The last time America saw a paleo-conservative leaning candidate was
Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first
in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms
of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque
with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his
campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. -- by Joseph R. Murray II
(Orlando Sentinel, Aug 12, 2015)
"There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money.
It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is
that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."
-- Gore Vidal
“The Democrats are the foxes, and the Republicans are the wolves – and they both want to
devour you.” So what does that make Libertarians? Avian flu viruses?”
-- Leonard Pinkney
The race is no contest when you own both horses. That is why no matter which political party
is in power nothing really changes other than the packaging. The puppets who drink at the champagne
fountains of the powerful do the bidding of their masters. The people are superfluous to the process.
In the “democracy” that America has evolved to, money counts more than people.
In past elections, the votes were counted, now they are going to start weighing them.
“(T)he rich elites of (the USA) have far more in common with their counterparts in London,
Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens … the rich disconnect themselves
from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place
to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and
ruling it, but not of it.”
As comment in
Economist's View stated "Trump has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence":
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor
large multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing
corporations who move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and
closing of tax holes which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the
US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal
prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing
legal immigration, especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for
people from countries with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary
prohibition of issuing visas from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of
American society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising
"special rights" of minorities such as black population, LGBT, woman, etc. Promotion them as
"identity wedges" in elections was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary
(gender) and
Obama (race card).
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important
problem that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant
neoliberalism practiced since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming
election, as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90%
of Americans. Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies.
Sanders is way too old and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Before you read, though, take a moment to watch less than two minutes of
Donald Trump above, from his victory speech after winning in Michigan and Mississippi. I’ve cued
it up to start at the remarks I want to highlight, Trump discussing our trade deficit.
Now Thomas
Frank, writing in
The Guardian. He starts by noting the utter invisibility of real working Americans to
our elite class, including our media elites, and especially our liberal media elites (my emphasis
throughout):
Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here’s why
When he isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message
about free trade and its victims
Let us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters
of Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump?
I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s
fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but
their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these
publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar”
is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that
universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter
last week, he
made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
The conclusion of these writers is this:
The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not
only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.
And yet…
A lot of people are racists, including those not supporting Trump. But people have other
concerns as well, especially working people. They are dying faster than they used to,
from drugs and despair, and they fear for their jobs and their families, for very good reasons.
This economy is failing them.
They also hate — and understand — “free trade.”
Trump Also Talks Trade
Donald Trump talks about more than just race and immigration. He talks about trade and the trade
deficit, an issue that powered Bernie Sanders to his Michigan victory as well. From the New York
Times:
Trade and Jobs Key to Victory for Bernie Sanders
Democratic presidential candidate had campaigned in Traverse City, Mich., in decades until
Senator Bernie Sanders pulled up to the concert hall near the Sears store on Friday. Some 2,000
people mobbed him when he arrived, roaring in approval as he called the country’s trade policies,
and Hillary Clinton’s support for them, “disastrous.”
“If the people of Michigan want to make a decision about which candidate stood with workers
against corporate America and against these disastrous trade agreements, that candidate is Bernie
Sanders,” Mr. Sanders said in Traverse City, about 250 miles north of Detroit.
Mr. Sanders pulled off a
startling upset in Michigan on Tuesday by traveling to communities far from Detroit and by
hammering Mrs. Clinton on an issue that resonated in this still-struggling state: her past support
for trade deals that workers here believe robbed them of manufacturing jobs. Almost three-fifths
of voters said that trade with other countries was more likely to take away jobs, according
to exit polls by Edison Research, and those voters favored Mr. Sanders by a margin of more
than 10 points.
There is no question — America’s billionaire-friendly, job-destroying trade policy is toxic —
again,
literally. That’s why Obama and his bipartisan “free trade” enablers in Congress have to pass
TPP, if they can, in post-election lame duck session. TPP is also toxic to political careers, and
only lame ducks and the recently-elected can vote for it.
Frank again on Trump:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In
each of the
speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate
issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking
about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan
to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did
it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about … trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the
many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he
will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move
back to the US.
On the subject more generally, Frank adds:
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional
class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials
and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble
it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or
even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts
can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s
a
video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier
air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is
being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the
North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language
about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace.” A worker
shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share”
his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.
Frank goes to greater length, and again, please
click through. But you get the idea. This is what Trump is speaking to, whether he means what
he says or not, and this is what his voters are responding to, whether they like his racism or not.
After all, haven’t you, at least once, voted for someone with qualities you dislike because of policies
you do like?
Whose Fault Is This? Both Parties, But Especially the Democratic Elites
One final point. Frank takes on the issue of responsibility:
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly
for decades … Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit
that we liberals bear some [or most] of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the
working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much
easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality
of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly
failed.
I am certain, if this comes up in a general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump, she could very likely get her clock cleaned; not certainly, but certainly very likely. First,
she can only equivocate, and Trump will have none of it. (Trump: “Let me understand. You were for
this before you were against it? So … will you be for it again next year? I’m just trying to understand.”)
Second, this is a change election, Trump is one of only two change candidates in the race, and
Clinton is not the other one.
Here’s that Carrier Air Conditioning
“we’re moving to Mexico” video that Frank mentioned above. Take a look, but prepare to feel some
pain as you watch:
"... "Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office. ..."
"... "David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago. ..."
"... It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related, it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade. ..."
"... The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will mean fewer jobs and lower pay. ..."
"... This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported. ..."
"... Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive. ..."
"... The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion. ..."
"... There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy is back at full employment. ..."
Given his history of promoting racism, xenophobia, sexism and his recently exposed boasts about sexual assaults, not many people
want to be associated with Donald Trump. However that doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong.
In the debate on Sunday Donald Trump made a comment to the effect that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and
other trade deals, "we lost our jobs." The New York Times was quick to say * this was wrong.
"We didn't.
"Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic
growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office.
"David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly
one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that
such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago.
"And there's no evidence the North American Free Trade Agreement caused similar job losses.
"The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2015 that the 'net overall effect of Nafta on the U.S. economy appears to
have been relatively modest.' "
There are a few things to sort out here. First, the basic point in the first paragraph is absolutely true, although it's not
clear that it's relevant to the trade debate. The United States economy typically grows and adds jobs, around 1.6 million a year
for the last quarter century. So any claim that trade has kept the U.S. from creating jobs is absurd on its face. The actual issue
is the rate of job creation and the quality of the jobs.
Here there are three issues to consider.
1) The direct job loss – the jobs that were displaced due to imports substituting for domestically produced goods and services;
2) The wage effects – the downward pressure on the wages of workers that retain their jobs that can result from job loss and
also the threat of job loss;
3) The impact of a trade deficit on the level of demand in the economy.
Taking these in turn we now have some pretty solid evidence on some of the job loss attributable to trade. David Autor's work
** found that imports from China cost the economy more than 2 million jobs in the years from 2000-2007.
"Estimates of the net impact of aggregate demand and reallocation effects imply that import growth from China between 1999
and 2011 led to an employment reduction of 2.4 million workers" (page 29).
These are workers who are directly displaced by import competition. In addition, as the article goes on to note, there were
more workers who likely lost their jobs to the multiplier effect in the local economies most directly affected by imports.
The impact of trade with China was more dramatic than trade with Mexico and other countries because of the huge growth in imports
over a short period of time. However, even if the impact from trade with other countries was smaller, it still would have a substantial
effect on the communities affected.
It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently
been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an
average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related,
it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade.
Of course people lose jobs for other reasons also, like increased productivity. So the fact there is job loss associated with
trade doesn't make it bad, but it is not wrong to see this as a serious problem.
The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful
way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million
barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United
States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will
only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will
mean fewer jobs and lower pay.
This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest
reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured
goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages
in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell, documented one way in which the potential to import can
have the effect of lowering wages. She found *** that employers regularly used the threat of moving operations to Mexico as a
way to thwart unionization drives. While most workers are not typically involved in unionization drives, it is easy to imagine
this dynamic playing out in other contexts where employers use the real or imagined threat from import competition as a reason
for holding down wages. The implication is the impact of trade on wages is likely to be even larger than the direct effect of
the goods actually brought into the country.
Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below
its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall
level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest,
but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the
manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive.
The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular
stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade
deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the
United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same
impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion.
From this perspective, the trade deficit is a major source of job loss. Our current trade deficit of $500 billion a year (@2.8
percent of GDP) is a major drag on demand and employment. For this reason, a politician would be absolutely right to cite trade
as a big factor in the weakness of the labor market.
It is worth noting that many economists (including many at the Federal Reserve Board) now believe that the economy is close
to its full employment level of output, in which case trade is not now a net cause of job loss even if it had been earlier in
the recovery. There are two points to be made on this view.
First, there are many prominent economists, such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, who argue that the economy is still well
below its full employment level of output. So this is at least a debatable position.
Second, if we accept that the economy is near full employment it implies that close to 2 million prime age workers (ages 25-54)
have permanently left the labor market compared to 2007 levels of labor force participation. (The gap is close to 4 million if
we use 2000 as our comparison year.)
There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like
working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing
sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers
can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy
is back at full employment.
In short, there are good reasons for a politician to complain about trade as a major source of our economic problems. There
is much research and economic theory that supports this position.
Lesson for 2020 -- Trump is a shape and color shifting chameleon. His statement that he "escaped GOP "mainstream republicans"
(read hard core neoliberals) shackles" was a blatant lie. He never escaped and did not even have intent to escape... He did
their bidding, which was most clearly demonstrated in Trump tax cut
Notable quotes:
"... Trump later tweeted "the shackles have been taken off me". ..."
"... It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to. ..."
"... With the exception of cheating Bernie out of the nom the Dems have always proven to be far more loyal to each other than the Republicans! ..."
"... Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them! ..."
Donald Trump is attacking House Speaker Paul Ryan. He's calling him ''very weak and ineffective''
a day after the House speaker said he would not campaign for the Republican nominee.
Ryan told Republican lawmakers on a conference call Monday that he would focus instead on helping
the party keep control of the House.
Trump referred to that call in his tweet Tuesday morning. He said Ryan ''had a bad conference
call where his members went wild at his disloyalty.''
Trump later tweeted "the shackles have been taken off me".
The real estate mogul also claimed Democrats were more loyal to their party than Republicans.
House Speaker Paul Ryan all but abandoned Donald Trump, obliterating whatever bounce he may
have received from Sunday's debate.
It was his second tweet of the morning targeting Ryan. The other said Ryan's ''zero support''
was making it hard for Trump to do well.
Ryan did face some pushback from members upset he was abandoning Trump. The House Speaker continues
to endorse the nominee.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when
Paul Ryan and others give zero support!
8:16 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Our very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members
went wild at his disloyalty.
9:05 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America
the way I want to.
10:00 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
With the exception of cheating Bernie out of the nom the Dems have always proven to
be far more loyal to each other than the Republicans!
10:15 AM - 11 Oct 2016 · Queens, NY, United States
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all
sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them!
This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's
faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all
the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities.
Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend
toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.
We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.
If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste.
But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive
enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible
enforcement of anti-trust laws.
Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just
get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.
Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national
outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could
equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust
enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful
corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me:
antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important,
why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president
One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.
Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.
Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing
as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.
"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be
space to move left in a Clinton administration."
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized
third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?
They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes
and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added
raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic
mistake.
Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high
speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.
Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial
collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free
traders disappear from our public discourse.
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."
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.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
International Trade Lessons for the New York Times
The New York Times told readers * that Mexico is preparing to "play the corn card" in its negotiations
with Donald Trump. The piece warns:
"Now corn has taken on a new role - as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up
to talks over Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"The reason: Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it
America's top agricultural export to its southern neighbor. And even though President Trump appears
to be pulling back from his vows to completely overhaul Nafta, Mexico has taken his threats to
heart and has begun flexing its own muscle.
"The Mexican government is exploring buying its corn elsewhere - including Argentina or Brazil
- as well as increasing domestic production. In a fit of political pique, a Mexican senator even
submitted a bill to eliminate corn purchases from the United States within three years."
It then warns of the potential devastation from this threat:
"The prospect that the United States could lose its largest foreign market for corn and other
key products has shaken farming communities throughout the American Midwest, where corn production
is a vital part of the economy. The threat is particularly unsettling for many residents of the
Corn Belt because much of the region voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump in the presidential election.
" 'If we lose Mexico as a customer, it will be absolutely devastating to the ag economy,' said
Philip Gordon, 68, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on a farm in Saline, Mich., that has been
in his family for 140 years."
Okay, I hate to spoil a good scare story with a dose of reality, but let's think this one through
for a moment. According to the piece, instead of buying corn from the United States, Mexico might
buy it from Argentina or Brazil. So, we'll lose our Mexican market to these two countries.
But who is buying corn from Argentina and Brazil now? If this corn had previously been going
to other countries, then presumably these other countries will be looking to buy corn from someone
else, like perhaps U.S. farmers?
It is of course possible that Argentina and Brazil will switch production away from other crops
to corn to meet Mexico's demand, but that would likely leave openings in these other crops for
U.S. farmers. The transition to new markets for corn crops or a switch from corn to the crops
vacated by Brazil and Argentina would not be costless, but it also may not imply the sort of devastation
promised by the New York Times.
See, market economies are flexible. This is something that economists know, as should reporters
who write on economic issues. This may undermine scare stories that are being told to push an
agenda, but life is tough.
Not mentioned is that Mexico is the home of corn, that thousands of farmers who used to make their
livings raising native corns lost their farms to market rate competition from the USA under NAFTA.
Embattled Trump Reneges on Health Vow
March 21, 2017
President Trump promised health insurance for all, but – now dependent on the political
protection of House Speaker Paul Ryan – he is supporting a plan that will push millions
outside the system, writes Michael Winship.
By Michael Winship
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump still insists he's going to Make America
Great Again! Mind you, it won't be a healthy or vigorous America - in fact, it will be
coughing and wheezing to the grave, but boy, will it be great!
If you ever needed further evidence that Trump doesn't give a single good goddamn
about the people who elected him, just look at his treacherous turnabout on health care.
This Republican "repeal and replace" bill stinks on so many levels I'm tempted to say
it should be taken far out to sea and dumped into the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench
but I have too much regard for marine life, even the kind with the big googly eyes and
the really scary teeth.
Remember that Trump was the carnival barker
who declared during the campaign
, "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't
care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than
they're taken care of now." And right before his inauguration
he told
The Washington Post
, "We're going to have insurance for everybody.
There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it.
That's not going to happen with us."
Then along comes the proposed Republican bill, which over a decade, according to
the now-famous report from the Congressional Budget Office
, would see 24 million
fewer Americans with coverage, doubling the number of uninsured. Trump's own supporters
would take it on the chin for
what he tweeted
is "our wonderful new health care bill."
According to
John McCormick at
Bloomberg News
: "Counties that backed him would get less
than a third of the relief that would go to counties where Hillary Clinton won. The two
individual tax cuts contained in the Republican plan to replace Obamacare apply only
to high-earning workers and investors, roughly those with incomes of at least $200,000
for individuals and $250,000 for married couples."
