limit shipments of goods violates World Trade Organization rules,
which prohibit so-called voluntary export restraints. The demand is also contrary to the
entire trade philosophy of the 28-nation bloc, which is founded on the principle of the free
movement of goods.
Adding to the confusion, while WTO rules foresee the possibility of countries taking
emergency "safeguard" measures involving import quotas for specific goods, such steps are rare,
must be temporary and can be legally challenged. The EU is demanding a permanent, unconditional
waiver from the U.S. tariffs.
Meanwhile, amid the impotent EU bluster, so far only South Korea has been formally spared
from the duties, after reaching a deal last month to revise its bilateral free-trade agreement
with the U.S.
Europe, on the other hand, refuses to reach a compromise, and according to a EU official,
"Trump's demands to curb steel and aluminum exports to 90 percent of the level of the previous
two years are unacceptable." The question then is whether Europe's retaliatory move would be
painful enough to deter Trump and lift the sanctions: the official said the EU's response would
depend on the level of the quotas after which the punitive tariffs would kick in; meanwhile the
European Commission continues to "stress the bloc's consistent call for an unconditional,
permanent exclusion from the American metal levies."
"In the short run it might help them solve their trade balance but in the long run it will
worsen trade conditions," Bulgarian Finance Minister Vladislav Goranov said in Sofia. "The
tools they're using to make America great again might result in certain mistakes because free
world trade has proven to be the best solution for the development of the world so far."
Around the time of his meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron made it clear that the EU
is not afraid of an escalating trade war and will not be intimidated, saying " we won't talk
about anything while there's a gun pointed at our head. "
He may change his opinion once Trump fires the first bullet.
Adding to Europe's disappointment, during her visit to the White House on Friday, Angela
Merkel said she discussed trade disputes with Trump and that she failed to win a public
commitment to halt the tariffs.
Meanwhile, Merkel's new bffs over in France are also hunkering down in preparation for a
lengthy conflict. French economy minister Bruone Le Maire told his fellow European bureaucrats
Sofia during a discussion on taxation: "One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with
President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength."
Coming from the French, that observation is as accurate as it is delightfully ironic.
And now the real question is who has the most to lose from the imminent Transatlantic trade
war, and will surrender first.
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of
aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism,"
invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home
to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are
the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron
seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment
to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its
own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits,
and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.
Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States
from which China is exempt.
As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the
scores of billions we have plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de
Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits,
Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods
and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive
nationalisms that deny our history."
Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration
how the Americans acquired all that land?
General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought
for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.
How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas
from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went
about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive
British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker
indigenous tribes?
Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West
Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive
nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the
"suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.
"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.
Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the
original 50. Is this a problem?
"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism
and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and
tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd
will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a
multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe
means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming
madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they
love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost
all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is
foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy
Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left
will have a lock on the presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of
altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is
extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will
come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a
despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars.
Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.
European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good
thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good
thing.
The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with
white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and
happiness.
While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance,
multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the
past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be
uninvented.
I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West.
The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to
acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at
their home countries.
Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community
gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally,
philosophically, spiritually and creatively.
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a
Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in
Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel
(more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining
in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a
mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:
"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade
deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."
President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and
technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU,
it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting
force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.
The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign
policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to
protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world
stage.
Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether
he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the
American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is
gone.
I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions,
that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly
ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such
thoughts.
Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO
unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try
to balance the scales.
Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My
own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have
lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my
parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not
too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That
shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be
totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights,
language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on
minorities.
That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly
turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread.
You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory
that contains vast farmlands.
Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the
precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed
itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.
The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were
completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals
tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.
No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their
hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?
You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But
one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides
which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local
market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out,
and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and
contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.
Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was
lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and
_conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal,
even among the sainted rubes who raised me.
Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting
society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople,
that's a fact.
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:
I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances,
just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't
mine, though.
If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find
familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very
familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving
to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the
average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know
yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no
college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.
Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them,
actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite
understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own
eyes.
"... The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods. ..."
"... Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles. ..."
"... Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different. ..."
"... The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government. ..."
"... The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom. ..."
"... As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance. ..."
"... This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden. ..."
"... Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags. ..."
When globalists speak publicly about a "new world order" they are speaking about something
very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion
that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a
directed and engineered vision - a world built according to their rules, not a world that
evolved naturally according to necessity.
There are other names for this engineered vision, including the "global economic reset," or
the more general and innocuous term "globalism," but the intention is the same.
The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic
and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of
international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a
delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more
objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a
world where administrators become gods.
Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course . Human
beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given
totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add
to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly
narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level
centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken
people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.
It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high
minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of
seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these
"humanitarians" only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding
off them for as long as time allows.
There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the
narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick
out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are
designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and
less freedom.
Let's examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for
globalization and a "new world order"
Con #1: Globalism Is About "Free Markets"
A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but
decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my
view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is
not possible.
Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide
open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without
interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under
globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to
international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government
financial aid.
The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith's original premise of free market
trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as
outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of
this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources
when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and
entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.
In terms of international trade being "free trade," this is not really the case either. Only
massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of
international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success.
Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical
because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a
century. What we have today is something entirely different.
Con #2: Globalism Is About A "Multipolar World"
This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of
the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the
dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the
globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.
For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve
and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into
mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the
so-called "deep state," which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.
The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the
world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for
International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western
government.
Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and
globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one
world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a
mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more
involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the
IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty
movement.
So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a "good
thing" because it will result in "decentralization," a "multi-polar" world order and the
"death" of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist
edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise. We are moving from centralization to
super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty
movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled)
and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind
of decentralized paradise.
Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It
If there's one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it's humanity's natural
tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be
turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations
(tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and
threats.
On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because
tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of
ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a "one world ideology" very
difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against
ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore
have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social
evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual
doom.
Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely.
This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and "populist" ideals. Engineered war,
whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now
on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against
negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in
which all separation is deemed "evil."
Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable
As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can
convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end
in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world
order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint
that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread
resistance.
This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of
civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of
globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to
this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken
of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives
almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the
food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.
Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that
globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence
that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and
through false flags.
We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great
uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own
solutions? Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed
to us by the establishment? Make no mistake -- the globalists already have a solution
prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for
decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but
eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding,
but ignorance.
When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull
out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a
tangible and ever present hell.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
While the U.S. has intentionally kept it trade wide open with China, China has stolen trillions over the last 20 years in intellectual
property, including military technology. It has kept its markets tightly controlled and/or closed while the U.S. has made China
rich. Today China has a 1/2 Trillion trade surplus, is still stealing our intellectual property, and still keeps its markets tightly
controlled and mostly closed and under Chinese control. That might be ok if the goal of making China richer, a member of the world
community, and peaceful had worked, but it has not.
China is a hegemon using its wealth to grow its military, build up military forces in international sea lanes like the South China
sea, and bullying its neighbors like India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and others while also supporting the Ballistic Nuclear missile
program of NK. Its time for the USA to realize that China is an adversary, not because we want it that way, but because China
sees itself that way. And its time to stop letting an adversary use us, and steal from us, to further its imperial/hegemonic aggressive
ambitions. Apple can make iPhones in Vietnam, the Philippines, and India as cheaply as in China. Let's stop the theft, and shift
the flow of our money to the countries China is bullying like the Philippines, India, Vietnam, as well as more modern allies like
Taiwan and Japan. Let's make India rich, rather than let China continue to steal from us. Let China figure out how to keep hundreds
of millions of Chinese employed from that 1/2 Trillion surplus employed. Keep in mind a richer Vietnam and India with improved
ties with the USA and increasing wealth helped by the USA both border China. China still has time to play fair and leave the path
of hegemony and aggression, but everything point to the fact that they would rather be our adversary than our friend. So we have
to wake up and smell the coffee of that reality and move forward with our eyes open. Thank God Trump isn't sticking his head in
the sand like Bush, and especially weak, worthless, appeasing Obama.
typical trump supporter, can't even do simple arithmetic. on paper the US calculates the trade deficit to be $347 billion not
the half a trillion figure your lying president so often vomits out.
btw if moving production line to another country is so easy you people would've done it ages ago. but they're still in China,
why is that I wonder, since south east asia and india has much much lower wage than China, why dont the brilliant accountants
at Apple tell their CEO to move their production lines? =)
US Trade Deficit with China (2017) is $375.2B/year.
https://www.census.gov/fore... Moving a Production is easy. Moving a production line while improving productivity is very
hard. The US elites found it easier to move production lines overseas to take advantage of low-cost labor. In the alternative
they could have improve productivity so the US could produce the goods in question at competitive prices. That was the US history
from 1935 to 1985. Changing production processes entails risks, you could create competitors who might displace you. Moving a
standard process overseas gave you a cost advantage and increased the US elite 1% share of income from 10% GDP to 22% of GDP.
The benefits of competive destruction now flow to the Chinese. They Globalized Labor to reduce the power of the US working and
middle classes. See Blyth:
https://www.youtube.com/wat... (around 3:00 Min).
What stops China from IP rights violation now? In fact, this is an incentive to go to town with it. China has excess capacity
there is no way to halt production. China's challenge is to find markets. For instance, if they sell a product to a US owner at
$40 a piece where the US owner sells it to consumers at $900, China can sell it direct to consumers at $500 (or even $50) and
be better off. This is what will happen. Consumers outside USA will be able to buy US goods at a fraction of the price and with
time there will be importers in USA who will use third parties to import these to USA clandestinely. Why should US consumers pay
more anyway!
Talking about stealing who can compete with the whites in this game.
Pls go visit museums and galleries in London, Paris and other European capitals to see how much had been looted and stolen from
China, Asia, Arab world and Africa in the last 500.
The essentials of what Mr Brown wrote are that China got rich trading, got richer stealing IP, and spends riches on militarily
expanding with the stated goal of excluding the U.S. Navy west or south of Guam. From the perspective of an American of any political
variety, would you rather the U.S. observe this trend continuing or act to stop the IP theft and military challenge?
The best approach is go with fully reciprocal tariffs and restructure international trade around Warren Buffet's idea of a
market for Import Certificates based on US exports. This would automatically balance trade (an Import Certificate based on exports
is needed for any Import), provide a rules-based approach (vs. bureaucratic), and thus block massive rent-seeking around Trade
Policy. It would dampen potential trade wars because the focus is on reciprocity, balancing trade and not on tariffs to constantly
reduce imports. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... and
http://thehill.com/blogs/co... We can (perhaps) back off reciprocal trade when we better understand free-markets and can identify
nations who practice this freedom.
There is a reason why China carries a huge trade surplus against USA - Americans have benefitted Chinese cheaper goods and
services (than trying to procure them from other sources). They will pay more for the same service. This will reduce their savings
and increase borrowings. China progressively dumps the US dollar in petroleum purchases which will devalue the USD. This will
make imports even more expensive for Americans. China will devalue its currency again to overcome the tarrif impact.
The worlds largest market for commercial aircraft and Trump just put Boeing out of contention. Betcha Trump gets a yuuuugh
campaign contribution from Airbus on the condition he starts a trade war with the second biggest market of airliners, India, as
well.
China has been preparing for a trade war with the USA for some time. The belt/road project and petroyuan are 2 such projects
looking to build trade relations that bypass the USA altogether. It won't be that difficult for China to find markets for TV's,
dollar store plastic and consumer appliances. I'm sure it will hurt but there are other markets for their products.
Try finding another market for Boeing Dreamliners .... all those high paying specialized jobs. The good news is that with this
trade war markets open up for consumer appliances which Boeing can fill ..... the bad news is the stealth toasters they make will
cost $250,000, will only be operational one day a week as long as it isn't raining and you won't be able to find it on that day
because it's a stealth toaster.
Doesn't matter about finding another market for Dreamliners .. So your implying its ok for China to rip us off and we just
take it. Boeing has done well these last few years.. Boeing plans to increase 737 production to 57 aircraft a month not counting
the 767, 777 and 787. China drops their orders there are customers right behind them to take their slot on the line.
The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state. Why should they spend the billions
in R&D when they can just wait it out, crack their market open a small bit, then take or steal the property with no recourse from
the owner. Once they have that IP they set up another business putting the original business into bankruptcy.
China is playing an economic war to win. Trump plans to win...
"The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state."
If that's a condition of the contract why do US companies agree to the contract?
I have a lot of experience negotiating contracts with US firms. The US businesses I've dealt with have always sought favourable
terms to the extent that I really don't like doing business with them.
When I see terms in a contract I can't live with I walk away ..... and I've done it a lot. Now you're trying to tell me US
businesses were coerced into signing contracts that forced them to give away intellectual property?
I don't believe that for a moment.
I have a dozen stories of guys getting screwed over because they didn't bother with the details of a contract. If you are that
naive you take your lumps and if you're smart you learn from it.
What you don't do is keep signing the same agreements that has technology transfers in the terms then cry foul after doing
it for thirty or forty years.
The way I see it technology transfer was likely seen by the Chinese as part of the overall compensation. You got the product
made for a killer price on the condition you tell them how to make it themselves.
You should know that no one works for nothing. If you're getting an unbelievably good price look at the fine print.
Given who your president is, the business he's in and his reputation as a business man I have a pretty good idea what he's
really up to with this tactic and it might play well to the peanut gallery but the Chinese are not going to be played so easily
Most developing countries require some level of technology transfer before they permit foreign firms to operate inside their
borders. It's their only way of avoiding becoming commercial colonies of countries like the US. If firms don't like it, the solution
is as you suggest: they can decline to set up in foreign countries and simply export finished products made in their home country.
Lots of multinational firms have legitimate grievances against the Chinese government for being lax in policing and prosecuting
copyright laws. Fake prestige brand fashion, handbags, cell phones and the like, made in China, are openly sold throughout Asia.
But the crap about 'intellectual property theft' is nonsense.
There is no such thing as FAIR trade among vastly unequal economies. China has a billion citizens (an endless supply of cheap
labor). China is a major polluter (not limited like the US is with it's EPA). The laws concerning wages, working-hours, over-time,
workman's compensation, safety, pensions don't compare between economies. Thus, the US is at a severe competitive disadvantage.
China plays dirty on top of their already significant economic advantages. FAIR trade between China and the US is a fairy-tale.
I support Trump. China is not our friend.
Industrial revolution and consequently polution lasted for decades in west before China jumped into the game. So your "carbon
footprint" is much higher cumulatevely than China's. Also you don't complain about countries like Bangladesh where USA companies
exploit people like modern day slaves. Drop that moralising please! Globalisation is 2 way street, in begining when you "oppened"
3. World markets and flooded them with your superior technologies and products and practically plundered them, it wasn't a problem.
Now when things changed you whine like babies.
Even if U.S. exports to China went to zero, that'd be way less than 1% of our GDP. If China's exports to the U.S. went to zero,
that be about 5% of its GDP.
When one reads Chinese propaganda, Xi is banking heavily on U.S. politics to stop the U.S. from getting tough on China's trade
cheating. He thinks that farmers and other business people will stop the Trump admin from enacting tariffs and other measures
because of fear of Chinese retaliation. Xi faces no similar domestic political pressure because China is an authoritarian state.
The only thing that can mess-up gaining a U.S. trade victory is self-defeat. People here in the U.S. should stop overreacting
and playing into the hands of Xi. Let's get some backbone people!
Given that the U.S. has severely reduced our industrial metal production and manufacturing by failing to modernize years ago,
we do need China. The same goes for several other industrial and manufacturing products. China's pork production is currently
battling a corona virus from bats that is killing off their young swine. Our food products are important to the Chinese given
the high levels of pollution in their country. The U.S. is most vulnerable because China provides nearly all of the Rare Earth
Elements (REEs) that are essential for our high tech industries and defense equipment.
The U.S. would face a real problem anyway if the shipping lanes were closed down because of conflicts or natural catastrophes...better
to prepare for the worst now and get China to open up trade barriers or follow fairer trade policy.
The worst Chinese import is the Marxist-Leninist ideology that slaughtered over 100 million Chinese...blame the Russians!
U.S. free market ideological imports lifted a billion plus Chinese out of poverty.
For anyone travelling in China, being labelled a Laowei or foreignor is commonplace. The current government is pushing a defensive,
Han Chinese based, zenophobic system that seeks to monopolize ideas and keep the imported Marxist-Leninist ideology in total control
of the thoughts and minds of the average Chinese citizen.
The U.S. can't change that, but we can look out for our own sovereign interests in better trade deals, re-establishing vital mining,
industrial and/or manufacturing capabilities, and maintaining strategic reserves of essential elements.
This Guardian pressitute can't even mentions the term neoliberalism, to day noting to accept that neoliberalism now experience a
crisis (which actually started in 2008)
Globalization blowback will not totally bury neoliberal globalization, but it puts some limits on transnational corporations racket...
hat is happening to national politics? Every day in the US, events further exceed the imaginations of absurdist novelists and comedians;
politics in the UK still shows few signs of recovery after the "
national nervous breakdown " of Brexit.
France "
narrowly
escaped a heart attack " in last year's elections, but the country's leading daily feels this has done little to alter the "
accelerated decomposition " of the political system. In neighbouring Spain, El País goes so far as to say that "the rule of law,
the democratic system and even the market economy are in doubt"; in Italy, "the collapse of the establishment" in the March elections
has even brought talk of a "barbarian arrival", as if Rome were falling once again. In Germany, meanwhile, neo-fascists are preparing
to take up their role as
official opposition , introducing anxious volatility into the bastion of European stability.
But the convulsions in national politics are not confined to the west. Exhaustion, hopelessness, the dwindling effectiveness of
old ways: these are the themes of politics all across the world. This is why energetic authoritarian "solutions" are currently so
popular: distraction by war (Russia, Turkey); ethno-religious "purification" (India, Hungary, Myanmar); the magnification of presidential
powers and the corresponding abandonment of civil rights and the rule of law (China, Rwanda, Venezuela, Thailand, the Philippines
and many more).
What is the relationship between these various upheavals? We tend to regard them as entirely separate – for, in political life,
national solipsism is the rule. In each country, the tendency is to blame "our" history, "our" populists, "our" media, "our" institutions,
"our" lousy politicians. And this is understandable, since the organs of modern political consciousness – public education and mass
media – emerged in the 19th century from a globe-conquering ideology of unique national destinies. When we discuss "politics", we
refer to what goes on inside sovereign states; everything else is "foreign affairs" or "international relations" – even in this era
of global financial and technological integration. We may buy the same products in every country of the world, we may all use Google
and Facebook, but political life, curiously, is made of separate stuff and keeps the antique faith of borders.
Yes, there is awareness that similar varieties of populism are erupting in many countries. Several have noted the parallels in
style and substance between leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There
is a sense that something is in the air – some coincidence of feeling between places. But this does not get close enough. For there
is no coincidence. All countries are today embedded in the same system, which subjects them all to the same pressures: and it is
these that are squeezing and warping national political life everywhere. And their effect is quite the opposite – despite the desperate
flag-waving – of the oft-remarked "
resurgence of the nation state ".
The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as
caretakers, had been shaken by a series of political earthquakes. "Globalisation" can mean many
things, but what lay in particular doubt was the long-advanced project of increasing free trade
in goods across borders. The previous summer, Britain had voted to leave the largest trading
bloc in the world. In November, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump , who vowed to withdraw from
major trade deals, appeared to jeopardise the trading relationships of the world's richest
country. Forthcoming elections in France and Germany suddenly seemed to bear the possibility of
anti-globalisation parties garnering better results than ever before. The barbarians weren't at
the gates to the ski-lifts yet – but they weren't very far.
In a panel titled Governing Globalisation , the economist
Dambisa Moyo , otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the
audience to accept that "there have been significant losses" from globalisation. "It is not
clear to me that we are going to be able to remedy them under the current infrastructure," she
added. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund,
called for a policy hitherto foreign to the World Economic Forum : "more redistribution".
After years of hedging or discounting the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face
facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos proposals
– such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality – weren't
going to work. Unless something changed, the political consequences were likely to get
worse.
The backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past
18 months. During the close race to become the Democratic party candidate, senator Bernie
Sanders relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton on her
support for free trade . On the campaign trail, Donald Trump openly proposed tilting the
terms of trade in favour of American industry. "Americanism, not globalism, shall be our
creed," he bellowed at the Republican national convention last July.
The vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of
manufacturing. At Davos in January, British prime minister Theresa May, the leader of the party
of capital and inherited wealth, improbably picked up the theme, warning that, for many, "talk
of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut." Meanwhile,
the European far right has been warning against free movement of people as well as goods.
Following her qualifying victory in the first round of France's presidential election,
Marine Le Pen warned darkly that "the main thing at stake in this election is the rampant
globalisation that is endangering our civilisation."
It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to
be an inevitable, unstoppable force. "Rejecting globalisation," the American journalist George
Packer has written, "was like rejecting the sunrise." Globalisation could take place in
services, capital and ideas, making it a notoriously imprecise term; but what it meant most
often was making it cheaper to trade across borders – something that seemed to many at
the time to be an unquestionable good. In practice, this often meant that industry would move
from rich countries, where labour was expensive, to poor countries, where labour was cheaper.