And remember all that nonsense about Obamacare's "death panels," a falsehood so rotten
to the core it was declared
PolitiFact's 2009 Lie of the Year
? Well, this Republican bill actually
would
kill people. Those older would pay more than the young, it would strip Planned Parenthood
of funding and Medicaid programs would be slashed. It would eliminate money for the
Prevention and Public Health Fund
, which provides epidemiology, immunization and
health-screening programs. And there would be no mandate that employers with 50 employees
or more provide coverage.
Julia Belluz at
Vox
reports
on:"[V]ery high-quality studies on the impacts
of health insurance on mortality, which come to some pretty clear estimates. This research
suggests that we would see more than 24,000 extra deaths per year in the US if 20 million
people lost their coverage. Again, 20 million is less than the
24 million
the CBO thinks will lose insurance by 2026. So the death toll from an
Obamacare repeal and replacement could be even higher."
Ignoring the Needy
Notice that Trump has barely lifted a finger to assist those who need genuine reform
that would bring quality care to all, the kind of help he promised as a candidate. Instead,
he has directed his energies at helping Speaker Paul Ryan win over right-wing House members
by promising to make the bill even crueler to those who need health care the most.
Take a look at this statement issued by tea partier and Alabama Republican Rep. Robert
Aderholt after meeting with Trump on Friday, a statement so mind-boggling it's worth
quoting in full
:
"President Trump called me to the Oval Office this morning to discuss the American
Healthcare Act, because of his understanding that I could not support the current language
of the bill. I expressed to the president my concern around the treatment of older, poorer
Americans in states like Alabama. I reminded him that he received overwhelming support
from Alabama's voters.
"The president listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty
line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1,700 to $14,600 per year.
The president looked me in the eye and said, 'These are my people and I will not let
them down. We will fix this for them.'
"I also asked the president point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported.
He told me he supports it '1,000 percent.' After receiving the president's word that
these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes."
Can you believe it? Trump's behind the bill 1,000 percent, the President claims, but
don't worry, we'll fix it. It's hard to decide which of the two men is behaving more
hypocritically: Trump saying he won't let the people down or Aderholt claiming to believe
the President actually will keep his word. Each is endorsing a cutthroat scheme that
will bring nothing but grief to the people but hundreds of billions in tax breaks to
the wealthy and vast profits to the insurance industry.
According to
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
: "The top 400 highest-income taxpayers
- whose annual incomes average more than $300 million apiece - each would receive an
average annual tax cut of about
$7 million
, we estimate from Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) data."
Andy Slavitt, who was President Obama's acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services
told
The Washington Post
, "This is a massive tax cut for unpopular industries
and wealthy individuals. It is about cutting care for lower-income people, seniors, people
with disabilities and kids to pay for the tax cut."
This is,
in the words of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut,
"a dumpster fire of a bill that
was written on the back of a napkin behind closed doors because Republicans know this
is a disaster." But thanks to ineptitude and an inchoate, ill-planned rush to pass the
legislation, it looks as if the current Republican bill may be on its way to failure,
if not in the House then in the Senate.
Lucky us - for now. But if the GOP and Trump White House do manage to force on us
anything short of what's really needed – single-payer, universal health care - we're
doomed to live in a nation the motto of which may no longer be "In God We Trust" but
instead, "Die young and leave a good-looking corpse."
"... The ubiquity of Goldman Sachs veterans across numerous presidencies throughout history, both Republican and Democratic, has been well documented. But Donald Trump sold himself as something different, an economic nationalist determined to rankle Wall Street. He even ran campaign ads savaging bankers like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein for their role in a "global power structure." ..."
"... That populist smokescreen is long gone now. ..."
"... After dalliances with unorthodox proposals for a Republican, Trump has settled into an agenda of tax cuts and deregulation - particularly for the financial industry. Cohn laid out the new paradigm in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, promising lighter supervision and even lower capital requirements for the financial sector. J. Christopher Giancarlo, Trump's choice to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which handles derivatives regulations, hijacked a federal advisory panel to recommend abandoning limits on commodity speculation, of the kind pursued by big banks like Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... Even in areas where populist sentiment was seen as pre-eminent, Trump has reportedly succumbed to the Wall Street advance. A dramatic piece in the Financial Times described a "civil war" within the White House over trade, pitting Trump's hard-liners like Bannon and trade policy adviser Peter Navarro against the likes of Cohn. It stated that Navarro was being sidelined, with Cohn taking a larger role in the negotiations over NAFTA, and with foreign leaders working through the National Economic Council rather than Navarro in trade talks. AFL-CIO official Thea Lee said in the story , "It appears the Wall Street wing is winning this battle." ..."
"... At the NEC, Cohn hired Andrew Quinn, a chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to coordinate international trade and development. A stewing Breitbart News called Quinn " the enemy within ." ..."
The continuity of Wall Street's dominant role in American politics - regardless of what party
sits in power or how reviled the financial industry finds itself across the country - was perhaps
never more evident than when Jake Siewert, now a Goldman Sachs spokesperson, on Tuesday
praised the selection of Jim Donovan, a Goldman Sachs managing director, for the No. 2 position
in the Treasury Department under Steve Mnuchin, himself a former Goldman Sachs partner.
"Jim is smart, extraordinarily versatile, and as hard-working as they come," Siewert gushed. "He'll
be an invaluable addition to the economic team."
The punch line?
Siewert was counselor at the Treasury Department to Timothy Geithner, as well as a White House
press secretary under Bill Clinton.
The ubiquity of
Goldman Sachs veterans across numerous presidencies throughout history, both Republican and Democratic,
has been well documented. But Donald Trump sold himself as something different, an economic nationalist
determined to rankle Wall Street. He even
ran campaign ads savaging bankers like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein for their role in a "global
power structure."
That populist smokescreen is long gone now.
Mnuchin and Donovan are just two of five Goldman expats in high-level positions on Trump's team.
Steve Bannon spent a limited time at Goldman Sachs, but White House assistant Dina Powell, who headed
the bank's philanthropic efforts, and National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, Goldman's former
president, had higher-ranking positions for a longer period. Jay Clayton, Trump's nominee for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, was a partner for Goldman's main law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Other big banks are represented inside team Trump as well. Several expats of Mnuchin's
OneWest Bank , which
repeatedly brutalized homeowners during the foreclosure crisis, have been rumored for key spots
at the banking regulators.
The same day as Donovan, Trump announced the nomination of David Malpass as treasury undersecretary
for international affairs. Malpass was the chief economist for Bear Stearns right before the investment
bank imploded. He literally wrote an opinion piece called "
Don't Panic About Credit
Markets " for the Wall Street Journal in August 2007, noting, "Housing and debt markets are not
that big a part of the U.S. economy."
But it's not just the presence of ex-bank executives that matters; it's the policy menu oriented
to Wall Street's wishes.
After dalliances with unorthodox proposals for a Republican, Trump has settled into an agenda
of tax cuts and deregulation - particularly for the financial industry. Cohn laid out the new paradigm
in an
interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, promising lighter supervision and even lower
capital requirements for the financial sector. J. Christopher Giancarlo,
Trump's choice to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which handles derivatives regulations,
hijacked a federal advisory panel to recommend abandoning limits on commodity speculation, of
the kind
pursued by big banks like Goldman Sachs.
Donovan is expected to play a major role in tax policy, which will be
overwhelmingly tilted to benefiting the wealthy, despite
claims from Mnuchin that the rich will see "no absolute tax cut." Even Trump's flailing health
care proposal is really little more than a
large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans , financed by cuts to the low-income Medicaid program.
Even in areas where populist sentiment was seen as pre-eminent, Trump has reportedly succumbed
to the Wall Street advance. A
dramatic
piece in the Financial Times described a "civil war" within the White House over trade, pitting
Trump's hard-liners like Bannon and trade policy adviser Peter Navarro against the likes of Cohn.
It stated that Navarro was being sidelined, with Cohn taking a larger role in the negotiations over
NAFTA, and with foreign leaders working through the National Economic Council rather than Navarro
in trade talks. AFL-CIO official Thea Lee
said in the story , "It appears the Wall Street wing is winning this battle."
At the NEC, Cohn hired Andrew Quinn, a chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
to coordinate international trade and development. A stewing Breitbart News called Quinn "
the enemy within ."
Not enough has happened on trade to declare the winner of this internecine battle; indeed, the
Financial Times reported that Trump took Navarro's side in a recent Oval Office meeting. But in confirmation
hearings Tuesday, Robert Lighthizer, Trump's pick for U.S. trade representative,
praised his predecessor Michael Froman , architect of the TPP (and himself a former Citigroup
executive), arguing that some of that work could be used in constructing a successor to NAFTA. Lighthizer
also
vowed
tough enforcement of trade rules but said little about tariffs or the kinds of disruptive policies
Trump touted in the campaign, which Wall Street disfavors.
Not only do Goldman executives benefit, but so do their alumni: Cohn received
nearly $300 million in severance from Goldman after moving into government. He's vowed to
recuse himself from anything "directly" affecting his former company, but that doesn't necessarily
apply to tax and regulatory policies affecting the entire financial sector.
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
That's the *optimists'* take on the Trump administration.
It's clear they are incompetent, but I don't think we can be sanguine.
Mainly because, if something isn't outright unconstitutional, we are reliant on massive
numbers of citizens noticing the malevolence and becoming outraged enough to scare the few
squishy members of the GOP caucus into backing off.
But that's a fairly high bar.
On healthcare the GOP stepped on a rake, but that's an issue where many people are VERY
significantly affected in visible, immediate ways. It's funny that even Trump seems to
recognize this, so his admin is bravely leading from behind on the push to pass the
American Health Carnage Act.
But contrast healthcare with something like climate change. Trump proposes to erase not
only rules on immediate issues, but also very forward looking stuff like basic energy
technology research and the people and satellites used *just to study the climate*.
Is there a natural constituency of GOP base voters that is going to become activated
enough to stop this? If not, what might?
I don't see any barriers to a good portion of the malevolence, even if it is
incompetent. The Trump admin and the GOP have turned incompetence like a badge of honor and
their base voters love it.
Bat shit insanity on health
care preceded Trump. The truly incompetent one is the Speaker of the House. And he is
considered the policy wonk for the House Republicans. Trump is beyond awful but he is no
worse than your modern Republican Party.
True, and it has been a mild
surprise to me how poorly the GOP (ex-Trump) has executed on its agenda.
I always thought
they were *pretending* not to understand how healthcare economics worked to cynically gin
up anti-ACA talking points.
But it turns out, they really have no clue what they are talking about. They drank their
own kool aid. They are what Stephen Colbert used to describe as "batshit serious."
"... It would be Pharaohanic. Trump would leave his mark on America's landscape in a visible way--something that is, for somebody who has for two decades been playing the game of celebrity, a big win. ..."
"... The second was driven by the fact that there are an awful lot of small-government fanatics and some fiscal conservatives in the Trump coalition. That way would have generated a politics in which the normal fiscal infrastructure stimulus that both the situation and Trump's background seemed to call for would not happen. It would simply not be done. ..."
"... Instead, the Trump infrastructure plan would wind up building infrastructure on the government's dime. That infrastructure which would then have been given away to friends of the administration. They would then have charged monopoly prices for access to it. ..."
"... Little good as infrastructure -- monopolists charging monopoly prices are rarely public benefactors on any large scale. No good as stimulus. Think of Silvio Berlusconi, but not on an Italian but on a North American scale. ..."
"... And then, of course, there would be the Trump tax cut: another nail in the coffin of sane and prudent fiscal policy, and another brick in the wall of the Second Gilded Age. ..."
"... White House propaganda aides following their own propaganda agendas, and a Congress that seems to lack any sort of positive leadership. Not constructive infrastructure policy. Not bunga-bunga infrastructure policy. Simply no policy at all. ..."
What Happened to Trump Infrastructure Push?: Bunga-Bunga
Policy, or No Policy at All
There seemed, back in November, two ways the Trump
infrastructure fiscal expansion could have gone.
The first was driven by the facts that Trump seemed to
have ambitions that were "Pharaohanic", and that Trump had
been a real estate developer.
There were then no Trump plans for the infrastructure
program. There were, however, plans to have plans. And the
plans to have plans were aided by the fact that building
things was what you would expect someone who had been a real
estate developer to focus on. Since there were no plans,
there was an opportunity to develop for Donald Trump a real,
technocratic infrastructure plan. It would have had, from
Trump's perspective, three advantages:
It would actually work--it would boost American economic
growth, and so make people happy.
It would be Pharaohanic. Trump would leave his mark on
America's landscape in a visible way--something that is, for
somebody who has for two decades been playing the game of
celebrity, a big win.
It would make Trump's presidency both be and appear to be
a success, from the desired perspective of helping to make
America even greater than ever.
And the idea that the economy was already at full
employment, and did not need additional stimulus of any kind?
That extra stimulus would be offset by the Federal Reserve,
and that the overall effect on employment would be very
small? That, taking into account the Federal Reserve
reaction, the only major effect would be to raise interest
rates? Perhaps. But that would not have been a downside. If
you do seek--as we do--to normalize interest rates in the
medium term, and if you want to see whether there are
discouraged workers out there, moving away from monetary to
fiscal as the stimulative balancing item is exactly the right
thing to do. An extra $300 billion/year of bond funded
infrastructure would substantially normalize interest rates.
The second was driven by the fact that there are an awful
lot of small-government fanatics and some fiscal
conservatives in the Trump coalition. That way would have
generated a politics in which the normal fiscal
infrastructure stimulus that both the situation and Trump's
background seemed to call for would not happen. It would
simply not be done.
Instead, the Trump infrastructure plan would wind up
building infrastructure on the government's dime. That
infrastructure which would then have been given away to
friends of the administration. They would then have charged
monopoly prices for access to it.
Little good as infrastructure -- monopolists charging
monopoly prices are rarely public benefactors on any large
scale. No good as stimulus. Think of Silvio Berlusconi, but
not on an Italian but on a North American scale.
Another pointless episode of bunga-bunga policy.
The U.S. would have been likely to lose, substantially, if
that was what the Trump fiscal expansion had turned out to
be. And then, of course, there would be the Trump tax cut:
another nail in the coffin of sane and prudent fiscal policy,
and another brick in the wall of the Second Gilded Age.
We may still have this bunga-bunga policy.
But with each day that passes with not even a plan to plan
to have a plan, it looks more as though there is no Trump
administration--just the reality TV simulacrum of one,
cabinet members following their own administrative agendas,
White House propaganda aides following their own propaganda
agendas, and a Congress that seems to lack any sort of
positive leadership. Not constructive infrastructure policy.
Not bunga-bunga infrastructure policy. Simply no policy at
all.
Constructive infrastructure policy now looks completely
off the table.
Destructive bunga-bung infrastructure policy is still a
possibility, but a low probability one.
No infrastructure policy now looks like the way to bet at
even odds...
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
San Patch
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
emir yi
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled through
committee approval of President Donald Trump's nominees for
Treasury and Health on Wednesday, suspending a key Senate
rule in the latest escalation of partisan tensions in
Congress.