People in the rich countries would either have to accept lower wages to compete, or lose their
jobs. But no matter what, the goods they formerly produced would now be imported, and be even
cheaper. And the unemployed could get new, higher-skilled jobs (if they got the requisite
training). Mainstream economists and politicians upheld the consensus about the merits of
globalisation, with little concern that there might be political consequences.
Back then, economists could calmly chalk up anti-globalisation sentiment to a marginal group
of delusional protesters, or disgruntled stragglers still toiling uselessly in "sunset
industries". These days, as sizable constituencies have voted in country after country for
anti-free-trade policies, or candidates that promise to limit them, the old self-assurance is
gone. Millions have rejected, with uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation
could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching among economists, one
that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee
the repercussions?
Comment of the Day : Dennis Drew :
GLOBALIZATION: WHAT DID PAUL KRUGMAN MISS? : "I'm always the first to say that if today's
10 dollars an hour jobs paid 20 dollars an hour
(Walgreen's, Target, fast food less w/much high labor costs) that would solve most social
problems caused by loss of manufacturing (to out sourcing or automation). The money's there.
Bottom 40% income take about 10% of overall income. "Mid" take about 67.5%. Top 1%, 22.5%.
The instrument of moving 10% more from "mid" to the bottom is higher consumer prices arriving
with the sudden reappearance of nationwide, high union density (see below for the easy
application). The instrument of retrieving the "mid's" lost 10% is Eisenhower level
confiscatory taxes for the top 1%.
Jack Kennedy lowered max income tax rate from 92% to 70% to improve incentives (other cuts
followed). But with the top 1% wages now 20X (!) what they were in the 60s while per capita
only doubled since, there will be all the incentive in the world left over while we relieve
them of the burden of stultifying wealth. ;-)
Brad argues that globalization is as good for the USA as Krugman thought in the 1990s. He has three key arguments. One is that
the manufacturing employment which has been off shored is unskilled assembly and such boring jobs are not good jobs. The second is
that the problems faced by US manufacturing workers are mostly due to electing Reagan and W Bush and not trade. Finally he notes
that local economic decline is not new at all and that trade with South Carolina did it to Massachusetts long before China entered
the picture. The third point works against his general argument and is partly personal. I won't discuss it except to note that Brad
is right.
I have criticisms of Brad's first two arguments. The first is that the boring easy manufacturing jobs were well paid. They are
bad jobs in that thinking of doing them terrifies me even more than work in general terrifies me, but they are (or mostly were) well
paid jobs. There are still strong forces that make wages paid to people who work near each other at the same firm similar. As very
much noted by Dennis Drew, unions used to be very strong and used that strenth to help all employees of unionized firms (and employess
of non-union firms whose managers were afraid of unions). I think that, like Krugman, Brad assumes that wages are based on skills
importantly including ones acquired on the job. I think this leaves a lot out.
... ... ...
Kaleberg , April 1, 2018 4:03 pm
An argument no one mentions is about comparative advantage. The US had a comparative advantage in manufacturing. It had the
engineers, the technicians, the labor, the venture capital and so on. When transportation costs are low and barriers minimal,
comparative advantage is something a nation creates, not some natural attribute. The US sacrificed that comparative advantage
on the altar of ideological purity. Manufacturing advantage is an especially useful type of advantage since it can permeate the
remaining economy. We sacrificed it, and we have been paying for it. Odds are, we will continue to pay.
likbez , April 1, 2018 6:38 pm
The problem here is that neoliberalism and globalization are two sides of the same coin.
If you reject globalization, you need to reject neoliberalism as a social system. You just can't sit between two chairs (as
Trump attempts to do propagating "bastard neoliberalism" -- neoliberal doctrine is still fully applicable within the country,
but neoliberal globalization is rejected)
Rejection of neoliberal globalization also implicitly suggests that Reagan "quiet coup" that restored the power of financial
oligarchy and subsequent dismantling of the New Deal Capitalism was a disaster for common people in the USA.
While this is true, that's a very tough call. That explains DeLong behavior.
"... And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped." ..."
"... Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. ..."
"... Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding ..."
"... Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. ..."
"... america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
"... So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control. ..."
Haass writes: " Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes
have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country's media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland
seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies
"We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing."
Haass has previously made alarmist statements , but this
time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read,
first of all, a certain degree of arrogance -- the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign
policy -- and second, the motifs of conspiracy.
"Today's other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing,
not doing, or both."
Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North
Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely
uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.
" America's decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal
world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be
a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike."
Richard Haass's colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is
the US itself that is burying the liberal world order . However, it's not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US
had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened
to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized
without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.
But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.
"Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing's perspective)
regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.
China's Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments
in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively,
China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea , where it continues
its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea," writes Patrick.
And as for the US:
"The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically
or geopolitically.
Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying
liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself. "
One can agree with both authors' assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about
more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has
staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look
much deeper.
"Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed
for settlement and loyalty...
Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy
itself ."
And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by
the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic
and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are
aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped."
Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev,
who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the
US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous
reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation's manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts.
Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what's really needed is a major restructuring,
including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country's citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its
destiny.
These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already
vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence
of that very policy of neoliberalism.
Stein Ringen continues on that score:
"Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political
power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding
"
It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US -- the home of transatlanticism, although different versions
of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions -- suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil.
But they don't seem as panicked there as in the West.
Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political
activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current
system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained
by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through
the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences
in the cultural varieties of societies.
In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture
have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have "abolish[ed] both God and the community
[soon sees] the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions." And because by its
very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, "liberating" the individual from any form of structure (social classes,
the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence,
it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements,
protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples
of those nations' instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the
US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that
a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with
the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It's just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping
boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of
the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.
But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting
to fill the resultant ideological void -- in both form as well as content.
Thus it's fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.
And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.
Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise! Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.
Keep tripping. Keep stumbling. Satan calls you to him. The day approacheth. Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂
Democracy ultimately melts down into chaos. We have a perfectly good US Constitution, why don't we go back to using it as written?
That said, I am for anything that makes the elites become common.
Democracy is a form of government. Populism is a movement. Populist movements come about when the current form of government
is failing ... historically it seems they seldom choose wisely.
Ridiculous cunt Hillary thinks after getting REJECTED by the voters in the USA that somehow being asked to "go the fuck away
and shut the fuck up" makes her a women's leader. The cocksucker Soros and some of these other non-elected globalist should keep
in mind that while everybody has a right to an opinion: it took the Clinton Crime Family and lots of corruption to create the
scandals that sets a Clinton Crime Family member aside, and why Soros was given a free pass on election meddling and not others
requires congressional investigation and a special prosecutor. And then there is that special kind of legal and ignorant opinion
like David Hogg who I just disagree with, making him in my opinion and many fellow NRA members a cocksucker and a cunt. I'd wish
shingles on David Hogg, Hillary Clinton, and Soros.
america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit
does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon.
all i see is a bunch of fleeting old people who found facebook 10 years late are temporarily empowered since they can now connect
with other equally impotent old people.
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
Liberalism is anything but liberal... and I suppose that is the problem with it. It aims to do to the western world what Mao
did to China and Stalin did to Russia. Many people were murdered or imprisoned and people had no rights, just obligations to dictators
and their cronies.
I think this world is past the point where any benefit is gained from having "owners of the people", benevolent or otherwise.
And we certainly do not benefit from perverted demonic entities even if they come bearing technology. The price is too high.
Populism goes along with essential freedoms for the human race.-
As I told the idiotic retards who argued with me on Prodigy fucking 27 years ago, China will not change because of increased
trading and the West making them wealthier. In fact, just the opposite. I wonder if they have caught on yet?
The recent German Marshall Fund's Brussels Forum, which brought together influential
American neocons and trans-Atlantic leaders from Europe, marked the failure of the
Western-centered globalist idea, Sputnik political observer Dmitry Kosyrev notes, adding that
meanwhile, Russia and China continue to facilitate the emergence of a multi-polar world.
Globalists have admitted their defeat by recognizing that neither Russia nor China will dance
to their tune, Sputnik political observer Dmitry Kosyrev writes
.
"It seems that work has begun to revive the half-dead 'liberal world order'," the observer
noted. "It will take quite some time, and it is not necessary that the United States will be
its epicenter. However, this 'order' will not be global -- goodbye, illusions. It will involve
only part of the countries while China, Russia and some other states won't be affected [by the
project]."
The observer referred to the 2018 German Marshall Fund's (GMF) Brussels Forum ,
citing Josh Rogin of The Washington Post. The Brussels Forum is an annual high-level
meeting of influential politicians, corporate leaders and scholars from North America and
Europe. The event had the eloquent title "Revise, Rebuild, Reboot: Strategies for a Time of
Distrust." The organizers of the forum raised the alarm over "a decline in trust, both in
domestic and international spheres."
"We lost sight of what it took to create this international order and what an act of
defiance of history and even defiance of human nature this order has been. We have the capacity
to push back -- we just need to understand the pushback needs to start occurring," Robert
Kagan, neoconservative American historian and husband of former US Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland told the forum, as quoted by Rogin.
For
his part, Senator Chris Murphy bemoaned the fact that US President Donald Trump is not
interested in "projecting liberal values" into other countries, let alone trade liberalization.
The White House's recent
initiative to introduce additional tariffs on aluminum and steel imports has prompted a
wave of criticism from the US' global partners and allies.
Furthermore, the US president made it clear that the US will not support numerous
international institutions and withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Murphy called upon the defenders of the liberal world order to team up and "build new
alliances within their societies."
On the other hand, the transatlantic bloc has seemingly recognized its failure to impose a
Western-style political order on Russia and China.
"We can no longer expect that the principles of liberal democracy will expand across the
globe," Rogin wrote. "We can no longer assume the United States will carry the bulk of the
burden."
Following Trump's win in 2016, The New York Times
called Germany's Angela Merkel the last defender of the trans-Atlantic alliance and liberal
values.
However, not everything is rosy in the European garden, Kosyrev noted referring to
the
rise of right-wing forces in Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland and other EU member states.
Although Merkel still remains at the helm of German politics, the right-wing Alternative for
Germany (AfD) entered the Bundestag in September 2017 as the third-largest party.
Given all of the above, the rebuilding of the liberal international order will take years,
Kosyrev presumed.
According to the political observer, Russia and China could benefit from the inner struggle
in the trans-Atlantic camp. On the other hand, he does not exclude that the West will continue
its overseas operations to maintain the status quo. To illustrate his point, Kosyrev referred
to Syria: While Washington has virtually no leverage to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
it
continues its saber-rattling, threatening Damascus with a massive strike.
The failure of globalism means the further rise of a multi-polar order based on the
principles of equality and sovereignty with its own norms and regulations, the political
observer concluded.
The views and opinions expressed by Dmitry Kosyrev are those of the contributor and do
not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The Trump administration's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will target China, but not the way most
observers believe. For the US, the most important bilateral trade issue has nothing to do with the Chinese authorities'
failure to reduce excess steel capacity, as promised, and stop subsidizing exports.
CAMBRIDGE – Like almost all economists and most policy analysts, I
prefer low trade tariffs or no tariffs at all. How, then, can US President Donald Trump's decision to impose substantial
tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum be justified?
3
Trump no doubt sees potential political gains in steel- and
aluminum-producing districts and in increasing the pressure on Canada and Mexico as his administration renegotiates the
North American Free Trade Agreement. The European Union has announced plans to retaliate against US exports, but in the
end the EU may negotiate – and agree to reduce current tariffs on US products that exceed US tariffs on European
products.
But the real target of the steel and aluminum tariffs is China. The
Chinese government has promised for years to reduce excess steel capacity, thereby cutting the surplus output that is
sold to the United States at subsidized prices. Chinese policymakers have postponed doing so as a result of domestic
pressure to protect China's own steel and aluminum jobs. The US tariffs will balance those domestic pressures and
increase the likelihood that China will accelerate the reduction in subsidized excess capacity.
Because the tariffs are being levied under a provision of US trade
law that applies to national security, rather than dumping or import surges, it will be possible to exempt imports from
military allies in NATO, as well as Japan and South Korea, focusing the tariffs on China and avoiding the risk of a
broader trade war. The administration has not yet said that it will focus the tariffs in this way; but, given that they
are being introduced with a phase-in period, during which trade partners may seek exemptions, such targeting seems to be
the likeliest scenario.
For the US, the most important trade issue with China concerns
technology transfers, not Chinese exports of subsidized steel and aluminum. Although such subsidies hurt US producers of
steel and aluminum, the resulting low prices also help US firms that use steel and aluminum, as well as US consumers
that buy those products. But China unambiguously hurts US interests when it steals technology developed by US firms.
Until a few years ago, the Chinese government was using the Peoples
Liberation Army's (PLA) sophisticated cyber skills to infiltrate American companies and steal technology. Chinese
officials denied all wrongdoing until President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping met in California in June 2013.
Obama showed Xi detailed proof that the US had obtained through its own cyber espionage. Xi then agreed that the Chinese
government would no longer use the PLA or other government agencies to steal US technology. Although it is difficult to
know with certainty, it appears that such cyber theft has been reduced dramatically.
The current technology theft takes a different form. American firms
that want to do business in China are often required to transfer their technology to Chinese firms as a condition of
market entry. These firms "voluntarily" transfer production knowhow because they want access to a market of 1.3 billion
people and an economy as large as that of the US.
These firms complain that the requirement of technology transfer is a
form of extortion. Moreover, they worry that the Chinese government often delays their market access long enough for
domestic firms to use their newly acquired technology to gain market share.
1
The US cannot use traditional remedies for trade disputes or World
Trade Organization procedures to stop China's behavior. Nor can the US threaten to take Chinese technology or require
Chinese firms to transfer it to American firms, because the Chinese do not have the kind of leading-edge technology that
US firms have.
So, what can US policymakers do to help level the playing field?
This brings us back to the proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. In
my view, US negotiators will use the threat of imposing the tariffs on Chinese producers as a way to persuade China's
government to abandon the policy of "voluntary" technology transfers. If that happens, and US firms can do business in
China without being compelled to pay such a steep competitive price, the threat of tariffs will have been a very
successful tool of trade policy.
"... The UK is clearly past the point where it could undo Brexit . There was pretty much no way to back out of Brexit, given the ferocious support for it in the tabloids versus the widespread view that a second referendum that showed that opinion had changed was a political necessity for a reversal. Pundits and politicians were cautious about even voicing the idea. ..."
"... The UK still faces high odds of significant dislocations as of Brexit date . All sorts of agreements to which the UK is a party via the EU cease to be operative once the UK become a "third country". These other countries have every reason to take advantage of the UK's week and administratively overextended position. Moreover, these countries can't entertain even discussing interim trade arrangements (new trade deals take years) until they have at least a high concept idea of what the "future relationship" with the EU will look like. Even though it looks likely to be a Canada-type deal, no one wants to waste time negotiating until that is firmed up. ..."
"... On the World Service this morning, the BBC reported from the "cultural front line against Putin". A playwright (perhaps a member of playwrights against Putin) was given half an hour from 5 am to witter on. This is half an hour more than what Brexit will get on the airwaves today. ..."
"... I think the key thing that is driving the politics for the moment is that May has shown an absolute determination to hold on to power at any cost, and she realises that having a transition agreement is central to this. ..."
"... I think you are right that the main political priority now in London is preserving May in her position. ..."
A
reader was kind enough to ask for a Brexit update. I hadn't provided one because truth be told,
the UK press has gone quiet as the Government knuckled under in the last round of
negotiations.
It is a mystery as to why the hard core Brexit faction and the true power brokers, the press
barons, have gone quiet after having made such a spectacle of their incompetence and refusal to
compromise. Do they not understand what is happening? Has someone done a whip count and
realized they didn't have the votes if they tried forcing a crisis, and that the result would
probably be a Labour government, a fate they feared far more than a disorderly Brexit?
As we've pointed out repeatedly, the EU has the vastly stronger negotiating position. The UK
could stomp and huff and keep demanding its super special cherry picked special cake all it
wanted to. That was a fast track to a crash-out Brexit. But it seems out of character for the
Glorious Brexit true believers to sober up suddenly.
Some observations:
The transition deal is the much-decried "vassal state ". As we and others pointed out, the
only transition arrangement feasible was a standstill with respect to the UK's legal
arrangements with the EU, save at most some comparatively minor concessions on pet issues. The
UK will remain subject to the authority of the ECJ. The UK will continue to pay into the EU
budget. As we'd predicted, the transition period will go only until the end of 2020.
The UK couldn't even get a break on the Common Fisheries Policy.
From the Guardian :
For [fisherman Tony] Delahunty's entire career, a lopsided system of quotas has granted up
to 84% of the rights to fish some local species, such as English Channel cod, to the French,
and left as little as 9% to British boats. Add on a new system that bans fishermen from
throwing away unwanted catch and it becomes almost impossible to haul in a net of mixed fish
without quickly exhausting more limited quotas of "choke" species such as cod .
Leaving the EU was meant to change all that .Instead, growing numbers of British fishermen
feel they have been part of a bait-and-switch exercise – a shiny lure used to help reel
in a gullible public. Despite only recently promising full fisheries independence as soon as
Brexit day on 29 March 2019, the UK government this week capitulated to Brussels' demand for it
to remain part of the common fisheries system until at least 2021, when a transition phase is
due to end. Industry lobbyists fear that further cave-ins are now inevitable in the long run as
the EU insists on continued access to British waters as the price of a wider post-Brexit trade
deal.
The one place where the UK did get a win of sorts was on citizen's rights, where the
transition deal did not make commitments, much to the consternation of both EU27 and UK
nationals. Curiously, the draft approved by the EU27 last week dropped the section that had
discussed citizens' rights. From
the Express :
Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Angelino Alfano,
demands EU citizens' rights be protected after Brexit .
The comments from Italy's foreign minister come after the draft Brexit agreement struck
between Britain and the EU on Monday was missing "Article 32", which in previous drafts
regulated the free movement of British citizens living in Europe after Brexit.
The entire article was missing from the document, which goes straight from Article 31 to
Article 33.
MEPs from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru have
written to Brexit Secretary David Davis for clarification about the missing article, while
citizens' group British in Europe said the document failed to provide them with "legal
certainty".
A copy of the letter sent to Mr Davis seen by the Independent said: "As UK MEPs we are
deeply worried about what will happen to British citizens living in EU27 member states once
we leave the EU.
This issue has apparently been pushed back to the April round of talks. I have not focused
on the possible points of contention here. However, bear in mind that EU citizens could sue if
they deem the eventual deal to be too unfavorable. Recall that during the 2015 Greece-Troika
negotiations, some parties were advocating that Greece leave the Eurozone. A counterargument
was that Greek citizens would be able to sue the Greek government for their loss of EU
rights.
The UK is backing into having to accept a sea border as the solution for Ireland. As many
have pointed out, there's no other remedy to the various commitments the UK has already made
with respect to Ireland, as unpalatable as that solution is to the Unionists and hard core
Brexiters. The UK has not put any solutions on the table as the EU keeps working on the
"default" option, which was included in the Joint Agreement of December. The DUP sabre-rattled
then but was not willing to blow up the negotiations then. It will be even harder for them to
derail a deal now when the result would be a chaotic Brexit.
The UK is still trying to escape what appears to be the inevitable outcome. The press of the
last 24 hours reports that the UK won't swallow the "backstop" plan that the EU has been
refining, even though it accepts the proposition that the
agreement needs to have that feature . The UK is back to trying to revive one of its barmy
ideas that managed to find its way into the Joint Agreement, that of a new super special
customs arrangement.
Politico gives an outline below. This is a non-starter simply because the EU will never
accept any arrangement where goods can get into the EU without there being full compliance with
EU rules, and that includes having them subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the various
relevant Brussels supervisory bodies. Without even hearing further details, the UK's barmy
"alignment" notions means that the UK would somehow have a say in these legal and regulatory
processes. This cheeky plan would give the UK better rights than any EU27 member. From
Politico :
The key issues for debate, according to one senior U.K. official, is how the two sides can
deliver "full alignment" and what the territorial scope of that commitment will be -- the U.K.
or Northern Ireland.
The starting point of the U.K.'s position will be that "full alignment" should apply to
goods and a limited number of services sectors, one U.K. official said.
On the customs issue, the proposal that Northern Ireland is subsumed into the EU's customs
territory is a non-starter with London
The alternative would be based on one of the two customs arrangements set out by the
government in August last year and reaffirmed by May in her Mansion House speech. They are
either a customs partnership -- known as the "hybrid" model internally -- or the "highly
streamlined customs arrangement" known by officials as "max-fac" or maximum facilitation.
The hybrid model would mean the U.K. continuing to police its border as if it were the
EU's customs border, but then tracking imports to apply different tariffs depending on which
market they end up in -- U.K. or EU. Under this scenario, because Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland would share an external EU customs border, as they do now, it would
remove the need for checks on the land border between the two.
The complexity and unprecedented nature of this solution has led to accusations from the
Brussels side that it amounts to "magical thinking."
The "max-fac" model is simpler conceptually but would represent a huge logistical effort
for U.K. customs authorities. It would involve the use of technological and legal measures
such as electronic pre-notification of goods crossing the border and a "trusted trader"
status for exporters and importers, to make customs checks as efficient as possible.