Democrats boycotted a Finance Committee meeting and
Republicans responded by temporarily scuttling a rule
requiring at least one Democrat to be present for votes. The
committee then approved Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to become
Health secretary and financier Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury
secretary by a pair of 14-0 votes.
Democrats had been demanding time to ask more questions
about both nominees. Democrats say there were unresolved
questions about both nominees' financial backgrounds.
Separately, the Senate planned to vote later in the day on
Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson for secretary of state
after several Democrats crossed party lines to back the
former Exxon Mobil CEO.
Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on
1) lowering drug prices by purchasing drugs from abroad and Medicare negotiate prices
2) infrastructure projects
3) better trade deals
Lets see if entrenched interests in the GOP and Democrat party let them work together. My guess
is NOT.
What that would accomplish is lay bare the corruption that is part of both parties.
Let's see if Trump actually wants to do any of those things Sanders wants. In other words will
he "reach across the aisle."
Let's see if Republicans in Congress cooperate.
I think it's unlikely although not impossible (as Krugman etc do)
Trump thinks of himself as a reality TV star. He likes the drama. But he seems to have no interest
in the details of policy. He found the border tax his advisers were floating as too complicated.
Depending on what the GOP does, we could get austerity rather
than fiscal expansion.
Tax cuts for the wealthy are not
much stimulus. The wealthy invest globally and could invest
to offshore jobs rather than in the US. Or they could drive a
bubble as what happened to the GWBush tax cuts.
Combine those with repeal of the ACA Medicaid and Medicare
cuts, there would be less money available to pay for
services.
Deporting immigrants reduces both demand and workers in the
economy.
Privatizing government functions typically results in grift
or worse and that money may go to the Caymans or elsewhere
offshore.
The Trump plan is to build infrastructure using tax breaks
How much of this happens remains to be see.
Ryan has a budget that cuts taxes and butchers spending =
austerity
"So investors betting on a big infrastructure push are almost
surely deluding themselves."
Since the election Sanjait has
suggested investors weren't betting on a big infrastructure
push. He has explained his thinking a couple of time but I
still don't understand it. It doesn't add up.
The quick resort to name calling, rather
than correcting someone with facts, is getting out of hand,
and is very counterproductive if one really wishes to make a
case.
In response to people looking for a Trump pivot at various
points over the last two years, biographar Michael D'Antonio
has said many times that there's no other 'there' to pivot
to.
In Pennsylvania he roused folks by talking vaguely
about bringing coal back, here in Oregon he changed nouns and
rolled out the logging version.
How do you come to any meaningful decision about what he's
going to do? I wouldn't bet on follow through on any policies
(well, except maybe The Wall) that don't benefit Trump
himself.
I think all of these investors are thinking that Republicans
control the White House and Congress so good things are
coming for investors and rent-extraction, like tax cuts.
In
a way they're right, but in a way they're just being
ideological.
The Democrats have tried *so hard* to show how good they
can be for Wall Street, and Wall Street doesn't really care.
The was my original comment about how it's kind of funny.
And Sanjait of course chimes in to say "no, no, there is
no investor euphoria, it's an illusion."
And now PGL tries to change the subject about how the
euphoria is fading. Maybe but NOBODY ELSE has commented on it
yet. NOBODY.
But the people here in comments don't really care one way
or the other, about what's right and wrong. They just want a
civil discussion.
"And now PGL tries to change the subject about how the
euphoria is fading."
Look at my post. I never even used the
term "euphoria". I talked about anticipated fiscal policy and
interest rates.
So once again PeterK flat out lied about what someone said
to smear them. This is the insult. Calling out this pathetic
liar is just putting the record straight.
No as long as this troll lies this way - we will call hin
on his lies.
The problem with Democrats and some of these prog neolib
pundits is they want to equate Wall Street and Main Street.
They want us all to be friends (so Wall Street can continue
screwing Main Street). They're whores and sellouts.
It's
why Bernie's primary campaign caught fire and why neolibs
like Krugman attacked him regularly.
I honestly don't think bringing coal back was of much
interest to people in Pennsylvania. It's ridiculous to focus
on that, because most people in PA (that I know) kind of
rolled their eyes at that one... including the people who
liked the other stuff.
From an historical perspective stock market prices are
remarkably high, even though interest rates are low.
From a
10 year perspective looking forward, with an earnings price
ratio of 3.55 and a dividend yield of 1.98, an investor can
anticipate an average yearly return of 5.53% on stocks
assuming the current price earnings ratio lasts the decade.
The 10 year Treasury bond yield is 2.39 so the risk
premium for stocks is currently 5.53 - 2.39 = 3.14.
The 3 month Treasury interest rate is at 0.52%, the 2 year
Treasury rate is 1.19%, the 5 year rate is 1.89%, while the
10 year is 2.39%.
The Vanguard Aa rated short-term investment grade bond
fund, with a maturity of 3.1 years and a duration of 2.6
years, has a yield of 1.87%. The Vanguard Aa rated
intermediate-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity
of 6.0 years and a duration of 5.5 years, is yielding 2.67%.
The Vanguard Aa rated long-term investment grade bond fund,
with a maturity of 22.8 years and a duration of 13.2 years,
is yielding 3.85%. *
The Vanguard Ba rated high yield corporate bond fund, with
a maturity of 5.8 years and a duration of 4.5 years, is
yielding 4.89%.
The Vanguard unrated convertible corporate bond fund, with
an indefinite maturity and a duration of 4.1 years, is
yielding 1.85%.
The Vanguard A rated high yield tax exempt bond fund, with
a maturity of 17.1 years and a duration of 7.1 years, is
yielding 3.30%.
The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term tax exempt bond
fund, with a maturity of 8.5 years and a duration of 5.1
years, is yielding 2.16%.
The Vanguard Government National Mortgage Association bond
fund, with a maturity of 7.0 years and a duration of 4.8
years, is yielding 2.01%.
The Vanguard inflation protected Treasury bond fund, with
a maturity of 8.6 years and a duration of 8.1 years, is
yielding 0.06%.
* Vanguard yields are after cost. Federal Funds rates are
no more than 0.75%.
"While it's hard to know how much of the market's
optimism reflects expected policy changes under the new
administration, the rise in equities, interest rates, and the
dollar since the election is precisely the configuration that
standard macroeconomics would predict in anticipation of a
Trump-backed fiscal expansion. (A similar pattern occurred in
the early Reagan years, which was dominated by tax cuts,
increased military spending, higher deficits, and rate
increases by the Federal Reserve.)"
Krugman:
"So investors betting on a big infrastructure push are
almost surely deluding themselves."
PGL suggests the "optimism" is fading. Has anybody else
anywhere echoed his sentiments?
Oh it is not euphoria now - it is optimism. Is that your
new term for interest rates. You have been lying about what I
have said. I never used "euphoria" or "optimism" in anything
I wrote.
So yea - you lie 24/7. What to make it so obvious.
Trump Team Questions Value of Aid to Africa
By HELENE COOPER
The list of Africa-related queries from the transition
staff suggests an American retreat from development and
humanitarian goals.
[ Setting aside the sole question of domestic
infrastructure formation or emphasis, there is every reason
to think that the coming administration will not value and
foster international infrastructure formation. At a time when
infrastructure formation in developing countries is both
sorely necessary and showing special promise, I find this
worrisome indeed. ]
Paul Krugman's essay is all too convincing and worrisome in
that there is reason to think that domestic infrastructure
formation from the New Deal through the Eisenhower
administration was the basis for the fastest years of
American productivity growth in the last century.
Productivity growth for all our information technology
applications has slowed markedly since about 2005, and I
would argue a neglect of infrastructure formation is an
important or even essential factor.
The Most Technologically Progressive Decade of the Century
By Alexander J. Field
Abstract
There is now an emerging consensus that over the course of
U.S. economic history, multifactor productivity grew fastest
over a broad plateau between 1905 and 1966, and within that
period, in the two decades following 1929. This paper argues
that the bulk of the achieved productivity levels in 1948 had
already been attained before full scale war mobilization in
1942. It was not principally the war that laid the foundation
for postwar prosperity. It was technological progress across
a broad frontier of the American economy during the 1930s.
Interestingly and importantly, China has been emphasizing
infrastructure development in developing countries from Asia
to Africa. The response from Ethiopia to South Africa to
Nigeria to Laos, Cambodia and Pakistan... has been markedly
encouraging though little noted in American media.
If they can turn it into a way that GOP campaign contributors
can rip of the public it may get support in congress. Handing
over repairs on public bridges to private companies, followed
by big fat tolls - may be a go if Wall Street can get in on
it.
Exactly, it ends up costing a lot more. Its just that the
cost is on the utility bill rather than on your taxes. The
politicians don't want to commit suicide by raising taxes.
Then after decades of neglect of the infrastructure they face
a crisis.
All aboard for Africa's heartland – on a train built in
China
Inaugural journey on 750km line from Djibouti and the Suez
Canal to landlocked Ethiopian capital
By Laura Zhou
Silk Road route back in business as China train rolls into
London
After 16 days and 7,456 miles, the locomotive's arrival
heralds the dawn of a new commercial era
By Tracy McVeigh - Guardian
When the East Wind locomotive rumbles into east London
this week, it will be at the head of 34 carriages full of
socks, bags and wallets for London's tourist souvenir shops,
as well as the dust and grime accumulated through eight
countries and 7,456 miles.
The train will be the first to make the 16-day journey
from Yiwu in west China to Britain, reviving the ancient
trading Silk Road route and shunting in a new era of UK-China
relations.
Due to arrive on Wednesday, the train will have passed
through China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany,
Belgium and France before crossing under the Channel and
arriving in the east end of London at Barking rail freight
terminal.
Faster than a ship, cheaper than a plane, the East Wind
won't be quite the same train that left Yiwu on 2 January.
Differing rail gauges in countries along the route mean a
single locomotive cannot travel the whole route. But the
journey still marks a new departure in the 21st-century
global economy. The new train, which will start to run weekly
while demand is tested, is part of China's One Belt, One Road
policy – designed to open up the old Silk Road routes and
bring new trade opportunities, said Prof Magnus Marsden, an
anthropologist at Sussex University's School of Global
Studies, who has been studying the trading patterns in Yiwu.
China Railway has already begun rail services to 14 European
cities, including Madrid and Hamburg. As a result, Yiwu's
markets are now loaded with hams, cheese and wine from Spain
and German beer is available on every corner....
If he doesn't
push an infrastructure program, Dems should propose a
gigantic one themselves, and point out to the country that
Mr. Make-America-Great-Again is a small-thinking fraud.
Here's one. It's called the "Rebuild America Act".
When the Dems held the White House and Congress they put
forward another stimulus bill after the ARRA that never hit
the floor. The effect of that obstruction on the electorate
was zero.
Now somehow you think some bs that has no chance in the
world to get out of committee means something.
This is why progressives keep losing. There are too many
who live in an alternate universe.
Some republicans voting with the democrats might be enough...
but remember that republicans will do anything to stop the
Democrats from winning back the White House, which means they
will need to give in to Trump on a few key promises where
they disagree, or else ditch Trump to get Pence
"... But, if it seemed clear that there would be political consequences, their form and timing were far less obvious. Why did the backlash in the US come just when the economy seemed to be on the mend, rather than earlier? And why did it manifest itself in a lurch to the right? After all, it was the Republicans who had blocked assistance to those losing their jobs as a result of the globalization they pushed assiduously. It was the Republicans who, in 26 states, refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying health insurance to those at the bottom. And why was the victor somebody who made his living from taking advantage of others, openly admitted not paying his fair share of taxes, and made tax avoidance a point of pride? ..."
"... Donald Trump grasped the spirit of the time: things weren't going well, and many voters wanted change. Now they will get it: there will be no business as usual. ..."
NEW YORK – Every January, I try to craft a forecast for
the coming year. Economic forecasting is notoriously
difficult; but, notwithstanding the truth expressed in Harry
Truman's request for a one-armed economist (who wouldn't be
able to say "on the other hand"), my record has been
credible.
In recent years, I correctly foresaw that, in the absence
of stronger fiscal stimulus (which was not forthcoming in
either Europe or the United States), recovery from the Great
Recession of 2008 would be slow. In making these forecasts, I
have relied more on analysis of underlying economic forces
than on complex econometric models.
For example, at the beginning of 2016, it seemed clear
that the deficiencies of global aggregate demand that have
been manifest for the last several years were unlikely to
change dramatically. Thus, I thought that forecasters of a
stronger recovery were looking at the world through
rose-tinted glasses. Economic developments unfolded much as I
anticipated.
Not so the political events of 2016. I had been writing
for years that unless growing inequality – especially in the
US, but also in many countries throughout the world – was
addressed, there would be political consequences. But
inequality continued to worsen – with striking data showing
that average life expectancy in the US was on the decline.
These results were foreshadowed by a study last year, by
Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which showed that life expectancy
was on the decline for large segments of the population –
including America's so-called angry men of the Rust Belt.
But, with the incomes of the bottom 90% having stagnated
for close to a third of a century (and declining for a
significant proportion), the health data simply confirmed
that things were not going well for very large swaths of the
country. And while America might be at the extreme of this
trend, things were little better elsewhere.
But, if it seemed clear that there would be political
consequences, their form and timing were far less obvious.
Why did the backlash in the US come just when the economy
seemed to be on the mend, rather than earlier? And why did it
manifest itself in a lurch to the right? After all, it was
the Republicans who had blocked assistance to those losing
their jobs as a result of the globalization they pushed
assiduously. It was the Republicans who, in 26 states,
refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying
health insurance to those at the bottom. And why was the
victor somebody who made his living from taking advantage of
others, openly admitted not paying his fair share of taxes,
and made tax avoidance a point of pride?
Donald Trump grasped the spirit of the time: things
weren't going well, and many voters wanted change. Now they
will get it: there will be no business as usual.
But seldom
has there been more uncertainty. Which policies Trump will
pursue remains unknown, to say nothing of which will succeed
or what the consequences will be.
Trump seems hell-bent on having a trade war....
Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in
1979, is University Professor at Columbia University.
"... Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced from self promotion the study would have more effective application. ..."
"... For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing, as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government, plus bag brownie points for patriotism. ..."
"... But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making a show of "governing". ..."
"... So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald. ..."
"... I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations. ..."
"... And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits. Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation. ..."
"... I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being "in the service." ..."
"... That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost most of what made them unique. ..."
"... there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience. ..."
"... The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society. We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity & racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill' that the rest of the world will want to follow. ..."
"... A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest -- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect. ..."
"... This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable. ..."
"... Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here, then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them. ..."
"... The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws. ..."
"... The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy. ..."
"... The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected. If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves. The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties, so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for the plutocrats. ..."
"... The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own. ..."
"Make America Great Again," the slogan of President-elect
Donald
J. Trump 's successful election campaign, has been etched in the national consciousness. But
it is hard to know what to make of those vague words.
We don't have a clear definition of "great," for example, or of the historical moment when, presumably,
America was truly great. From an economic standpoint, we can't be talking about national wealth,
because the country is wealthier than it has ever been: Real per capita household net worth has reached
a record high, as Federal Reserve Board data shows.