While the U.K. will present both customs arrangements as possible ways of solving this
aspect of the Irish border problem, one senior official said that the "hybrid" model was
emerging as the preferred option in London.
The UK is already having trouble getting its customs IT upgrade done on time, which happens
to be right before Brexit. As we wrote early on, even if the new programs are in place, they
won't be able to handle the increased transactions volume resulting from of being outside the
EU, and I haven't seen good figures as to what the impact would be of the UK becoming a third
country but having its transition deal in place. In other words, even if the "mac-fac" scheme
were acceptable to the EU (unlikely), the UK looks unable to pull off getting the needed
infrastructure in place. Even for competent shops, large IT projects have a high failure rate.
And customs isn't looking like a high capability IT player right now.
So the play for the EU is to let the UK continue to flail about and deliver Ireland
"solutions" that are dead on arrival because they violate clearly and consistently stated EU
red lines. The UK will then in say September be faced with a Brexit deal that is done save
Ireland, and it then have to choose between capitulating (it's hard to come up with any way to
improve the optics, but we do have a few months for creative ideas) or plunging into a chaotic
Brexit.
6.The approach outlined below reflects the level of rights and obligations compatible with
the positions stated by the UK
7. In this context, the European Council reiterates in particular that any agreement with
the United Kingdom will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations, and ensure a
level playing field. A non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations
as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member.
The European Council recalls that the four freedoms are indivisible and that there can be
no "cherry picking" through participation in the Single Market based on a sector-by-sector
approach, which would undermine the integrity and proper functioning of the Single
Market.
The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as
regards its decision-making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a
third-country in the Union Institutions and participation in the decision-making of the Union
bodies, offices and agencies. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union will
also be fully respected.
8. As regards the core of the economic relationship, the European Council confirms its
readiness to initiate work towards a balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging free trade
agreement (FTA) insofar as there are sufficient guarantees for a level playing field. This
agreement will be finalised and concluded once the UK is no longer a Member State.
The EU also reaffirmed the obvious, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
The EU nevertheless has relented in its negotiating tactics . The EU's initial approach was
to put the most contentious issues up front: the exit tab, Ireland, freedom of movement. You
will notice it has achieved closure only only one of those issues where the EU's initial
position had been that they had to be concluded before the two sides would discuss "the future
relationship," as in trade. This is the opposite of the approach that professional negotiators
use, that of starting with the least contentious issues first to establish a working
relationship between both sides and create a sense of momentum, and then tackling the difficult
questions later. The EU has now allowed the UK to defer resolving the messy issue of Ireland
twice, and it is not clear if any progress has been made on the citizens' rights matter.
The UK is clearly past the point where it could undo Brexit . There was pretty much no way
to back out of Brexit, given the ferocious support for it in the tabloids versus the widespread
view that a second referendum that showed that opinion had changed was a political necessity
for a reversal. Pundits and politicians were cautious about even voicing the idea.
As we've pointed out, coming up with the wording of the referendum question took six months.
In the snap elections last year, the Lib Dems set forth the most compact timeline possible for
a Brexit referendum redo which presupposed that the phrasing had been settled. That was eight
months. And you'd have to have a Parliamentary approval process before and a vote afterwards
(Parliament is sovereign; a referendum in and of itself is not sufficient to change
course).
Spain has been making noises about Gibraltar but they aren't likely to mean much . I could
be proven wrong, but I don't see Spain as able to block a Brexit deal. Article 50 says that
only a "qualified majority" vote is required to approve a Brexit agreement. Spain as a lone
holdout couldn't keep a deal from being approved. And I don't see who would join Spain over the
issue of Gibraltar. In keeping, Spain joined with the rest of the EU27 in approving the latest
set of texts.
The UK still faces high odds of significant dislocations as of Brexit date . All sorts of
agreements to which the UK is a party via the EU cease to be operative once the UK become a
"third country". These other countries have every reason to take advantage of the UK's week and
administratively overextended position. Moreover, these countries can't entertain even
discussing interim trade arrangements (new trade deals take years) until they have at least a
high concept idea of what the "future relationship" with the EU will look like. Even though it
looks likely to be a Canada-type deal, no one wants to waste time negotiating until that is
firmed up.
May has lasted in office longer than many pundits predicted she would because, weak as her
grip on power may have been since she lost her parliamentary majority last year, she has
timed her surrenders cleverly.
It looks chaotic and undignified, but the prime minister has hunkered down and let pro-
and anti-Brexit factions in her party shout the odds in the media day and night, squabble
publicly about acceptable terms for a deal, leak against each other and publish Sunday
newspaper columns challenging her authority.
Then in the few days before a European summit deadline for the next phase of a deal, she
has rammed the only position acceptable to Brussels through her Cabinet and effectively
called the hard Brexiteers' bluff.
But what kind of leader marches her country into at worst an abyss and at best a future of
lower prosperity, less clout, and no meaningful increase in autonomy? Like it or not, the UK is
a small open economy, and its leaders, drunk on Imperial nostalgia, still can's stomach the
idea that the UK did better by flexing its muscle within the EU that it can ever do solo.
I'm curious as to the ramifications of the Northern Ireland sea border. Is reunification
possible with the ROI, given that the Unionists have been completely castrated?
I'm a Californian so am not one that is tuned into the history.
Theoretically, there is no fundamental problem with a NI sea border and NI remaining
within the UK. Northern Ireland already has its own Assembly and its own laws (the Assembly
is suspended at the moment), so it can, if the EU agreed, stay within the EU (albeit without
a separate vote or voice at the table). There are precedents for this, such as the
dependant territories of France . It would be constitutionally messy, but if authorized
by Parliament in London and in the EU itself, it would likely be legally watertight so far as
I am aware.
Hardline Unionists oppose this partly because they are ideologically opposed to the EU
anyway (although its highly likely many of their constituents don't agree), but also because
they see this as a 'thin end of the wedge' leading to a United Ireland. More thoughtful
Unionists realise that a sort of 'foot in both camps' approach might actually be an economic
boon to Northern Ireland – it could attract a lot of investment from companies wishing
easy access to both the internal UK market and Europe.
"The UK press has gone quiet as the Government knuckled under in the last round of
negotiations." The MSM, corporate or government (BBC and Channel 4), are under orders to go
quiet. In any case, it's easier and more fun to cover the anti-semites and anti-transgender
whatever in the Labour Party, Trump's extra-marital goings-on and whatever dastardly plot
Putin has come up with.
On my 'phone's news feed yesterday and today, the Corbyn's anti-Semitism is not shifting
from the top line. The only change is from where the latest article is sourced.
On the World Service this morning, the BBC reported from the "cultural front line against
Putin". A playwright (perhaps a member of playwrights against Putin) was given half an hour
from 5 am to witter on. This is half an hour more than what Brexit will get on the airwaves
today.
How are things playing out locally, Buckinghamshire in my case? The economy is slowing
down. More shops are closing. Some IT contractors report contracts not being renewed and
having to look for business outside the UK. East Europeans working in farming, care and
social services have been replaced in many, but not all, cases by immigrants from south Asia.
An cabbie and restaurateur report the worst festive season and first quarter of the year for
many, many years.
At Doncaster races last Saturday, the opening day of the flat season, some bookies were
offering odds of Tory victory in 2022, if not an earlier khaki one. It seems that May is a
survivor and Corbyn's Labour has peaked. All very depressing.
I think the key thing that is driving the politics for the moment is that May has shown an
absolute determination to hold on to power at any cost, and she realises that having a
transition agreement is central to this. I've also been puzzling over the relative
acquiescence of the hard Brexiteers – I think they've been told by their paymasters
that accepting a lousy transitional deal is the key to a 'clean' and firm Brexit. I believe
the phrase Gove was reported as using was that they should 'keep their eye on the prize'. I
think, as Yves says, the Tory establishment fears a move against May will precipitate a
Corbyn government, so they see it as a strategic necessity to keep her in position, and
postpone the main Brexit fallout for later.
Of lesser importance, but also I think a relevant consideration given the strong support
given by Merkel, Barnier and Tusk to the Irish PM, Varadkar, is that he is rumoured to be
planning a snap election in the autumn. His stance on Brexit has proven popular and he sees
the time as ripe to go for an overall majority (he is currently leading a minority
government). He is very much an EU establishment favourite, so I don't doubt that some of the
motivation is to help his domestic politics by giving him what are perceived as 'wins' over
Brexit.
If this is the case, then barring an unexpected event, I think there will be a strong
political push on both sides to sign off a transition deal which would be both a complete
surrender by the UK, but with sufficient spin by a supportively dim witted UK press will
allow her to push the whole Brexit issue politically to one side for a year or two. The
Tories will be hoping that this can be sold to the public as a success for long enough for
them to work out how to stop Corbyn.
I'm taking the liberty of re-posting a comment I made yesterday on one of the links
– a Richard North piece – to which none of the usual Brexit scholars responded
(Sunday .). It bears very much on this discussion and echoes a number of points made
above.
"Richard North's Brexit article is well informed as one would expect, but I think that, like
a lot of other commentators, he's missing something. May is a post-modern politician, ie
there is no particular link between what she says and does, and her understanding of its
impact on the real world. Only her words and actions actually count, and, whether it's
threatening Russia or threatening Brussels, real-world consequences don't form part of the
calculation, insofar as they actually exist. Her only concern (and in this she is indeed
post-modernist) is with how she is perceived by voters and the media, and as a consequence
whether she can hang onto her job. I think May has decided that she will have an agreement at
any cost, no matter if she has to surrender on every single issue, and throw Northern Ireland
to the wolves. She wants to be seen as the Prime Minister who got us "out of Europe," just as
Ted Heath got us in. The content of the final deal is secondary: not that she wouldn't prefer
to please the City and the Brexit ultras if she could, but if there's a choice she will
sacrifice them for a picture of her shaking hands with Barnier and waving the Union Jack with
the other hand. The resulting chaos can then be blamed on a treacherous Europe. Indeed, if
May can stick it out until next year, I think she'll keep her job. What a thought." I think
many of the hardline Brexiters have the same idea – the political prize is exiting the
EU: the damage is a secondary consideration. Any deal, no matter how humiliating, can be spun
in the end as a triumph because we will have broken the shackles of Brussels.
I'd add that the EU's emphasis on the priority to give to NI was an each-way bet, as I argued
at the time. Either the Tory government collapsed, and something more reasonable took its
place, or May gave way on everything else, in the hope of surviving and somehow finding a NI
solution later. This has indeed proved to be the case.