But the distribution of wealth has certainly changed: Inequality has widened significantly. Including
the effects of taxes and government transfer payments, real incomes for the bottom half of the population
increased only 21 percent from 1980 to 2014. That compares with a 194 percent increase for the richest
1 percent, according to a new study
by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
That's why it makes sense that Mr. Trump's call for a return to greatness resonated especially
well among non-college-educated workers in Rust Belt states - people who have been hurt as good jobs
in their region disappeared. But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable,
and creating sustainable new jobs is a complex endeavor.
Difficult as job creation may be, making America great surely entails more than that, and it's
worth considering just what we should be trying to accomplish. Fortunately, political leaders and
scholars have been thinking about national greatness for a very long time, and the answer clearly
goes beyond achieving high levels of wealth.
Adam Smith, perhaps the first true economist, gave some answers in "
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ." That treatise is sometimes
thought of as a capitalist bible. It is at least partly about the achieving of greatness through
the pursuit of wealth in free markets. But Smith didn't believe that money alone assured national
stature. He also wrote
disapprovingly of the single-minded impulse to secure wealth, saying it was "the most universal
cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Instead, he emphasized that decent people should
seek real achievement - "not only praise, but praiseworthiness."
Strikingly, national greatness was a central issue in a previous presidential election campaign:
Lyndon B. Johnson , in 1964, called for the creation of a
Great Society, not merely a rich society or a powerful society. Instead, he spoke of achieving
equal opportunity and fulfillment. "The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents," he said. "It is a place where leisure is a welcome
chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness."
President Johnson's words still ring true. Opportunity is not equal for everyone in America. Enforced
leisure has indeed become a feared cause of boredom and restlessness for those who have lost jobs,
who have lost overtime work, who hold part-time jobs when they desire full-time employment, or who
were pushed into unwanted early retirement.
But there are limits to what government can do.
Jane Jacobs , the great urbanist,
wrote
that great nations need great cities, yet they cannot easily create them. "The great capitals of
modern Europe did not become great cities because they were the capitals," Ms. Jacobs said. "Cause
and effect ran the other way. Paris was at first no more the seat of French kings than were the sites
of half a dozen other royal residences."
Cities grow organically, she said, capturing a certain dynamic, a virtuous circle, a specialized
culture of expertise, with one industry leading to another, and with a reputation that attracts motivated
and capable immigrants.
America still has cities like this, but a fact not widely remembered is that Detroit used to be
one of them. Its rise to greatness was gradual. As Ms. Jacobs wrote, milled flour in the 1820s and
1830s required boats to ship the flour on the Great Lakes, which led to steamboats, marine engines
and a proliferation of other industries, which set the stage for automobiles, which made Detroit
a global center for anyone interested in that technology.
I experienced the beauty and excitement of Detroit as a child there among relatives who had ties
to the auto industry. Today, residents of Detroit and other fading metropolises want their old cities
back, but generations of people must create the fresh ideas and industries that spawn great cities,
and they can't do it by fiat from Washington.
All of which is to say that government intervention to enhance greatness will not be a simple
matter. There is a risk that well-meaning change may make matters worse. Protectionist policies and
penalties for exporters of jobs may not increase long-term opportunities for Americans who have been
left behind. Large-scale reduction of environmental or social regulations or in health care benefits,
or in America's involvement in the wider world may increase our consumption, yet leave all of us
with a sense of deeper loss.
Greatness reflects not only prosperity, but it is also linked with an atmosphere, a social environment
that makes life meaningful. In President Johnson's words, greatness requires meeting not just "the
needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."
Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets
and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced
from self promotion the study would have more effective application.
For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing,
as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise
of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered
by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word
and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government,
plus bag brownie points for patriotism.
But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness
Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making
a show of "governing".
But Reagan did not hesitate to govern on the international stage. That credit goes solely to
Obama, a president who's turned non-governance into something of an art. From refusing to regulate
bathroom etiquette, to egging people to have more casual sex (condoms on government, no worries,
go at it all you want), to unleashing 5 million illegals on domestic soil with a stroke of the
pen, this President has been the most ungoverning president in US history.
So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every
day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals
in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald.
I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many
corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations.
And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress
and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits.
Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance
of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation.
I was born in America in 1956 to native-born Americans. My father served starting right after
the Berlin Blockade, up through the Korean Conflict. My political consciousness was formed by
Vietnam, Kent State, the COINTELPRO Papers, the Pentagon Papers, the Church Committee reports.
My father had trust in the federal government, whereas I have none. I became a lawyer, and
married a lawyer. My brothers and my wife's sisters are all college-educated professionals.
Financially speaking, America has been very good to me. But as far as having any intellectual
or visceral concept of what America is, or what being an American means, I couldn't tell you.
I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared
something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being
"in the service."
That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the
sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost
most of what made them unique.
Given how very little we are expected to contribute to our city, state or country, or even
our neighbors, and as there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to
being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense
of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience.
I think this article touches on not only what will make America great, but also on how we should
act in order to show the rest of the world why liberal democracies are truly the path to prosperity
& peace in this oh so imperfect world.
How do we go about defeating ISIL & winning the smoldering economic/military contest with Russia
& China & other authoritarian regimes? By living righteously & daily demonstrating that treating
the planet & each other justly & humanely is the way to real happiness on Earth. & that we can
at the same time create plenty of wealth & life-fulfilling opportunities for all our citizens.
The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful
country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society.
We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity
& racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill'
that the rest of the world will want to follow.
If the great liberal democracies of Europe & North America & the southern pacific region can
reinvigorate our optimism & our commitment to the communal values that have driven the world's
prosperity since WWII, we can surely convince the rest of the world through the awesome leverage
of 'social media' that our liberal values of education, fairness, & love for all of our fellow
humans is the true path to happiness & peace on Earth.
As a Britisher, educated at Wharton by the grace of an American-owned company, I feel gratitude
for American generosity; yet I am now a Canadian citizen, having decided that the US in the time
of Nixon could never be a place where my family could be happy. So I write this with mixed feelings.
A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest
-- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge
to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being
used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality
of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to
point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic
ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect.
Having made a modest livelihood as an executive coach, I do not pretend that being honest (without
being self-relievingly so) is easy in high-level negotiations. Indeed it requires enormous courage,
intellect, empathy, and articulation skills. So I have enormous grief and considerable anxiety
for the state of US society today. But efforts like this one by the New York Times are certain
to be helpful. Thank you. I hope my contribution will be valuable to this fine newspaper and its
readers alike.
This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in
the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding
of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable.
Yet almost every policy and piece of legislation by Republicans seems aimed at making more
money for business. They assume it will trickle down to the workers (and we have seen over 30
years of how good that is working). So Republicans will ignore your plea or denigrate it. Doing
anything close to what you suggest gets in the way of making money.
"But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable, "
Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other
countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods
which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers
to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here,
then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them.
The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations
to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much
money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions
cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They
should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws.
The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America
is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy.
It's great for the Trumps and his cabinet members. These people have so much wealth that they
have bought our government. The gleeful look on McConnell's face last night after the GOP moved
to get rid of health care for millions, and to turn it back to the whim of the insurance companies,
said it all: America is great again for him. It's great for his owners.
The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined
to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected.
If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves.
The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties,
so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for
the plutocrats.
The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own.
"... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
"... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
"... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
"... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
"... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
"... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.
My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success
as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility
of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which
is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.
Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal
stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's
theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes
believed."
Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani).
OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are
households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.
But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase
aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian
version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush
to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.
What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction
of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to
savings.
People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for
them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).
Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue
against such policies
Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are
most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.
Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded.
Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by
States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.
Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people
who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers
propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met
if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.
We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls
decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides
less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require
more labor.
Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase
real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not")
but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:
"There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that
investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"
Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View
Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political
hack, not a scientist.
His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society
by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the
world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western
Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".
Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured
as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national
economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined
governmentality as:
"the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which
has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its
technical means, apparatuses of security"
A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it
may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of
maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance,
it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.
Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political
liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely
to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning
of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.
For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism
refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about
the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine,
as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism,
however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those
set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply
a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate
profits, and challenging welfarism.
Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of
governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily
focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions
and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.
... ... ...
1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence,
is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human
being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast
in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy
to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional
action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit,
or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality.
Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life
can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards
for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria,
neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in
all spheres.
Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about
the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies,
and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project:
it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all
domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization
of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.
2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter"
stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market
itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized
by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration.
Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected
by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition,
free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.
In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural
economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect;
instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions.
. . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism
can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence
to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions
as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled
by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle
of the state and society, along three different lines:
The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal
policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education.
In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation
deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas,
Jürgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state
itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market
and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that
"founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary
notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people.
As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces
the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . .
a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself
with reference to economic growth" (196).
The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply
profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all
state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms;
the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market
actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of
state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the
economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted.
Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses
the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional
adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy,
including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."
3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions
reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal
order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension,
among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking
differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of
Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates
individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.
It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured
by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their
own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism
equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic
and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about
costs, benefits, and consequences.
But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally
calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action
no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education,
and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.
Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate
impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers
and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity
and political complacency.
The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social,
political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these
options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded;
indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather
a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how
voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8
Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand:
consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting
to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses,
and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9
Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature)
by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized
for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the
act, actor, or rationale.
The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts
to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis
of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the
criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.
Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy
is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational
assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy,
tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding,
a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.
The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that
keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing
that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself)
convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes
choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke
argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual
"entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being
and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).
Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the
Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination
can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the
consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from
certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount
to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it
is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused
throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.
Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational'
individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial
form" (Lemke, 202).
4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality
has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy
vis-à-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests,
incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial
principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms
with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization
of the state with that of the social and the subject.
Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity,
the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of
the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the
moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according
to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the
saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of
neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's
argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in
its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.
All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the
individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to
this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational
choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch
of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would
figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization
thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.
The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market.
Julio -> Libezkova...
I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification
of private property which is at the root of it.
Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.
Brown:
"The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market."
Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:
"... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except
those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist
with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools
and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way,
to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional
careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
D
onald
Trump's administration will implement large tax cuts
and substantial financial deregulation. President Trump
may also change U.S. policies on trade, although
precisely what he will do is less clear-and the shift
may be more rhetorical than real. Trump is also likely
to substantially cut or privatize federal spending. To
the extent that his policies add up to a coherent
economic strategy, they are reminiscent of Ronald
Reagan's, but with an extra dose of cronyism and the
wild card of economic nationalism.
Trump himself and several of his key appointees are
also poster children for oligarchy and even
kleptocracy-government operated to serve the business
interests of elites, including top officials. The
intermingling of business, family, and government as
the Trump administration takes shape unfortunately
parallels what I have observed in corrupt developing
countries over the past 30 years, including during my
time as chief economist for the International Monetary
Fund.
President Trump is likely to please his supporters
in the short run.
Despite emerging contradictions between his
presidency and who he purported to be during the
campaign,
President Trump is
likely to please his supporters in the short run.
His tax cuts, promoted by supporters for their
supposed supply-side benefits, could provide a
temporary Keynesian jolt to demand. His gestures on
trade, like pressuring Carrier to keep jobs in Indiana,
will strike a tough posture and save a very small
number of jobs. But over time, Trump supporters-and the
rest of the country-will become profoundly disappointed
as economic security, opportunity, and prosperity are
undermined for most Americans.
Taxing, Spending, and Obfuscating
Amid this muddle, one thing is clear. There will be
a big tax cut for upper-income Americans-this is the
implication of Trump's pledges during the presidential
campaign, and this is also what Senate and House
Republicans want. Steven Mnuchin, the nominee for
Treasury secretary, says there will be no reduction in
the amount of tax actually paid by rich
Americans-arguing there will also be a limit on the
deductions they can take. But the math of Trump's
proposals is quite straightforward, and the result of
the planned reductions in personal, corporate, capital
gains, and inheritance taxes is that the rich will
undoubtedly pay less.
In other words, we will re-run a version of the
economic experiment previously conducted in the 1980s
under Reagan and again under George W. Bush. James Kwak
and I wrote a book,
White House Burning
, on
this issue, and there is really very little
disagreement among careful analysts on what happened
over the past 30 years. Lower taxes on rich people led
to higher post-tax income for them and not much by way
of higher incomes for others; inequality went up.
Despite supply-side claims, reduced revenues increased
budget deficits, giving Republicans a pretext for
deeper spending cuts. During the same time period,
manufacturing jobs declined, the median wage stagnated,
and the job market became increasingly polarized.
Albin Lohr-Jones/picture-alliance/dpa/AP
Images
Steven Mnuchin arrives at Trump Tower,
in New York.
As for economic insecurity-an issue emphasized by
Mr. Trump-this is about to get much worse. Health
insurance will be stripped away and partly privatized
at the behest of House Republicans, who also hope to
turn Medicare into some form of voucher
program-effectively reducing benefits for older and
lower-income Americans. They may face some resistance
from their colleagues in a closely divided Senate, but
Medicare already has a (voluntary) voucher component,
the so-called Medicare Advantage program, which enrolls
about a third of Medicare recipients. To provide
greater space for tax cuts, Medicaid and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (previously
known as food stamps) will likely become some form of
block grant (a preset transfer amount to state and
local government)-which is really just a way to cut
these forms of assistance to people in need (many of
whom have jobs, but are paid very low wages).
It is literally impossible to have a rational
conversation-either about the data or about what
happened in our recent economic history-with some
leading House Republicans. Now this House Republican
belief system appears likely to motivate and guide
economic policy-Trump needs their support to pass
legislation, and he is working closely with them,
including Mike Pence, formerly a leading House
Republican, as vice president, and Representative Tom
Price, the nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
As for measuring potential loss of revenue from tax
cuts, not to worry-the House Republicans have already
changed the rules to reflect so-called "dynamic
scoring." The Tax Policy Center estimates that under
Trump's tax plan, "federal revenues would fall by $6.2
trillion over the first decade before accounting for
added interest costs. Including interest costs, the
federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first
decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036." But the official
scoring by the Congressional Budget Office will likely
show no such loss of revenue-because the Republican
Congress has already mandated that tax cuts will
stimulate economic growth by an enormous (and
implausible) amount. The alternative (i.e., distorted)
reality of Trump's campaign rhetoric is about to show
up also in the driest possible budget documents.
Watch carefully what happens on "infrastructure."
During the campaign, Trump seemed to support upgrading
our national road, rail, and air transportation
systems-and the need for renewal across the country
goes much deeper. But as more detailed plans become
evident, it seems likely that the actual Trump
infrastructure program will just be a cover story for
tax credits and privatizations-not genuine public
infrastructure.
Advertisement
Expect a very large increase in our budget deficit
and national debt, exactly as was forecast by reputable
analysts during the election campaign. This might
provide some short-term stimulus to the economy, as my
colleague Olivier Blanchard suggests. In that scenario,
there are longer-term problems in the form of higher
deficits and more debt. As Blanchard points out,
inequality is very likely to increase.
And in light of what has happened since the
election, it's not entirely clear that economic growth
will pick up-keep in mind we are already in a recovery
and the job creation numbers have been good for a long
while (nearly 200,000 net new jobs per month since
early 2010). And in recent weeks, stock prices have
increased, but the yield on bonds has also jumped
higher (up to 2.2 percent on the ten-year Treasury bond
on November 15 and now around 2.4 percent; compared
with 1.8 percent immediately before the election). This
is a big and unexpected move, signaling that investors
are worried about the potential impact on inflation.
It has been a long time since we had significant
inflation in the United States, and many people seem to
have forgotten how unpopular it is. Ronald Reagan told
Americans they should care about the "misery index"-the
sum of inflation and unemployment. And inflation is
almost always bad for people on lower incomes,
including pensions (which will not be fully indexed to
rising costs). Trump's supporters will not be so
delighted once the full implications of his tax cuts
and other macroeconomic policies begin to sink in.
Any Trump boom could also be short-circuited by the
deepening crisis in Europe, even without the added
assault of Trump-style protectionism.
Any Trump boom could also be
short-circuited by the deepening crisis in Europe, even
without the added assault of Trump-style protectionism.
With the fall of the Italian government and Italy on
the verge of a banking crisis-on top of the UK's Brexit
(planning to leave the European Union), and the rise of
far-right Marine Le Pen in France-the European Union
and its elements are coming under increasing pressure.
Ironically, the instigators of Europe's latest
economic crisis are Trump-style populists-and they draw
explicit inspiration from Trump's political brand. But
their success will weaken the European economy, and
hurt the U.S. economy and Trump's brand at home.
Financial Deregulation
House Republicans are dead set on repealing
financial regulation-rolling back the rules to what
they were before 2008. Excessive financial deregulation
leads to a predictable cycle of boom-bust-bailout, in
which rich people do very well, and millions of people
lose their jobs, their homes, and their futures.
During the last crisis, presumptive Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin bought IndyMac, a distressed bank,
receiving a great deal of help from the government-and
then sold it at a large profit. At the same time,
millions of Americans lost everything in the housing
crash and their appeals for assistance of any kind fell
on deaf ears. In fact, appeals for the reasonable
restructuring of loans made by IndyMac were apparently
also turned down; this lender has a reputation as
ruthless (and careless) in its foreclosure practices.
If the Treasury Department ends up being headed by
someone who gains from economic volatility, how careful
would officials really want to be? Trump himself spoke
of the housing crisis as a great opportunity-for him,
that is. Rich and powerful people often do well from
extreme booms and busts; most Americans do not.
Deregulating finance is always sold with the claim
that it will boost growth, and in the short run perhaps
the headline numbers will improve-but only because we
do not measure the economy with any regard for
macroeconomic risk. If we had risk-adjusted employment
and output (and corporate profits) during the George W.
Bush years, we would have realized that economic
expansion was based on unsustainable risk-taking in the
financial sector-manifest in the crisis of September
2008 and the deepest recession since the Great
Depression.
respres/Creative Commons
Trump himself spoke of the housing
crisis as a great opportunity-for him,
that is. If the Treasury Department ends
up being headed by someone who gains
from economic volatility, how careful
would officials really want to be?
In the House Republican mantra, honed over six years
of refusing to cooperate with President Barack Obama,
financial deregulation did not contribute to the
meltdown of 2008. These congressional representatives
fervently believe that growth has been slow because of
a supposedly high burden of regulation on
business-despite the fact that the United States is one
of the easiest places in the world to do business.
In reality, growth has been slow in recent years
precisely because the financial crisis was so
severe-and deregulation will set us up for another
crisis. The question is just how long this will take to
become evident to voters.
On finance, as well as on taxes, Trump and the House
Republicans are likely to work hard and effectively
together-creating what will become a more extreme
version of the unequal and unstable George W. Bush–era
economy. Expect consequences that are similar to what
happened during and after the Bush regime.
Trade
There were some defects in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), as both presidential candidates
discussed during the election campaign. But refusing to
implement the TPP agreement or altering the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not likely to
bring back manufacturing jobs-just as gutting the
Environmental Protection Agency would not bring back
coal.
There is a defensible version of economic
nationalism, which includes investing in people
(education and opportunities), building public
infrastructure, and working to ensure that new
technology creates jobs. Transitioning to a
lower-carbon and greener economy can create both jobs
and exports.
In the short run, Trump may score some points with
his supporters by talking tough on trade, although
his corporate allies are likely to reduce that to
mostly rhetoric.
But Trump's strategy is very far from this.
In the short run, Trump may
score some points with his supporters by talking tough
on trade, although his corporate allies are likely to
reduce that to mostly rhetoric.
The president is
likely to have a number of high-profile photo ops, when
he strong-arms (or pays) a few corporations to keep a
small number of jobs in the United States.
The key part of reality missing from Trump's vision
is that manufacturing jobs have disappeared in recent
decades primarily because of automation-not because of
trade agreements or the supposedly high burden of
taxation and regulation on business; again, the United
States is one of the best and easiest places in the
world to start and run a company.
The surge in imports from China in the early 2000s
did have a negative impact on manufacturing, but this
effect is hard to undo-and threatening a trade war (or
talking on the phone with the president of Taiwan) will
either have no significant effect or prove disruptive.
Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports will result in
retaliation; trade wars do not typically lead to higher
growth or better jobs.
And one impact of Trump-a sharp appreciation of the
dollar since his election-runs directly against what he
wants to achieve. A stronger dollar means it is harder
for firms to export from the United States, while
imports become cheaper. The U.S. trade deficit (exports
minus imports) will increase if the dollar remains at
its current level.
Advertisement
If Trump's fiscal policies push interest rates
higher, as currently seems likely-either because of the
market reaction or how the Federal Reserve feels
compelled to respond-that will further strengthen the
dollar and undermine manufacturing jobs in the United
States. Again, the question is how long it will take
his supporters to notice that Trump oversold them on
what he would do. At some point, perhaps, this tips
over into the perception that they-and everyone
else-have actually been deceived.
Special Interests and Crony Capitalism
For now, Trump will retain some popularity, courtesy
of a fiscal stimulus and economic nationalism. But over
a longer period of time, reality will catch up with
him. And at the heart of what will go wrong with the
Trump administration-in perception and reality-is the
role of special interests.
Candidate Trump made a big deal of wanting to "drain
the swamp," by which he meant reducing the power of
special interests, including corporate lobbyists.
Perhaps his highest-profile pledge in this regard was
to introduce term limits for members of Congress-in
fact, this was the first in a long list of commitments
made in his Gettysburg speech on October 22, 2016. But
one day after the election, Mitch McConnell, Republican
leader in the Senate, said that there will be no such
term limits. This takes the issue completely off the
table.
On swamp-related issues more broadly, lobbyists were
running Trump's transition team, and the appointment
process looks like a feeding frenzy for special
interests, as they compete to get industry-friendly
people into key positions and to advance their
legislative agenda.
The bad news for the broader economy is that the
Trump circle could allocate to themselves tens of
billions of dollars, through government contracts,
insider trading, and other mechanisms.
The bad news for the broader
economy is that the Trump circle could allocate to
themselves tens of billions of dollars, through
government contracts, insider trading, and other
mechanisms.
The U.S. Constitution cleverly
creates an intricate set of checks and balances
precisely to put constraints on executive authority.
But with Republicans in control of the executive
branch, the legislature, and much of the judiciary
(including the Supreme Court), there will not be much
by way of disclosure, let alone effective oversight.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the powerful
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
says he will further investigate Hillary Clinton's use
of a private email server. How exactly that will help
ensure good governance over the next four years is
unclear. The potential self-dealing of President Trump,
his family, and his colleagues will cry out for serious
investigations, but there will be no congressional
venue for that unless Democrats take back the House or
the Senate in 2018.
The United States is a rich nation, with the most
advanced economy, military, and technology the world
has ever seen. We also have its most advanced
oligarchy. In the Trump iteration, special interests
seem likely to focus a great deal of attention on
enriching themselves and their friends-"the rules are
for other people" seems likely to become the motto of
this presidency.
Trump has already indicated that he may pursue
foreign policy in ways that advance his (or his
family's) private business interests. And of course,
Trump is famously proud of how he legally manipulates
the bankruptcy system-a skill he shares with Wilbur
Ross (incoming commerce secretary) and Steven Mnuchin
(Treasury secretary).
None of these people inspire confidence in the
outcomes for the broader economy. Most likely their
policies will further enrich powerful insiders, cut
effective worker earnings, and add little if anything
to the productive economy.
All oligarchs always say the same thing-their
projects are good for the country. And in the end, the
outcomes are always identical: They have the yachts and
the offshore accounts; everyone else gets nothing.
In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James
Robinson documented the myriad ways in which powerful
people around the world help themselves to economic
riches and, along the way, undermine political
institutions. There is often some short-term growth,
seen in the headline numbers, but oligarch-centric
economies are never inclusive-and lasting benefits
always prove elusive. In fact, as those authors
emphasize, oligarchic control is often a prelude to
nations running into serious crisis and state failure.
If, by the time of his inauguration, Trump refuses
to divest himself from his business interests-and if he
continues to refuse to publish his tax returns (which
would presumably show the full extent of his foreign
relationships)-then we are just another profoundly
oligarchic country, albeit with nuclear weapons.
What would be the U.S. role in the world if this
happens? Probably we will have little sway. How can you
lead other democracies when you are a laughingstock?
Some other corrupt countries might want to cooperate,
but this is worth very little. We are in the world of
G-Zero. No one is in charge and there is chaos in many
places. Only people who thrive on chaos will do well.
pgl said...
Simon Johnson has a long and interesting discussion of what
concerns him about the Trump economic plan. His big two
concerns can be summed up as lots of give aways for the rich
and a return to financial deregulation. Reagan II
unfortunately.
"The arguments are well known, but worth repeating. Tariffs by themselves may indeed reduce
imports, increase the demand for domestic goods, and increase output (although, even then, as
pointed out by Robert Mundell more than fifty years ago, the exchange rate may appreciate enough
to lead to lower output in the end).
But the "by themselves" assumption is just not right: Tariffs imposed by the United States
would most likely lead to a tariff war and thus decrease exports.
And the decrease in imports and exports would not be a wash. On the demand side, higher import
prices would lead the Fed to increase interest rates further. On the supply side, and in my opinion
more importantly, the tariffs would put into question global supply chains, disrupt production
and trade, and decrease productivity. The effects might be hard to quantify, but they would be
there."
"the collision of expansionary fiscal and counter-cyclical monetary policy will result in an
appreciated dollar. How much more appreciated?"
Blanchard and Chinn are simply noting what we have all learned from the great Robert Mundell
some 50 plus years ago. I get that Peter Navarro never grasped these concepts but it seems certain
readers of this blog have not either.
"... By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... as long as the trade balance is zero ..."
"... Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller. ..."
By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United
Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's
Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger.
Originally published at
Alternet
... ... ...
By advocating night after night for American Made,
President-elect Trump essentially warned Ryan not to strip the Buy-American
provisions out of the Water Resources Development Act. But
Ryan did it anyway
early in December when he got the act from the
Senate.
The act contained strong, permanent Buy America language when
the Senate sent it over. These provisions are significant because they use
tax dollars to create 33 percent more
U.S.
factory jobs
, something that is, again, important to voters,
68 percent
of whom told the Mellman Group & North Star Opinion Research
in November in a national survey conducted for the Alliance for American
Manufacturing that they were worried that the country had lost too many
manufacturing jobs.
In addition-and President-elect Trump knows this from the
response he gets at his rallies-Buy American policies are very popular.
Seventy-four percent
of voters say large infrastructure projects
financed by taxpayer money should be constructed with American-made
materials and American workers. And those who voted for President-elect
Trump agree more strongly – 79 percent of them say American-made should be
given preference over the lowest bidder.
This is a very big deal to iron and steel producers and workers
in the United States. Far too many mills are closed or partially shuttered
because of unfairly traded imports, and more than 16,000 steelworkers across
this country have been laid off over the past year.
China is the main culprit, but there are others. China produces
so much steel now that it has managed to inundate the world with more steel
than anyone needs. It is dumping steel on the world market at such low
prices that no one can compete. As a result, producers from places as far
flung as Mexico, the U.S., Canada, India, the U.K. and Spain are shutting
down and throwing workers out of their jobs.
China props up that excess steelmaking capacity with methods
that are illegal under the terms of the agreements it entered into to gain
access to the World Trade Organization and Permanent Normalized Trade
Relations with the United States. If steel is sold domestically, a country
can provide steel firms with subsidies like exemptions from utility payments
and taxes, interest-free loans and free land. But those free market-warping
subsidies violate international trade agreements when the steel is exported.
That's what China is doing. And it's killing American steel companies and
American jobs.
When Ryan eliminated the permanent Buy American provision in
the Water Bill, essentially saying it's fine to import illegally subsidized
Chinese iron and steel for taxpayer-financed water projects, he was also
saying it is fine to bankrupt American steel companies and destroy American
jobs.
If the United States is reduced to buying steel from China to
build its military tanks and armor, that's okay with Ryan, as long as he
maintains a great relationship with the lobbyists for the foreign
steelmakers. They pushed him hard to drop the Buy American provision through
Squire Patton Boggs, a Washington, D.C. lobby and law firm employing Ryan's
predecessor Speaker John Boehner and numerous
former
top GOP aides
.
He got hit with a
tweet
storm
after he chose Chinese jobs over American jobs, though. Buy
American supporters and members of the Congressional Steel Caucus began
pointing out on Twitter just how good #BuyAmerica is for American jobs and
the economy and cited @realDonaldTrump, the President-elect's Twitter handle
on every Tweet, which means his account was alerted.
This came from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown:
"
.@RealDonaldTrump
:
Tell @SpeakerRyan to put #BuyAmerica back in Water bill. American tax
dollars for American jobs."
And steelworkers wrote protests on Ryan's Facebook page and
hundreds called Ryan and his anti-American-made congressional crew.
Ryan responded. Sort of. He restored one-year Buy American
language to the bill. Nothing like the permanent provisions achieved in
other federal laws, but it does keep the jobs for 12 months and the issue
alive until President-elect Trump can take on Ryan mano-a-mano on Buy
American after the inauguration.
Ryan has made clear his anti-American preference, so this will
be a royal rumble. But the Speaker should beware. The last time the
President-elect stepped into the ring with a heavyweight, it was with the
ring's owner, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon, a former
professional wrestler. And McMahon left bald and defeated.
Altandmain
,
December 27, 2016 at 2:18 am
Perhaps the only good thing to come our of Trump is that he might
energize a populist base to support manufacturing. The Trump base really
needs to push hard on this matter.
The only other is that Trump is less likely to get involved in a war with
Russia.