Finally, I wouldn't put too much store by the imperial nostalgia argument, not least because
few Brexiters were even alive then. The real nostalgia is for an independent Britain capable
of playing a role on the world stage, perhaps at the head of a coalition of likeminded
nations. The idea of a Commonwealth Free Trade area, for example, was raised in the 1975 EU
referendum debate, and has its ultimate origins in the ideas of Mill and others in the 19th
century for a kind of British superstate, incorporating Australia, New Zealand, Canada and
perhaps South Africa. Its ghost still walks.
Finally, let's not get too carried away with the small size of the British economy. It's the
fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, depending on how you calculate it, ahead of
Russia, India, Italy and Spain.
I think you are right that the main political priority now in London is preserving May in
her position. Whether or not she does a good deal (or any other good policy work) has become
irrelevant. Its all about survival, and keeping Corbyn at bay.
Who are the 'wolves' to whom NI may be thrown?
More interesting, who are the strange Tory Brexiteers, not exactly in sync with the needs and
expectations of the City of London, big business in Britain, etc? The people for whom an
imperial past is still a ghost that walks? A possible answer here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n05/william-davies/what-are-they-after
Thank you David. I agree with your definition of the present Brexit set-up and May herself
as post-modernist . The same could be said even more so about Trump . They have in their very
different ways taken politics to a place beyond policies and even identities ( it's most
recent iteration ) to this very new place where the public ( translation : American people )
simply roll over and get out of bed the next day to whatever is new and move on whether it be
bombing in Syria, or Trump and a prostitute . I think the technology of the smart phone and
everything that emanates from it is the handmaiden to this change . The speed of daily life
as orchestrated by the smart phone has brought us all , whether we like it or not, to this
post-modern , everything is a cultural construct , position which is possibly the most
terrifying reality the West has ever had to face and yet it barely registers .
On your last point – it used to be larger. It would have been inconcievable even 50
years ago that the UK's economy could be compared with Spain's.
The point being that the correlation of physical closeness and trade is about as close as
you get in economics to a natural law. The UK is now spurning (wilfully limiting its access
to) the closest and the richest markets it has. That will have impact – and no amount
of Brexiter's wishful thinking will replace it – if for nothing else, the likelyhood of
the UK SMEs suddenly wanting to export to China/India/NZ/whatever is not going to grow with
Brexit. Those who wanted and could, already do. The other don't want and are unlikely to want
to in a new world.
Vlade, 50 years ago Africa still started at the Pyrenées, as the saying was in
France. It is not that the UK has shrunk so much as that Spain has dramatically improved its
position. So, unhelpful comparison. How the UK fared over those 50 years relative to, say,
France and Germany or even Italy, would be more instructive.
In relation to France it stayed roughly the same. But actually the share of British GDP to
world GDP is much smaller and international specialisation and globalisation is much
increased. For the question if the UK can act as a "big" economy in relation to economic
policy the latter is more important.
You watch. About the same time that the British wake to find that the elites have sold
them down the river through devastating incompetence and sheer bloodymindedness, they will
find that in the transition to Brexit that the government would have voted themselves all
sorts of laws that will give them authoritarian powers. And then it will be too late.
It won't matter how bad May is at that point and she might just resign and let somebody else
deal with all the fallout over the new regulations at which time she will be kicked upstairs
to the House of Lords. Isn't the way that it works in practice? Don't make any preparations,
tell the people that they have got it all organized, then when it all hits they start pumping
out emergency orders and the like.
It all seems quite curious does it not (curiouser and curiouser?). I wonder if I smell a
rat? Forgive me; I have a suspicious nature. I was thinking partly of the role of Gove, which
prompted some idle musings.
Gove is reportedly telling people who support Brexit to keep their eyes on the prize, by
which he is said to mean letting the clock run down to 29 March 2019 at which time the UK is
officially out of the EU. When I read Gove, I tend to think Murdoch, who pulls Gove's
strings. Yves quite rightly asks what the press barons are about; that is generally worth
knowing when it comes to UK politics. Is Murdoch playing a longer game?
The argument goes that once the UK is out of the EU it will be much harder to get support
for it to go back in again as the UK would only be allowed back in without the special
privileges it had negotiated for itself over the decades : opt out from Euro, Schengen,
various justice issues, the budget rebate. Is this determining Murdoch's approach at the
moment – ensure that the UK is outside the EU at almost any cost before proceeding to
the next stage, when Ministers will be largely unable to call Brussels in to help them
against him and his allies?
Why might Murdoch want to do that? There is talk that May will be ditched once she does a
deal. If it is seen as a bad deal then she becomes the scapegoat (and Gove steps in to her
shoes?). Post March 2019, it might then be the plan to seek to undercut the effect of any
deal struck now by, for example, pulling out of the Good Friday Agreement if that proves to
be an obstacle to the trade deals Fox is so keen to sign (is he expecting kickbacks?). At
that point the UK might declare that with the demise of the GFA it was no longer constrained
by the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement with regards to the Irish Border and with one leap
the UK would be free. I have seen cynics suggest that the men of violence in Northern Ireland
might be encouraged to go on a bit if a spree to justify claims that the GFA had failed.
I hope I am wrong but as I said I have a suspicious nature and, having watched more of
Murdoch's machinations than I have ever wished, know that he is very capable of playing a
long game.
I'm loath to indulge in conspiracy theorising, but when it comes to Brexit (and Northern
Ireland) conspiracies are legion and real.
I'm sure in any spiders web Murdoch will be found in the middle of it, and there is
certainly something up, thats the only explanation for the low key response of the hard
Brexiters. It wouldn't surprise me if he has realised that a tanking UK economy isn't exactly
good for his investments (its also worth noting that it seems to have belatedly been realised
by the UK media economy that many of them will have to up sticks to Europe if they are to
keep broadcasting rights).
My guess is that they 'have a plan' which will involve Gove playing middle man, but
actually working for a decisive Brexit doing his duty for the country at some stage to step
into Mays shoes. All sorts of behind the scenes promises (mostly jobs, no doubt) have
probably been made. I suspect a centre piece of it would be a dramatic repudiation of any
deal, supposedly on the UK's terms.
As for Northern Ireland, anything is possible. Several of the
Loyalist terrorist groups have been shown over the years to be little more than puppets
of the security forces, they will do what they are told. And there have long been rumours
that at least one of the fringe Republican groups is so completely infiltrated that they are
similarly under control. There have been nearly 50 years of shady assassinations and bombings
in NI and the Republic which have the fingerprints of intelligence services, so quite
literally, I could believe almost anything could happen if it was in their interest. People
who c ould
maintain a boys home as the centre of a paedophile ring for political purposes are
capable of almost anything.
Oh yes, this is a big part of the history of "the troubles". So much of what went on in
that conflict was beneficial to the U.K. government. Budget, manpower, little oversight,
draconian powers and a lot more besides was enabled merely because of the paramilitary
activities. It's not hard to look for well documented examples -- such as the mass
warrantless surveillance of all U.K.- Republic telecommunications http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html
by the U.K. security services.
And, there's more, a lot of provisional activity was just your common or garden organised
crime -- protection rackets, kidnapping and bribery.
To say that the troubles were merely to do with republicanism and unionism is like saying
US Civil War was only about racism and ignoring the politics and the economics.
I think that we should remember how much the anti-EU fraternity in politics and the media
have had a symbiotic, if not downright parasitic, relationship with the EU itself. Much of
their commerce depended on us being members, and so being able to strike poses and make cheap
cracks about Europe and Brussels. I have a feeling that reality is starting to dawn, and they
are standing to understand that politics will be a great deal more complicated, and probably
nastier, after Brexit than even it is now.They'll have to find something else to complain
about for easy applause instead of just bashing Brussels.
As for conspiracy theories, well I have the same skepticism about them of most people who've
worked in government, and I happen to have been reasonably close to a number of people who
had to deal with these issues in the 1970s and 1980s. There was certainly complicity in some
cases, and some of the actors involved broke the rules badly , but it's a stretch from that
to talk of conspiracies. With what objective? And what objective would such conspiracies have
today, and how could they be implemented? The universal refrain among everyone I knew
involved in the security forces at the time was Get Us Out of Here.
It'll put a cat amongst the pigeons and no mistake. If I may put in a word from the
deplorables who voted Brexit, there's a lot which -- for both the UK and the EU -- was made a
whole lot easier because a problem issue could simply be labelled as the British complaining
and not understanding The Project.
Take energy. It was probably energy supply as much as Greece and the Ukraine which tipped
me over into Brexit. At the behest of the U.K., the European energy industry became, at least
in theory, a pan-continental endeavour free from national restrictive practices. Well, a fat
lot of good that turned out to be. As exemplified by the recent cold weather snap, UK
wholesalers when faced with a shortfall in natural gas supplies spiked the offer price into
the stratosphere
http://mip-prod-web.azurewebsites.net/PrevailingViewGraph/ViewReport?prevailingViewGraph=ActualPriceGraph&gasDate=2018-03-26
. No -- and I mean no -- EU suppliers made any bids. Now, it's either a Single
Market or it isn't. It either looks and acts like it's subject to market forces or it
doesn't. The rules are either enforced properly amongst all participants or they aren't.
Irony's of irony's, when the U.K. needed an augmented natural gas input to match system
demand, the only country to answer their doorbell was Russia. That, and some U.K. big
capacity users releasing stocks from storage.
Now, the smell of the nationalist pulling up the drawbridge in energy supply is causing
the Commission to try to document how in fact the Single Market sometimes isn't a market at
all but just a token gesture and is working on the usual eurofudge
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.032.01.0052.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:032:TOC
(the contortions of which did genuinely have me laughing out loud). There's going to be a lot
more of this to come once the U.K. can't be the donkey this kind of tail is routinely pinned
on.
And it'll be the same in the U.K. of course. Without the EU ready to play it's role of
perpetual bogeyman, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. And I still cannot, in all
honesty, say anything other than bring it on.
People have avoided the difficulty of reciprocal citizen's rights. How can the UK
reciprocate with all the EU countries? Simultaneously? Where UK non-citizen residents can
relocate for 30 years to an EU country then relocate back in the same way that a Brit in
France can move to Germany for 30 years and then move back under current rules? It's even
worse if you consider reciprocity to include the rights of all people outside their
citizenship country's right to relocate.
The only obvious solution is to reduce Brits to the same status of any immigrant to a EU
country. That means not being able to shift your permanent residency without applying for
immigration.
Unless you are blue card eligible that's non-trivial.
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade
zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be
open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign
peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of
this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his
vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to
be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world
as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the
antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal
peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the
Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been
embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding
Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such
manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military
supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to
endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.
They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the
necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among
Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while
selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but
could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with
JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun.