Otherwise I would suspect that he has long betrayed his promises. He
won't be addressing corruption like he promised during the election. He's
already stuffed his cabinet with cronies. The good news is that elements of
his base are already crying foul. Let's hope that they can win on this one.
On the left, the battle with the Establishment Democrats is a serious
challenge for real change. They have learned nothing from 2016, the election
of Trump and how popular Sanders was. Either that or they have no desire to
admit they know, but won't admit the truth.
Nothing will change because nothing can change: if you have mixed all the
ingredients for a sponge cake and baked it in the oven, can the children
elect a leader to change it into a chocolate cake?
You forget that the ultimate strategy is to destroy the sponge cake
utterly and start over from scratch. Desperate people do not always act
"rationally." If the general public come to see the Trump administration
as having betrayed them, they do not have to switch to the Democrat team.
That's the Neo Democrat's mistake. TINA is not an "inevitable" strategy.
The Dems tried TINA with the "inevitable" H Clinton, and lost.
To torture your analogy somewhat, the 'sponge cake' can become fertilizer
for helping to grow something new.
+1. If Trump badly lets down his base, then the likelihood is that
they will turn to an even nuttier and more dangerous strand of the
right, not liberal Dems. Thats why its absolutely vital that the left
presents a coherent and popular alternative.
That, or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and
delegitimizing the system further without providing a path to
productive change. The cake analogy is really only useful within
the context of electoral choice in our system. We're only being
offered box mix Red Velvet cake vs. box mix Devils Food cake. So
whether you need protein, or fermented cabbage, or calcium, or just
want coconut cake, you are SOL - you can't make any of those things
from those two box mixes, and those two box mixes both have too
many toxins and too few nutrients for the body politic to survive
on.
I think thats the big question mark. Will angry disappointed
voters just give up voting? Or will they keep picking
non-mainstream choices until eventually they succeed. I suspect
the former, but there is no doubt the establishment fears the
latter.
Recent history gives us an answer: the Republican base has
been upset with the establishment since GWB. But their voter
participation hasn't declined. They channeled it into the tea
party, and ever-crazier politicians, to the extent that the
'first wave' of tea party outsiders are now being chased out
be even crazier second and third wavers.
Remember that Newt Gingrich was the original barbarian at
the gate. And now he's almost a centrist statesman compared
to the people being supported by the Republican base. And
Paul Ryan was chosen by Mitt Romney precisely because he was
a tea party darling when elected, and now he's considered a
RINO as the base continues its walk into insanity.
or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and
delegitimizing the system further
The CEOs of giant corporations and the billionaires who own
the United States don't care how many people actually vote. They
just want their privileges to be preserved, and that is far more
likely with low voter turnouts.
however, you can slice that sponge cake into thin layers,
lightly brush it with the liqueur of choice, layer it with fair
trade organic chocolate ganache, and voila, a chocolate cake to
die for! Bon Appetite and Let them eat cake.
That's for the Masters fco. We toiling masses, and now
even the toadying class, have to settle for Oreos. (And now
that the Oreo has been replaced by a Twinkie )
And FWIW, I'm not sure what 'left' or 'right' actually mean
anymore.
Fundamentally, we need new ways of thinking about economics.
If those manufacturing plants are all owned by offshore, or tax
haven veiled interests, there's no guarantee that the workers will
still get a fair pay for their work. What we need are manufacturing
skills, but also more equitable business structures.
Unsatisfactory metaphor. A cake is a finished product. Politics is an
ongoing process, with continually changing policies. If it were true that
nothing could change, we might still have strong unions–or be living in a
state of nature with no government or civilization at all.
One aspect left out of this analysis that I would like to see
incorporated is the argument Robert Brenner makes in "The Economics of
Global Turbulence." The gist of the book is a (drawn-out) citing of
statistics that confirm a classical Marxist 'declining profit rate' argument
that after factories become efficient enough, and this seems particularly
true for commodities like steel, there is really not a good way to bring
back employment in that sector. Basically, it seems as if a few dozen
Chinese steel factories can supply all of the steel for the whole world.
This would imply that even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese
steel to cause the introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not
actually produce that many jobs. Whether it makes sense to take the Marxist
analysis one step further and say that few jobs = few profits is perhaps
debatable, but the core of the analysis seems sound to me and so I wonder
how much effect a buy American campaign could really have in high capital
industries like steel.
Joe Jordan, this is a perspective rather than an answer: Viewing the
benefits solely in jobs (or profits) is insufficient. Strategic resources
like steel require not only factories but skills. If domestic production
goes to zero, so does motivation for not only research to new processes,
but retention of base knowledge.
When we put the metal roof on this fall, our supplier talked about
Chinese steel panels being lesser quality, as well as the coating on
them. As they degrade faster than expected, new roofing will be required,
driving further demand. If Chinese subsidize steel for export beyond the
normal bezzle/vig level, the sector becomes unsustainable. The payoff is
can be in monopoly control, or in strategic timing. From "Unconditional
Warfare":
"Even though they are the same ancient territorial disputes,
nationality conflicts, religious clashes, and the delineation of spheres
of power in human history, and are still the several major agents of
people waging war from opposite directions, these traditional factors are
increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources,
contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other
economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to
these factors."
Also:
"this is because the monopolizing of one type of technology is far
more difficult than inventing a type of technology."
I'm really glad to see someone reiterate this point, which Yves
has made repeatedly the past few years:
Strategic resources like steel require not only factories but
skills. If domestic production goes to zero, so does motivation
for not only research to new processes, but retention of base
knowledge.
It's not simply the quality of materials, and I personally have
nothing against the Chinese. (Rather the opposite: I have huge
admiration for what they have accomplished.) However, without
people working in manufacturing, there are entire categories of
knowledge that get lost.
I could make a solid case that one of our current problems is
too many business schools, too much financialization, and too many
lobbyists: all of those people are thinking about abstractions and
not enough practical hands-on understanding of how the world
actually works.
I sometimes think that I've learned more about economics from
planting, hoeing, weeding, and harvesting my veggie garden than
I've learned from university coursework. Economics is fundamentally
complex and unpredictable; like gardening, you just have to keep at
it and hedge your bets and pay attention.
Basically, we have a whole bunch of people who have never
assessed the quality of their soil, so - Paul Ryan being a classic
case! - they don't grasp the elemental reality that you can't grow
a crop in depleted soil. Good manufacturing policies are like
building up your humus (soil, related to the work "humility"). And
good business policies are like having good seeds, or good plant
cuttings; they come from good stock, and if well cared for have a
chance to produce ongoing prosperity.
Okay, off my soapbox . (Can hardly wait for the Gardening
Catalogs to start arriving next week! ;-)
I think a key problem in steel is that the Chinese (and India) have
been squeezing every last bit of product out of old outdated mills in
order to keep prices down. China has some of the most high tech mills in
the world side by side with Mao era backyard mills, still churning it
out. Its these old mills which are responsible for some of the worst
pollution this winter as the government has revved up yet another
construction boom. Its long overdue to shut down a lot of this capacity.
The Indians are somewhat notorious for buying up old mills in Europe and
elsewhere and basically working them to destruction, then walking away
when they can't squeeze out any more profit.
So I think the steel industry at the moment is not a competitive
industry in the classic supply and demand sense. If the US were to
seriously pursue an 'American first' policy that would be a major shock
to the industry. I've no idea how much capacity remains in the US
industry, but I'd suspect it would in the short term be very profitable
in the short term if there was a big shortfall. But that would I think be
short term, and wouldn't necessarily change long term trends in
profitability.
But environmentally, it would be great if an American first policy led
to a big shutdown in steel capacity elsewhere. Thats assuming the Chinese
and Indian didn't opt for a hugely expansionary policy to compensate.
I would only agree with this if the playing field were level. That is,
if Chinese mfg'ers comply with the same environmental, safety, and labor
regulations that the U.S. does, and still manages to provide lower cost
goods, then perhaps we should let them do it. (NB: I don't care about the
govt incentives; the U.S. has an industrial policy called defense that
comprises a larger GDP than any other country in the world).
But even then, the theory of comparative advantage only works
as
long as the trade balance is zero
. That is, it's fine to give up
steel production if you can find something else to export that you do
better. Even a zero profit producer provides value to the local economy
from all the wages paid to its employees, and the downstream activity of
its local suppliers.
Basically, it seems as if a few dozen Chinese steel factories can
supply all of the steel for the whole world. This would imply that
even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese steel to cause the
introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not actually
produce that many jobs.
This seems to be a non sequitur - you appear to have missed a
supporting argument that would actually link these two statements. But
then so does most of the political establishment when they tell us TINA
as if they read it in the Bible.
If the US is legally required to "buy American" for infrastructure
products that's going to restore
some
jobs and preserve
steel-making know-how domestically. I think Trump's supporters would be
OK with that, even if it's not huge in terms of jobs numbers.
"First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal
spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "
Not quite so. The other problem is private investment is going towards
areas of what should be termed as mal-investment. Most damaging is corporate
investment off shore – it costs money to destroy American jobs- but the Fed
is helping with ZIRP policy making it a little more cost effective to
destroy jobs. Then other private mal-investment areas are buying into a
overpriced stock market (it's used stock – companies don't get the funds for
investment), over priced bonds and – every passive investors' favorite –
selling corporate bonds to buy back corporate stock. This is like "black
hole" capitalism.
But the main problem with private infrastructure investment is it usually
entails the granting of market monopolies to private entities. This has
never ended well and results in price gouging of the consumer, unless there
is a well functioning regulating body controlling prices. But we are always
told regulation is bad .and the [monopoly]market setting prices is good and
crony capitalists are working in our best interests, even tho it doesn't
always seem that way .
So we're in an era where private investment has failed the country.
Pouring huge Federal stimulus on top of the current transmission paths leads
to some "trickle down", at best. Really, the most effective thing to do is
just steal all the money back. :)
Trump could get a good start by becoming our "Bankrupter in Chief".
Cancel the F-35, forcing Lockheed into a prepackaged bankruptcy like they
did with Government Motors. We'd then have Government Defense Contractor,
with the stockholder and bondholder liability gone off the balance sheet.
The factories would still be there – just a new and improved cost structure.
Then work out a similar approach for health, drugs and education. We'd be
amazed how easily our "private sector" collapses if Uncle Sam just stops
paying it for a little while. :)
@Craazyboy – Like your ideas about "steal all the money back" (I
believe M. Hudson calls this 'claw back' – of all the money stolen from
the public with the help of the Fed after the 2008 financial crisis) and
"Bankrupter in Chief". But I'm hoping you were just being 'craazy' and
don't really believe Trump and his cronies want to do 'good'.
Let's hope Trump and the boys from GSachs concentrate on setting up
toll booths and Maginot Lines on the nation's borders when they think
infrastructure. That way the damage they do could conceivably be undone
in 10 – 20 years. Take a look at
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/28/taken-for-a-ride-on-the-interstate-highway-system/
Following the model it suggests would of course require them to think
longer term than their take the money and run, short term profit seeking
mentality most likely permits, i.e. publicly funded infrastructure which
sets the rules for the operation of 'free markets' for a century to come.
For example, they could construct, at public expense, a national power
grid anchored at the nation's largest, dirtiest coal mines instead of the
best solar or wind locations. That way coal could again become 'cheaper'
than wind or solar for decades to come. The general idea here is the
construction of infrastructure which offers the possibility of the
greatest LONG TERM profit, even at the expense of short term principles
like private ownership of public infrastructure.
I believe Trump has the proven job experience to be our "Bankrupter
in Chief". But, no, I don't have high hopes he will exercise his
strengths in that area.
I have bad dreams that Trump finds out that he can only hire
Mexican labor to build The Wall, because they're the only ones living
in the neighborhood.
But, as you point out, they can create their own 100 year TINA.
Another current example – health care. We can't have single payer –
because "in America we have health insurance companies!"
A new acronym is needed for TINA. How about TIANA – 'there is
ABSOLUTELY no alternative'? I just love the stuff "the smartest
guys in the room" come up with – for example, erecting tolls booths
on everything and then off-shoring, out-sourcing and downsizing the
jobs their customers need to be able to pay the tolls!
The statement is correct as written. No increase in fiscal spending
means that the increase in infrastructure spending has come about by
cutting spending somewhere else. We've separately written at great length
as to the problems with privatization, which is what these public-private
partnerships would amount to.
Even as liberals are still wallowing in psychobabble, we see some ways of
handling the Republican elites and the Trump administration, and even
handing them some defeats. Ryan is a Republican intellectual (Obama told us
so), and someone who is politically weak. Removing Buy-USA language shows
exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of
Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run
him over with a steamroller.
Meanwhile, we will see if it is possible to hang this conundrum on the
members of Trump's cabinet, who are used to being coddled executives and to
exporting other people's jobs whenever they felt like it. Another possible
opportunity. (Just don't look for the DLC wing to lead on this issue.)
So the predicted fascist regime already can't get its act together. What
we're seeing is Reagan Redux, and there were plenty of ways of defeating the
tactics of that last TV star.
Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his
constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin.
If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a
steamroller.
Very interesting comment. I'm not in Ryan's district but I know many
people who are. The district has been gerrymandered to make it easier for
Ryan to hold (he still has Janesville but no longer has D-leaning
Beloit), but the fact is he is hugely popular despite holding position
after position that is contrary to the (economic) interests of his
constituents. I wish it were different but my sense is Ryan could go
shoot people in Times Square and still be re-elected for as long as he
wants.
"Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his
constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville,
Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over
with a steamroller."
Liberals aren't (or perhaps are no longer) looking for opportunities
that benefit the 99%. Conservatives, of course, aren't either because
those politicians work for roughly the same hundred families as the
Liberal politicians do. A left-populist would easily win today, Sanders
would have landslided Trump. But, of course, left-populism is the one
great existential political danger to those hundred families' wealth
piles. Liberalism, conservatism or even right-populism can all be managed
and navigated–and indeed exploited. Left-populism, let's not forget, came
really
dangerously close to getting the executive this
year. Like to the point that the kayfabe was in danger and "the force"
was palpably in flux.
The table is really set for left-populism right now to the extent that
any special catalyst or nucleation point could push it into open battle
with those hundred families. A battle that will be extraordinarily
difficult for them to navigate. All of the anti-democratic cheats
combined: the systemic corruption, the gerrymandering, the crooked
primaries, the voter suppression and outright electoral fraud, the
captive media and so on combined, as impressive as they are, can only
tilt the playing field so far. Exceed or surmount the entry barriers, and
much of those corruptive infrastructures listed above fall as well. You
can only game any putative democracy so far, and while that is a long
way, it isn't ever absolute. It's like having an impressive system of
dikes holding back the ocean, it all can work perfectly up to its
engineering limits, but once those physical limits are exceeded, none of
it subsequently works as it should. The extreme amount of energy holding
the illusion in place only becomes readily–undeniably–apparent when that
amount of energy is suddenly insufficient.
Sanders getting within a whisker of the executive is, I think, one
hell of a lot more significant than people know or allow. But I think
perhaps the longer it takes for left-populism to prevail, the stronger
its momentum will be. I don't see the devastations of the current
bipartisan, globalist neoliberalism empowering any other group as well.