U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a
million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of
the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base
and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no
greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the
political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising
across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the
admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally
imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and
occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of
free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage
the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for
pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest
socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and
Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born
in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank,
Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and
champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence
and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
"... As of leaving the EU, we have fought long and hard (sometimes each other) to be independent and free. 45 years of communism (with the obligatory internationalism) does not fade out unnoticed. I have written a long essay some two years ago here on SST about 'if it looks like a duck'. ..."
"... human rightsism has turned into a full fledged monotheistic religion, with a credo, an instutionalized church, and a serious hate against unbelievers. All that in the name of tolerance and progress. ..."
I can't speak for the whole V4 as czechs and slovaks have been sneaky in diplomacy in the last
century, and even as V4 members. We Hungarians and our Polish brothers were usually stupid
enough to say what we meant (and damn the consequences) and not hide away behind ambigous
terms or actions. While I can understand their cautiousness (Sp?), we 'dwa bratinki' usually
say yes or no. For the czech/slovaks it is usually abstain, even if everybody knows what
their stand is.
As of leaving the EU, we have fought long and hard (sometimes each other) to be
independent and free. 45 years of communism (with the obligatory internationalism) does not
fade out unnoticed. I have written a long essay some two years ago here on SST about 'if it
looks like a duck'.
We have sensors for unsaid intentions becuase of that oppression, and for us (V4) Brussels
is turning into Moscow in an ever increasing pace, only the tanks have been replaced by
banks, as a late hungarian politician has said. Of course everybody welcomes free money (EU
funds), but as
Most of it flows back to german/french/italian/austrian companies anyway
The previously hidden internationalist and centralized agenda is slowly turning into
reality, not to mention the intended connection between the two (funds and internationalist
policies).
It is more and more seen as Judas Iskariotes' 30 silver pieces. None wants war again in Europe, and none wants to leave the EU unless forced to do
it. There has been a more or less functioning proto-EU, the Austro-Hungarian Empire that is. A
similar EU, where none really can and should question German French leadership is viable,
with the following terms.
Internal policies are handled locally from education, to justice system, from internal
affairs to other local issues etc. No human rights meddling in partner countries, no SJW
pushing to accept economical migrants to poor countires etc.
ONLY foreign affairs and military affairs are handled centrally, but no typical french
meddling in ex colonies or R2P. European army CAN be exclusively used abroad, with all
parliaments giving consent (In the age of IT this should not be a problem) or in case of
foreign attack against or own soil.
ONLY money to finance the above two are handled centrally. euro can stay, but no
pressure to join it. And V4 will definitely want a say in it how it used.
Dismantling of the social justice warrior turned, democratically deficited,
internationalist, and non-transparent bureaucracy in Brussels/Strasbourg.
Exactly. I always say to my students, that like it or not, agree or not, human rightsism has
turned into a full fledged monotheistic religion, with a credo, an instutionalized church,
and a serious hate against unbelievers. All that in the name of tolerance and progress.
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price
manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria
and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation
campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy.
(Elections)
In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight
the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia
wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate,
however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can
arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is
why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice
of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the
media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the
allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance
theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator
of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as
possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and
the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's
destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the
fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations
to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As
early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops
in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually,
more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little,
if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end
of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern
Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were
withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied
Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First,
it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that–
while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended.
The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put
a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet
Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up
to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for
pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow
to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to
"shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to
rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved
looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented
poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous
other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't
have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects
of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school
systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just
began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with
more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people
than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking
(economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell
by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices,
and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory.
But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then
western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued
its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and
industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev
that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of
them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential
threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while
state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or
on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation
in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what
he said.
LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal
partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the
Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the
former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition.
However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create
the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders
– through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program
As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats
were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main
reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture
and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global
economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers
of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions.
Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep
the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in
defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's
enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in
the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging
reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and
seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making,
and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.
Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the
vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see
Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.
"... The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as niggers. ..."
what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our
people?
The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate
monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as
niggers.
Trump lost in large cities.
May lost in major cities, the Anti-Brexit folks won instead.
The globalists have their tight grip on virtually every major city in the world.
They want megacities, logistic cities etc. in the world.
The globalists have had enough with America. (Trump wasn't happy so he wants to make it
great again) The globalists made their money through capitalism, now they need Bitnation,
blockchain (as a state, govt, you can no longer own citizens and print money because they'll be
the citizens of Bitnation and they'll mine their own money) there will be home-made gold soon,
they want middlemen eliminated, they sell you products without owning any stores (Amazon,
Alibaba) they can transport you a-b without owning any vehicles (Uber) they control the media
without employing any correspondents (facebook, youtube, twitter, instagram etc.) they don't
need any banknotes (Trump=dollar), they want AI, they want Human 2.0, (first one was created by
God and the new one will be fathered by the globalists) they want transhumanism, IOT, they want
robots and female/male robots and marriage with robots, they want to produce economy and
technology but they are not interested in the hearts and minds of the human beings, when you
are thirsty they'll give you filtered seawater, hungry? they'll give you GMO food, the Chinese
had sweatshops but now they have workshops manufacturing electronics, nothing has changed for
them really, now they have 1 belt 1 road via logistic cities, trains to Tibilisi, then to the
world's largest airport in Istanbul, people need peace and tranquility but the globalists have
sold you the idea of 'happiness', they want LGBT, children with 2-3 mothers, Trump hates
Obama's toilets, they want covert ops and proxies (Katie Perry has 60 million followers mostly
fake and why is that? Because she's rigged for a future suicide bombing case, she'll say "I
have seen a UFO" or "I made millions out of BTC" or whatever role is assigned to her) but Trump
is conventional, he wants the US armed forces mobilized and wants them to face the country
A-B-C straightforward like in the olden days, he has the soldiers and oil barons with him, a
war cabinet... And the story goes on and on...
We are in 21st century.
Trump = Guns+Oil, KKK, Evangelists (Zionist Christians)...
The real America however belongs to = Finance capital + Technology = Globalists
We have to take all those above to see what's going on around us.
"... Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane, truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster. ..."
"... I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits" which vary between "technicians". ..."
"... Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within the top 10%. ..."
"... In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty. ..."
Yes, but increasingly there is no "working class" in America due to outsourcing and automation.
I hear that Trump wants to reverse all of that and put children to work in forward-to-the-past factories (versus
back-to-the-future) and mines working 12 hours a day 7 days a week as part of his Make America Great Again initiative.
With all the deregulation, I can't wait to start smoking on airplanes again. Those were great times. Flying bombs with
fifty or more lit fuses in the form of a cigarette you can smoke. The good old days.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Cold N. Holefield -- it's like Ross Perot said re NAFTA and globalization: "When the rest
of the world's wages go up to $6.00/hour and our's come down to $6.00/hour, globalization
will end." That's what's happening, isn't it? Our wages are being held down, due in large
part to low-skilled labor and H-1B's flooding into the country, and wages in Asia are rising.
I remember Ross Perot standing right beside Bill Clinton when he said this, and I also
remember the sly smile on Bill Clinton's face. He knew.
Our technology was handed to China on a silver platter by the greedy U.S. multinationals,
technology that was developed by Western universities and taxpayer dollars, technology that
would have taken decades for China to develop on their own.
Trump is trying desperately to bring some of these jobs back. That's why he handed them
huge corporate tax breaks and cut some regulations.
Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy
resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane,
truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up
working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster.
Trump is trying to cut back on immigration so that wages can increase, but the Left want
to save the whole world, doing themselves in in the process. He wants to bring people in with
skills the country can benefit from, but for that he's tarred and feathered.
P.S. I remember sitting behind a drunk on a long flight, and I saw him drop his cigarette.
It rolled past me like it knew where it was going, and I couldn't find it. I called the
stewardess, and she and I searched for a few anxious seconds until we found it. Yes, the good
old days.
I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it
while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT
what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not
placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork
is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits"
which vary between "technicians".
Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the
next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into
their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta
Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within
the top 10%.
In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the
elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into
poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out
its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty.
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:48 pm
Diana Lee -- I hope you are well now. It breaks my heart what you went through. No, I
cannot imagine.
I didn't mean the lower class were living "well" on food stamps and welfare. All I meant
was that it helped, and without it all hell would break loose. If you lived in the top 10% at
one point, then you would surely notice a difference, but for many who have been raised in
this environment, they don't notice at all. It becomes a way of life. And, yes, you are
right, it is cruelty. A loss of life.
Due to automation, offshoring and transnational communications/internet, the elitists no
longer need a large domestic underclass of undocumented workers to artificially lower wages.
That is likely the reason that every Administration since Slick Willy have sought to reduce
illegal immigration.
After all, it was the Obama Administration that deported more undocumented immigrants than
any other in history, and it was in those years after the 2008 economic crash that saw net
migration from Mexico hit zero, or even negative numbers.
What the MSM is telling us is that the Trump Administration is more draconian in carrying
out practices that have been US policy for decades. That might even be true.
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Daniel -- " the elitists no longer need a large domestic underclass of undocumented
workers to artificially lower wages."
Oh, sure, that's why corporations and the Chambers of Commerce are fighting so hard to
keep chain migration, legal and illegal immigration numbers up! Because they don't need them.
Yeah, right.
And technology companies are clamoring for more H-1B's so they can pay them less.
Come on, Daniel.
Daniel , February 7, 2018 at 12:22 am
backward,
Please provide evidence that the "Chambers of Commerce are fighting so hard.." Please try to
keep your rebuttal to my statement that "elitists no longer need a large domestic underclass
of undocumented workers" and not various forms of legal migration. Because I do agree that
there is a market for "skilled labor" who are legal. Part off the reason for this labor
market is the drop in STEM-educated USAmericans.
I'm afraid the population has been so thoroughly incapacitated via a Dumbing Down
Education System coupled with 24/7 Media Misinformation and the Stultifying Effects of Social
Media that there will be no Revolution. Instead, it looks like it will be a steady
capitulation and acquiescence of personal sovereignty all the way to the Gas Chambers and no
doubt when or if that time comes, there will be an a nifty Application from Silicon Valley to
guide you through your Final Processing.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Cold N. Holefield -- a "Dumbing Down Education System", but also lots of benefits on the
lower end: food stamps, disability, subsidized housing, free cell phones, etc. If these
things were removed (no, I'm not saying they should be), things would be completely
different. There'd be a riot in a fortnight.
If your stomach is empty, it doesn't really matter how dumbed down you've become, you are
going to feel fear and react. That's why they keep the lower end placated.
It is the middle class who is slipping down into the lower class, and these are the people
who are getting angry and fearful, mainly for their children. Those people have actually lost
something.
Concerning the discussion on "globalism" - and please excuse me if I've missed prior
discussion, I wasn't following that point back in the last thread - this word as used today
essentially is referring to neoliberal economic policies, which are the handmaiden of neocon
"war & plunder" policies. Both doctrines walk hand in hand. The so-called "free trade
agreements" remove barriers not so much against free trade as against corporate regulation -
this is the whole point of them. The TPP agreement that Trump withdrew from was the most vile
such agreement ever yet proposed.
"Globalism", so called, is the opening of doors in target nations to predatory capitalism,
disaster capitalism, the economic part of the John Perkins playbook. As corporatism gains
strength in a nation, fascism as Mussolini defined it (i.e. as corporatism) becomes the
reality. Maybe the word meant something good once, I don't know. But it stands for everything
bad now.
@ Grieved
Globalism is also blogs like this.
Globalism has been turned into a dirty word as it has been used, same as colour revolutions
ect, but I suspect it will also help bring down corporate globalism.
For me, in the latter part of my life, it has brought great interest for cultures and people
that are different to my own upbringing.
@21 Nationalism is seen as narrow, regressive and responsible for conflict. It's only
acceptable at sporting events. (Turks and Kurds haven't got the message yet.) Globalism is
seen as progressive. One world government is supposed to bring peace and prosperity to all.
Of course there are all kinds of racial and religious contradictions but the basic choice is
looking backwards or forwards.
Nationalism, globalism, sovereignty.
There is a word missing. Sovereignty does not seem to cover it but is the closest I can
find.
This is the wikipedia definition of sovereignty.. "Sovereignty is the full right and power
of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In
political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some
polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state
foundation."
Also similar to nationalism.
What is the correct word or term for full sovereignty plus respect for other countries and
cultures?
globalisation - the information highway (apart from road blocks) - a place where a shitkicker
from the mad monks anglosphere (oz) can converse or argue with people from all round the
world.
"Well, with regard to Germany, the EU project was the longest period of peace for the last
200 years. Same for France." somebody writes.
France and Germany have both been at war several times since the EU came into being. Of
course being US satraps, under NATO, they haven't fought each other.
As to Germany its existence, as a state, begins in 1870 and, in the past 150 years has
gone through several revolutionary changes, such as Anschluss, the Allied Occupation regime
and the Bundesrepublik-Democratic Republic interlude.
And then there are the border changes which, over the period are dramatic.
The point is that this cant apology for the EU is cheap and demagogic.
Any defence of the EU has to begin with a justification of its two cardinal objects: Wall St
forged neoliberalism and Pentagon directed policies designed to advance US geo-strategy
Seems like a discussion on semantics - rocky ground.
Putin once set up two words to explain a thing. He said that patriotism was love of one's
country. Nationalism was hatred of other countries. Great set of concepts, but there's no
real consensus of the meaning of those two words, in any group of people you could assemble
at random.
Important to agree on concepts and be wary of words when they're not solidly established
in a broad and functional consensus.
My apologies. I thought "globalism" as I described it was commonly held ground, but it's
not. I respectfully withdraw from the discussion, leaving disaster capitalism as the great
enemy, and global fraternity and exchange as the great friend of the ordinary people of the
whole world.
The words for all this I leave to others to establish. My apologies again for butting
in.
@30 Nothing to apologize for Grieved. The term 'globalism' means different things to
different people. Some see is as paradise on earth ....some see it as a subtle form of
hegemony.
@33 So many of the terms we use today are profoundly affected by the dilemma that Nietzsche
described in his statement (I paraphrase): 'God is dead, we have killed him. And no amount of
water can wash the blood from our hands'
This was not a statement of triumph, rather of despair. In the loss of the divine as the
source of morality, Nietzsche anticipated that people would invest that authority in other
structures - including the state (Nazi-ism, Marxism), the military, economics ('free-market'
capitalism) etc.
The loyalists in each of those 'causes' would see all their associated terms positively,
just like all adherents of religious systems. Those outside, or those who suffered abuse at
their hands, see those terms quite differently.
So Nationalism can be positive (as in pride in the legitimate achievements of your
country) or negative (where the people ascribe to the state/nation/race the right to define
what is morally right) where the nation has God-like authority to remove from whole classes
of people all their rights - even the right to life.
Wikipedia (under types of government) slices and dices your options when it comes to
political terms for the ruling elite. Two stand out to me, with the second suffering from an
unrecognisable name:
Plutocracy: Rule by the wealthy; a system wherein governance is indebted to, dependent
upon or heavily influenced by the desires of the rich
Ochlocracy: Rule by the crowd; a system of governance where mob rule is government by mob
or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for
majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd",
from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocratic
governments are often a democracy spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the
rule of passion over reason; such governments can be as oppressive as autocratic tyrants.
Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy".
Personally, when it comes to describing the state of affairs in the empire, I lean toward
a despotic corporatism as being the best description. Others may prefer militarism over
corporatism, but when the two forces (the corporate and the military) unify you get
fascism.
Again, this is just how I, at this time, understand it.
Liberal democracy is not democratic. Let us stop lying, and dispense with the false
narrative that granting anyone a term of office in which they can steal from the commons and
not be immediately fired or even killed is anything remotely "cratic". It's feudalism, plain
and simple, and those who defend it are typically of a class long known to be
problematic.
i think the big challenge for the world is letting economics trump the environment...
until that changes, we're in trouble.. maybe it doesn't have to be an either/or thing... i do
think corporate power and the various trade deals (tpp - canada has bought into this with
mexico, so tpp is still happening, although the usa is not presently a part of it) are mostly
about ignoring local or national laws or trying to over-ride them so that corporations can
have all the power.. les7 calls something like this "despotic corporatism", but i mostly
think of it as just plain corporatism.. it is all despotic...
well, i feel the same way about the accumulation of ridiculous amounts of wealth in the
hands of a few as well.. how can this happen when people are struggling to survive on the
planet? do these people have no sense of shame? apparently not! they go about their business
accruing wealth oblivious to the pain and suffering they are directly, or indirectly
inflicting on others.. then there are those types who realize what they have done and try to
make amends by changing their ways and staring foundations - gates foundation and etc. etc...
to me, why not just not fuck people over, instead of thinking you have to trample on others
to get ahead and that the universe can only be seen as a dog eat dog universe? well, i can't
change others, i can only change myself and do what i feel good about and can live with..
thanks for the conversation..
@ 42 john gilberts.. canada continues to go down the wrong road, being sucked into the
made in the us bs.. freeland is a warmonger, with undisclosed financial support from soros to
continue the war on russia and etc. etc.. i can't believe we are that stupid to have such a
women is such a prominent role here in canada... anyone would be better..
Needless to say that there is only one me and I am grateful that b has deleted the fake ones.
Although it is known in car design that plagiarism is a form of admiration, in
my case it was the cheap attempt to soil my name. Ironically, the only people that believe
that they could succeed with this kind of gas lighting have an IQ that is surpassed by
the
shoe size of their little feet.
Allow me to contribute in regards to Nationalism. Having been born in a country that was
once ruled by a "National Socialist" party, I needed to find out more about what had caused
Nationalism to go rogue and destroy the Nation it emanated from.
Stories by family members did provide some answers, but we're insufficient at best, since
no one had seen it coming this way.
Then I discovered the lecture by J. Krishnamurti about Nationalism. My own parents were
toddlers when Krishnamurti spoke about Nationalism in Argentina in 1935.
The time spent listening to this speech was the best spent time ever in regards to finding
answers. While I have the speech on my computer, I will link here to the Krishnamurti
repository where all of his speeches can be found.
In an extremely ironic and the saddest way, his words about Nationalism were absolutely
prophetic. The transition from 'National Identity' to deadly Nationalism is fleeting.
Humanity has not been able to overcome Nationalism and struggles with the concept of
'sovereignty', as it appears to be dependent on Nationalism and not National identity.
Imo, sovereignty can only arise from Interdependence. The acknowledgement of
Interdependence at the root of sovereignty will allow for a National identity, that would not
resort to Nationalism and its cancerous degeneration into a murderous, inhumane tragedy.
"... We support free trade, but it needs to be fair," he chided. "It needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal." He went on to announce his support for "mutually beneficial, bilateral trade agreements with all countries, ..."
The president tries to sell business tycoons and world leaders on his "America First" policy
and sounds like a small-town mayor wooing Walmart to open a store in his community.
... ... ...
"I'm here to represent the interests of the American people," he began, ignoring the fact
that the majority of the American people don't want him representing their interests. "America
hopes for a future in which everyone can prosper," he said, describing the American dream as "a
great job, a safe home and a better life for their children." All true, but right now there are
also plenty of Americans dreaming of a president who won't embarrass them.
... ... ...
Trump naturally brought his patented "America First" routine to the august gathering, but he
was less belligerent about it than usual, almost conciliatory. "As president of the United
States I will always put America first," he said. "But America first does not mean America
alone," he added, as the audience of business tycoons and international leaders breathed a sigh
of relief. Of course, Trump wasn't yet done rebuking them. " We support free trade, but it
needs to be fair," he chided. "It needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal." He went on
to announce his support for "mutually beneficial, bilateral trade agreements with all
countries, " even hinting at rejoining TPP. That Donald, he's such a tease.
Trump's campaign to return manufacturing to America and repatriate profits held overseas
makes good business sense. The ravaging of America's once mighty industrial base to boost
corporate profits was a crime against the nation by unscrupulous Wall Street bankers and
short-sighted, greedy CEO's.
The basis of industrial power is the ability to make products people use. Shockingly, US
manufacturing has shrunk to only 14% of GDP. Today, America's primary business has become
finance, the largely non-productive act of paper-passing that only benefits a tiny big city
parasitic elite.
Trump_vs_deep_state is a natural reaction to the self-destruction of America's industrial base. But the
president's mania to wreck international trade agreements and impose tariff barriers will
result in diminishing America's economic and political influence around the globe.
Access to America's markets is in certain ways a more powerful political tool than
deployment of US forces around the globe. Lessening access to the US markets will inevitably
have negative repercussions on US exports.
Trump has been on a rampage to undo almost every positive initiative undertaken by the Obama
administration, even though many earned the US applause and respect around the civilized world.
The president has made trade agreements a prime target. He has targeted trade pacts involving
Mexico, Canada, the EU, Japan, China and a host of other nations by claiming they are unfair to
American workers. However, a degree of wage unfairness is the price Washington must pay for
bringing lower-cost nations into America's economic orbit.
This month, the Trump administration threatened new restrictions against 120 US trade
partners who may now face much higher tariffs on their exports to the US.
Trump is in a hurry because he fears he may not be re-elected. He is trying to eradicate all
vestiges of the Obama presidency with the ruthlessness and ferocity of Stalinist officials
eradicating every trace of liquidated commissars, even from official photos. America now faces
its own era of purges as an uneasy world watches.
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
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.