Trump will in all likelihood do great damage to right-populism, clearing
out the field even more.
: To be the reserve currency issue, you need to be willing to run trade
deficits on an ongoing basis so there is plenty of your currency in foreign
hands. That is equivalent to having your domestic demand support foreign
jobs, or exporting jobs. [
Yves
]
This may indicate that any job growth in the U.S. won't be from making
more stuff ('buy American'), but rather by restricting
immigration
('hire American').
A CIS analysis using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey showed that since 2000, 71 percent of the net
increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job
in New Hampshire has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal), even
though the native-born accounted for 65 percent of population growth
among the working-age.
Yes, this is a conundrum. A high import duty makes dollars harder to
get to those foreigners that want to save in dollars, so pushes up the
price, somewhat negating the duty.
Immigration roughly doubled in 1990, to current 1 million per year. Maybe
32 million since 1975, 10% of current pop.
1 million per year current immigration adds up, 10 million since 2006 or,
if unchanged, another 10 million by 2026.
This blog talks of stagnant middle lower class wages since mid-seventies,
wonder what effect 32mm immigrants had on wages or 24mm current
unemployed or given up looking workers?
Who do we care about most unemployed here or unemployed over there?
What, exactly, is wrong about a wall, or drastically reducing
immigration? Once somebody gets citizenship their family members get
priority is this good policy for the bottom 50%? We do know that corps
would like to further drive down wages, explaining her hopes for open
borders.
And what about students? Is it good policy to educate foreigners instead
of locals? Who wants to explain their reasons to locals turned away? To
their families? (To influence future foreign leaders? Really? Xi was
educated here would you say he is therefore our good buddy?) so who is
hurt, and who is helped, if we end or reduce student visas?
What is the progressive position on America, or Americans, first? I
would say that when unemployment is truly low we could allow some
immigration, when we expand our universities to account for pop growth we
could allow some foreign participation.
No more foreign adventures. We are already confronting Russia big
time sack the neocons at state and war departments and CIA Slash
armaments spending. End the useless wasteful f35, redirect spending to
infra. Withdraw 'tactical' nukes surrounding Russia.
Enforce steel and other violations of WTO agreements with great vigor.
Maybe a tariff would catch the attention of those assuming they have
unfettered access to our markets and therefore have no need to cooperate
in other ways. I doubt our tariffs would lead to a trade war exporters
desperately need our markets because their own unemployment terrifies
them and or because austerity has killed their own. (We can explain that
unemployment is, for the first time in decades, beginning to terrify our
own pols.)
Support Brexit with guarantee that existing trade agreement remains in
place. the sooner the euro disaster crashes and burns the better.
I fully expect a fight to come over labeling and country of origin laws.
The automobile industry already stretches the definition of "made in
America" to its breaking point for tax purposes.
I spent some time looking for American made tools in the local Sears
store.
What surprised me was the socket ratchets, that used to have "Made in
the USA" stamped in them now had no country of origin shown. "Made in
China" is only on the packaging.
I found, and bought, some pliers and tin snips that were still made in
the USA (and marked on the product as well) so it appears if a product is
not marked "Made in USA" one should assume it is imported.
At the local salvage yard, I found a sharpening stone that had
cynically printed on the packaging "Distributed with Pride in the USA" on
it while being made in China.
It is difficult to find American manufactured products at the retail
level. Even the iconic American brand Vise-Grip tools moved from DeWitt,
Nebraska to China, and I don't imagine the wages were very high in
Nebraska.
And even then if all you have is a "made in the U.S.A." label there
is no certainty it isn't produced by prison labor (made in the
U.S.A.!), many companies use it, but not every industry.
I deal with tools for a living. what has happened is the apex group
has bought up rights to the classic USA brands and offshored the lot.
dozens of brands all held by private equity. as an industrial/plant
mechanic, myself an all coworkers can verify that everything
has crapified. I now go exclusively on eBay for functional antiques.
"Cheap" masks the decline in an American's wages, and also the decline
in their standard of living. I've found that "cheap" imported tools are
inferior in the main. So, "cheap" helps Americans to delude themselves
that the "American Dream" is still alive.
The article lacks the names of the offending agents. What are the names
of the iron and steel importers and their chief executives and/or principal
owners.
In order to fight you need to know who to fight.
"First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal
spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "
To add to craazyboy's comment, this isn't the full picture. If Trump's
policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure spending that has
a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities like corporate share
buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be equivalent to stimulus
even without an increase in direct fiscal spending.
That said, I'm not a fan of public/private partnerships for precisely the
reasons you mentioned. But in this new administration, we may have to be
content with the crumbs :-) (plus, when the public/private investments
inevitably go bankrupt they'll be socialized at only twice the cost of
building it with public funds in the first place )
> If Trump's policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure
spending that has a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities
like corporate share buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be
equivalent to stimulus even without an increase in direct fiscal
spending.
I don't think this is likely, primarily because the "PPP" projects are
going to erect tolls on major infrastructure. Tolls function as
regressive taxes and are going to act as a decelerator pedal on the
economy, diverting money from people who would spend it productively into
the pockets of politically-connected rentiers. Does it net out better
than dumping the same amount of private resources into stock buybacks?
Not if you believe in rational market theory. I mean at least a new road
or bridge exists that didn't before, but the economics of private
ownership are going to quickly extract even more. If they couldn't, the
investors would have done the buyback instead.
Huh? What do corporate stock buybacks have to do with fiscal spending?
Nada. That is apples and oranges.
You seem to be putting your fingers in your ear re the fiscal impact
issue. There will be no fiscal multiplier because this is not fiscal
spending. It's going to be privately financed with tax gimmies of various
sorts. To the extent those tax gimmies reduce tax revenues (the intent is
not much, that's the whole point of doing it this way), they'll be paid
for with cuts in spending elsewhere.
You have a fiscal multiplier effect ONLY with actual fiscal spending.
This is not that. All those studies that folks like Summers cited to
support infrastructure spending are irrelevant to how Trump is planning
to do this.
Bank loans also injects money into private sector. Most spending
likely to be gov backed loans, immediate effect similar to fiscal
deficits, though negated when loan paid back over time.
"That American-job-creating, buy-American thing is supported by 71
percent of the American public"
Is that the same 71% of the public that's made WalMart the largest
employer in the country? Buy American is a great concept in general but a
terrible policy to pursue individually in the face of cheaper imports.
That's why Donald Trump hires illegal immigrants to clean his hotels, and
Pat Buchanan drove a Mercedes.
The only way to do it meaningfully is by law and trade restrictions. And
I doubt Trump cares to do the hard work of passing those types of laws
(while overcoming entrenched bipartisan opposition). Much easier to pay a
few companies to temporarily keep a few jobs around and then take a victory
lap.
In 1989, California suffered a major earthquake and the bridge between
Oakland and San Francisco was deemed unsafe. The Legislature requested that
the rebuild use only US Steel. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that and so
China sourced the steel.
Guess what, it delayed rebuilding and the new span is considered to be
unsafe. . . . In a future quake.
You would think that the government "buying American" would not be so
controversial. Not only does that give the corporations more responsibility
to do it right, it is also the right thing to do for many reasons.
1.) It employs Americans.
2.) It employs Americans, who can use that paycheck to buy things in
America, providing even more employment for Americans who can then go and
3.) It employs Americans, who pay taxes on those wages. Taxes that go to
building things in America, like infrastructure, or educating our children,
or yes feeding our hungry.
4.) It employs Americans, who for the most part have no reason to want to
sabotage those things, build back doors into them, or yes copy the plans so
they can be made cheaper in another country.
5.) It is the right thing to do.
I'm sure others can come up with other additions to the list, but to me
it is a no brainer. But of course it is a no brainer for most voters, it is
only our corrupt elected officials currying favor with foreign and
multinational corporations that have a conflict of interest who refuse to
admit it.
First Bush II bankrupted the country by cutting taxes for rich and unleashing Iraq war. Then
Republicans want to cut Social Securty to pay for it
Notable quotes:
"... His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age. ..."
"... But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts. ..."
Donald Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security, which puts him at odds with the
Republican Party's historical antipathy to the program and the aims of today's Republican leadership.
So it should come as no surprise that congressional Republicans are already testing Mr. Trump's hands-off
pledge.
... ... ...
As Congress drew to a close this month, Sam Johnson, the chairman of the House Social Security
subcommittee, introduced a bill that would slash Social Security benefits for all but the very poorest
beneficiaries. To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to
69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, while asking nothing in the way of higher taxes
to bolster the program; on the contrary, it would cut taxes that high earners now pay on a portion
of their benefits. Last week, Mark Meadows, the Republican chairman of the conservative House Freedom
Caucus, said the group would push for an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare in the early days
of the next Congress.
... ... ...
Another sensible reform would be to bring more tax revenue into the system by raising the level
of wages subject to Social Security taxes, currently $118,500. In recent decades, the wage cap has
not kept pace with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.
The next move on Social Security is Mr. Trump's. He can remind Republicans in Congress that his
pledge would lead him to veto benefit cuts to Social Security if such legislation ever reached his
desk. When he nominates the next commissioner of Social Security, he can choose a competent manager,
rather than someone who has taken sides in political and ideological debates over the program.
What Mr. Trump actually will do is unknown, but his actions so far don't inspire confidence. By law,
the secretaries of labor, the Treasury and health and human services are trustees of Social Security.
Mr. Trump's nominees to head two of these departments, Labor and Treasury - Andrew Puzder, a fast-food
executive, and Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street trader and hedge fund manager turned Hollywood producer
- have no government experience and no known expertise on Social Security.
His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman
from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to
bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing,
private accounts and raising the retirement age.
There is no way to mesh those ideas with Mr. Trump's pledge. But Mr. Price, who currently
heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress
and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age.
Recently, he put forth a proposal to reform the budget process by imposing automatic spending
cuts on most federal programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year. If Congress
passed Mr. Trump's proposed tax cut, for example, the ensuing rise in debt would trigger automatic
spending cuts that would slash Social Security by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis
by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This works out to a cut of $168 a month
on the average monthly benefit of $1,240. If other Trump priorities were enacted, including tax credits
for private real estate development and increases in military spending, the program cuts would be
even deeper.
Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic
gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social
Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute
while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded
himself with people who will help him follow those instincts.
Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston 1 hour ago
There is a simple solution to Social Security.
Remove the cap, so it is not a regressive tax. After all, Republicans appear to be all for
a "flat" tax. Then lower the rate for everyone.
There is no reason why it should only be charged on the part of income that is needed to pay
for necessary expenses should as housing, food, medical care, transportation, school, communications,
and such. Anyone making more than the current "cap" is actually able to afford all this.
There is no reason the costs should be born only by those at the bottom of the income pyramid.
As for Republican looting, that's just despicable, and we'll hope they are wise enough to realize
that they shouldn't let government mess with people's Social Security!
Thomas Zaslavsky is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 1 hour ago
The idea hinted in the editorial that Trump has any principle or instinct that would lead him
to protect benefits for people who are not himself or his ultra-wealthy class is not worthy of
consideration. No, Trump has none such and he will act accordingly. (Test my prediction at the
end of 2017 or even sooner; it seems the Republicans are champing at the bit to loot the government
and the country fro their backers.)
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 2 hours ago
I wouldn't hold Trump to any of his campaign promises, given how often he changes positions, backtracks,
changes subjects, or whatever. His biggest promise of all was to "drain the swamp" and we know
how that turned out.
He might have a cabinet of outsiders, but they are still creatures from outside swamps. That
said, if there is even the barest of hints that this is on the agenda, I can pretty much bet that
in two years, Congress will completely change parties.
Imagine: cutting benefits for people who worked all their lives and depend on that money in
older age, all in order to give the wealthiest Americans another huge tax cut. For a fake populist
like Trump, that might sound like a great idea (he has no fixed beliefs or principles) but to
his most ardent supporters, that might be the moment they finally get it: they fell for one of
the biggest cons in the universe.
Rita is a trusted commenter California 2 hours ago
Given the Republican desire to shut down Medicare and Social Security, it is not hard to predict
that they will do so a little at a time so that people will not notice until its too late.
But since the Republicans have been very upfront with hostility towards the social safety net,
one can conclude that their supporters want to eliminate social safety net.
Mary Ann Donahue is a trusted commenter NYS 2 hours ago
RE: "To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and
reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment..."
The COLA for 2017 is .03% a paltry average increase of $5 per month. There was no increase in
2016.
The formula for how the COLA is calculated needs to be changed to allow for fair increases
not reductions.
Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago
Republicans have been promising to "fix" Social Security for years and now we are seeing exactly
what they mean. We can see how low they're willing to stoop by their plan to cut the taxes that
high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits and decimate the program for everybody else.
I wouldn't be surprised if they raised SS taxes on low and middle income earners.
There has been an easy fix for Social Security for years. Simply raise the tax on income to
$250,000 thousand and retirees both present and future would be on much firmer footing. Many future
retirees will be moving on to Social Security without the benefit of defined pension plans and
will need a more robust SS benefit in the future, not a weaker one.
Don't count on Donald Trump to come to the rescue. He seems to hate any tax more than even
the most fervent anti-tax freak like Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump admitted throughout the campaign that
he avoids paying any tax at all.
The Times seems to want to give Mr. Trump limitless chances to do the right thing. "Will Donald
Trump Cave on Social Security" it asks. Of course he will. One has only to look at his cabinet
choices and his embrace of the Ryan budget to know the answer to that question. Better to ask,
"How Long Will It Take Trump To Destroy Social Security?"
At least it would be an honest question and one that would put Mr. Trump in the center of a
question that will affect the economic security of millions of Americans.
serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 4 hours ago
Cutting benefits for upper income solves nothing since by definition upper incomes are a small
percentage of the population. The obvious way to solve any problem with SS is to raise taxes on
upper incomes, the present cap is preposterous. People so wealthy that SS is a pittance can show
their concern by simply donating the money they get from SS to charities.
david is a trusted commenter ny 4 hours ago
We can get some perspective on what Social Security privatization schemes would mean to the
average SSS recipient from Roger Lowenstein' analysis of Bush's privatization scheme.
Roger Lowenstein's Times article discusses the CBO's analysis of how the Bush privatization
scheme for Social Security would reduce benefits.
"The C.B.O. assumes that the typical worker would invest half of his allocation in stocks
and the rest in bonds. The C.B.O. projects the average return, after inflation and expenses,
at 4.9 percent. This compares with the 6 percent rate (about 3.5 percent after inflation) that
the trust fund is earning now.
The second feature of the plan would link future benefit increases
to inflation rather than to wages. Because wages typically grow faster, this would mean a rather
substantial benefit cut. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private
accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis,
which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree
in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100,
down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely,
from $17,700 to $13,600. "
Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals'
books.
,
November 3, 2015
By
K. Scott Schaeffer
Verified Purchase
(
What's
this?
)
This review is from:
Crippled America: How to
Make America Great Again (Hardcover)
Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written.
Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's
definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of
writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write
his last two books.
The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how
the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the
issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the
same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and
ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in
schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far
worse.
Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will
be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the
Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But
terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no
matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the
Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.
CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We
could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on
temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to
Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close
to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying
the tariffs, not Mexico.
CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There
has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington
ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone
when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud
missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the
Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are
always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.
There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:
Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get
nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going
to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for
that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that
Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO
allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the
non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and
kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on
earth.)
Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct
threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."
Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student
loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.
CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like
this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil
and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the
problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world
and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump
proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more
than he is the American people.
CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing
Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines
drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more
choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with
airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief
healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.
CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is
no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19
trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+
trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned
about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and
production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public
debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty
much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% -
120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.
Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders
who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even
20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and
part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was
in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website).
This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better
trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with
increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under
Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on
infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more
government spending that will add to the debt.
And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than
$50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax.
That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%.
That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay
no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for
foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate
their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How
will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With
disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan
will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The
problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor
waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier
said than done.
In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing
all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address
the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned,
either.
Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike
Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against
the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the
blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor
while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump
becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other
Republicans becoming president.
"... The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare. But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean Baker can ..."
"... With 50 million people suffering directly or indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, many of which are suffering financial declines ..."
"... NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the health care industry. Every worker still employed plus half those fired or retired would become government employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain. ..."
"... Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a return pillage and plunder worth the effort. ..."
"... Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1% paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to current tax cut deficits? ..."
The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite
the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob
all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare.
But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean
Baker can
:
How can you rob people who on the whole have no money to
steal?
Let's imagine the right get everything they want,
and end to Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and employer
health benefits tax deductibles. Now it's either private
insurers or nothing. Half the people will either be denied
private insurance of fall short of being able to pay for
it, especially if healthy, so insurers only get the people
most likely to get sick enough to profit from insurance.
Doctors and hospitals either refuse care for half the
population beyond minor care, or they shift costs of the
uninsured onto the insured, or they go bankrupt, or
sharply downsize and do only. concierge care.
With 50 million people suffering directly or
indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage
war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be
punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug
companies, many of which are suffering financial declines
.
NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the
health care industry. Every worker still employed plus
half those fired or retired would become government
employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain.
Unfortunately, Republicans are not that stupid, and
Democrats not sufficiently Machiavellian to throw millions
of Americans under the bus for five years for the great
good in the following twenty years, by which time
conservatives will have a new free lip unchanged plan to
justify pillage and plunder.
Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims
plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a
return pillage and plunder worth the effort.
Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving
little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1%
paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who
can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to
current tax cut deficits?
Wage and benefit cuts have pillaged and plundered
workers into seeing poverty surrounding them, so who is
left to slash wages and benefits? High tech workers?
Immigrant labor hired by high tech?
Industry has been pillaged and plundered. Farmers have
been pillaged and plundered.
Who is better off today than in 1980? Who sees greater
opportunity today than their peers saw in 1980? Which of
the flyover States with solid conservative government for
years, even decades, see great opportunity ahead from new
conservative pillage and plunder Laws?
Economies are zero sum in the long run. Conservatives
have spend labor income aka labor cost from before 1980,
from 1980 to the present, and realistically from today to
at least 2040 to pay for their pillage and plunder of all
factors of the economy, including government, since 1980.
The US is diminished as a result, with only the larger
population, larger due to immigration, representing an
increase in capital value. But the human capital is
burdened with debt run up by conservatives since 1980.
Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals'
books.
,
November 3, 2015
By
K. Scott Schaeffer
Verified Purchase
(
What's
this?
)
This review is from:
Crippled America: How to
Make America Great Again (Hardcover)
Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written.
Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's
definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of
writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write
his last two books.
The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how
the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the
issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the
same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and
ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in
schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far
worse.
Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will
be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the
Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But
terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no
matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the
Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.
CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We
could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on
temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to
Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close
to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying
the tariffs, not Mexico.
CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There
has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington
ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone
when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud
missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the
Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are
always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.
There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:
Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get
nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going
to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for
that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that
Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO
allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the
non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and
kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on
earth.)
Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct
threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."
Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student
loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.
CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like
this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil
and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the
problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world
and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump
proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more
than he is the American people.
CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing
Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines
drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more
choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with
airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief
healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.
CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is
no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19
trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+
trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned
about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and
production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public
debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty
much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% -
120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.
Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders
who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even
20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and
part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was
in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website).
This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better
trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with
increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under
Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on
infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more
government spending that will add to the debt.
And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than
$50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax.
That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%.
That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay
no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for
foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate
their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How
will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With
disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan
will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The
problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor
waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier
said than done.
In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing
all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address
the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned,
either.
Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike
Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against
the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the
blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor
while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump
becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other
Republicans becoming president.
"... Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1. ..."
"... Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today) ..."
"... The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages" - just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure? ..."
Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a
strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving
conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1.
Here's a quote from Bannon:
"The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue
now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over. If we deliver "we'll get 60 percent of the
white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's
what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
"It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing
a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's
the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up.
We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting
as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic
nationalist movement." (
Ringside with Steve Bannon , Hollywood Reporter)
I don't pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I've read in the newspapers and
on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt
political establishment and build a coalition that "will govern for 50 years", he's going to have
to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic
strategy. That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to
himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue. In other words,
he's going to have to punt if he wants to govern.
ORDER IT NOW
Bannon is the main architect of Trump's economic plan, a plan that has already earned broad public
support, but a plan that won't succeed unless it is drastically changed. Here's why:
Trump's economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.
As far as tax cuts, there are three main subsets:
1–The corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to drop from 35 percent to 15 percent.
2–A tax cut on the so-called "repatriation of funds"– which lowers the rate on roughly $2 trillion
of cash that's currently stashed overseas by uber-rich US businesses that have been evading US corporate
taxes for years. Trump wants to give these tax dodgers a one-time "holiday" with a 10% penalty for
companies that agree to bring their cash back to the US. Trump believes that the one-time tax break
will increase business investment and employment in the US. Critics say the scheme will not work
unless the economy strengthens and demand grows.
3–Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions
to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year
would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would
receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today)
Here's a brief summary from economist Dean Baker:
"According to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the Urban
Institute, (Trump's) tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion (close to 4 percent
of GDP) over the course of the next decade. This tax cut plan would effectively add close to $800
billion to the annual deficit when it first takes effect, with the amount increasing over time
"According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of Trump's tax cuts will go to the richest
one percent of the population. The richest 0.1 percent will get tax cuts that average almost $1.5
million annually. The Trump tax cut is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Republican
Party, and unfortunately many Democrats, of putting as much money as possible in the pockets of
the rich." (
Republican deficit hawks abandon their religion , Smirking Chimp)
As you can see, most of the benefits from the proposed tax cuts go to the extremely rich. How
does that fit with Trump's campaign promise:
"I am proposing an across-the-board income-tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans The
tax relief will be concentrated on the working and middle-class taxpayer. They will receive the
biggest benefit – it won't even be close."
The tax cuts look like a serious betrayal of Trump's supporters. They also look like a misguided
, short-term strategy that will derail Bannon's plan for broad coalition based on a strong economic
growth and rising wages. This latest iteration of "trickle down" economics will not help him achieve
that goal.
Unfortunately, the other parts of Trump's economic plan are equally dismal. For example, Trump
is determined to repeal many of the key provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the toothless bill
that Congress passed in order to prevent another financial meltdown. At present, Texas congressman,
Jeb Hensarling - an outspoken critic of Dodd-Frank appears to be the frontrunner in the competition
for US Treasury Secretary. Hensarling, who just last week said "Dodd-Frank was a grave mistake",
is pushing his own Wall Street-friendly Financial CHOICE act, which would replace the bill with
a "pro-growth, pro-consumer" alternative" that would protect the banks from 'growth-strangling
regulation." (
Housingwire )
Is that what we really need, more laws to protect the banks?? Check out this clip from Fortune
Magazine:
"Hensarling wants to put the market in charge. His view is that encouraging banks to hold lots
of capital (as Dodd-Frank does) goes far enough by itself to shore up the system, making banks
far safer than the law's dense web of stress tests, complex limits on trading, and banning of
mortgages and credit cards deemed "abusive" by regulators. Now that Republicans control Congress
and the White House, it's highly possible that the Hensarling manifesto, or a large part of it,
will become law
"I will not rest until Dodd-Frank is ripped out by its roots and tossed on the trash bin of
history," (Hensarling) declared in a recent speech. The centerpiece of the CHOICE act is a provision
that would exempt banks from the more restrictive Dodd-Frank regulations " (
This
Congressman Could Turn the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms Upside Down , Fortune)
The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages"
- just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system
costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't
it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial
regulations. Go figure?
What, in God's name, is Trump trying to achieve? On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating
another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making.
What sense does that make?
Here's a little more background on Trump's crusade against regulation. This is from the Wall Street
Journal:
"Donald Trump has tapped a longtime critic of heavy regulation to flesh out his new administration's
plans for remaking the financial rule book, including the potential dismantling of much of the
Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.
Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002
to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders.
Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect's transition team charged with
recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed
on the matter.
Trump also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which recently imposed
a $100 million fine on Wells Fargo for using bank employees to create more than 2 million unauthorized
accounts to meet sales quotas. The action was applauded by consumer groups across the board which
is why Trump will make every effort to defang the watchdog agency. The president-elect appears to
be gearing up to eliminate any rule that impairs Wall Street's ability to rake in bigger profits,
whether it puts the American people at risk or not.
So how does this square with Steve Bannon's comments about coalition building and desire for a
stronger economy?
I can't figure it out, after all, Bannon sounds like a true believer, a no-nonsense, red-blooded,
blue collar working guy who hates the Wall Street, the Republican establishment and the mainstream
media. What's not to like about that?
But how does Bannon's hardscrabble upbringing, his commitment to tea party uprising, and his take-no-prisoners
combativeness, jibe with these flagrant tax giveaways, this anti-worker deregulation, and a fiscal
policy that only benefits the uber wealthy? I don't get it??
In an extremely persuasive interview with Buzzfeed News, Bannon disparages the new strain of "Ayn
Rand" capitalism that objectifies people and turns them into commodities. He expands on this idea
by giving a brief synopsis of the financial crisis that many will find galvanizing. Here's a clip:
"The 2008 crisis, which, by the way, I don't think we've come through - is really driven
I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks.
And one of the reasons is that we've never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems
of 2008. Particularly the fact - think about it - not one criminal charge has ever been brought
to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and
none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the
15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that's one of the fuels of this
populist revolt that we're seeing as the tea party
The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here's why: It bailed out a group of shareholders
and executives who were specifically accountable.
In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I
believe, that they should have criminal indictments against - not one of those has ever been followed
up on. (and) Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making
incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out
the elites.
It's all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the
consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting
into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand
to the government to be bailed out. And they've never been held accountable today. Trust me -
they are going to be held accountable." (
This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World , Buzzfeed News)
Repeat: "They are going to be held accountable."
Bravo! He wants to lock them up. He wants the bankers to be held accountable and locked up! Who
doesn't want that? Every working slob in America wants that. This is why Bannon has attracted such
a loyal following; it's because his analysis of the financial crisis and its aftermath are "dead
on". The American people know they were ripped off, know that Wall Street is infested with crooks
and parasites, and know that the country is governed by a corrupt and unaccountable oligarchy of
racketeers.
Bannon has tapped into powerful feelings of frustration and rage, and he's built a thriving movement
on top of them. But where's the beef? His economic policy just doesn't deliver the goods. Bannon
is talking the talk, but he's not walking the walk.
The tax cuts don't deliver for working people and neither does deregulation. So what about the
third part of Trump's economic plan, the fiscal stimulus component?
Bannon says he's the driving force behind the $1 trillion infrastructure development program.
Unfortunately, the program is little more than a scam. Let me explain:
Typically, when people think about fiscal stimulus, they imagine expensive Keynesian "shovel
ready" infrastructure projects with lots of well-paid government workers building bridges, roads,
rapid transit systems and even schools. That's not what this is. According to economist Jared
Bernstein:
"Instead of just allocating the needed resources as in the traditional approach, they propose
to "offer some $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who want to finance toll roads,
toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams."
Since the plan depends on private investors, it can only fund projects that spin off user fees
and are profitable. Rural roads, water systems, and public schools don't fall into that category.
Neither does public transit, which fails on the profitable criterion (it depends on public subsidies."
(
Trump's misguided flirtation with Keynesianism , Politico)
This isn't going to work. It's completely self defeating. This is just more of the same, more
handouts to big business. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is to get money in the hands of the
people who will spend it fast, rev up the economy, boost growth, generate more demand and get the
economy out of its eight-year-long funk. The rebuilding of infrastructure is secondary, in fact,
it doesn't even matter. What matters is getting money circulating in the perennially-moribund economy.
Caspice?
Here's more on the Trump infrastructure boondoggle from an article in the Washington Post:
"Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It's a tax-cut plan for utility-industry
and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump
plan doesn't directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton's
2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump's plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors
who back profitable construction projects. There's no requirement that the tax breaks be used
for expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors
in previously planned projects
Second, as a result of the above, Trump's plan isn't really a jobs plan, either. Because the
plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there's
no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the
plan will produce any net new hiring.
Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction
projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers' earnings. Environmental rules are
almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects." (
Trump's big infrastructure plan? It's a trap. Washington Post)
These so called "public-private partnerships" are just another way for big business to suck money
out of the government. They don't help the economy, not really, and they don't help workers either.
If Bannon is serious about building his coalition on the back of a robust economy, there's an easier
way to do it. First get rid of the corporate ideologues and supply side radicals whose theories never
work. Then hire a team of reputable economists who have first-hand experience implementing thorny
stimulus programs of this magnitude. (Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson,
Jack Rasmus)
Then start with the low-hanging fruit, that is, put money into already-running programs that will
produce immediate results. For example, in James Galbraith's epic article "No Return to Normal" the
economist recommends increasing Social Security payments. Think about that. It's a complete no-brainer.
The people who live on Social Security spend every dime they get every month, which means that -
if their payments go up by, let's say, $200 or more per month– then all that dough goes straight
into the economy which is what fiscal stimulus is all about. Also, increase food stamp funding, lower
the Medicare age of eligibility, and rehire a portion of the 500,000 federal workers who lost their
jobs in the Crash of '08. These policies will put money into the economy immediately, boosting growth,
increasing wages, and strengthening the prospects for whatever political party happens to be in office.
The point is, fiscal stimulus doesn't have to be a boondoggle and it doesn't require "shovel ready"
jobs. All that's needed is a competent team of economic advisors who know what the hell they're doing
and the political will to get the job done. Trump's economic plan doesn't do that, all it does is
slightly improve GDP while trillions of dollars are transferred to the bank accounts of behemoth
corporations and Wall Street cronies.
If Bannon is serious about fixing the economy and rebuilding the Republican party, my advice to
him would be: Give Galbraith a call.
"... i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits, scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq (yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into a war with russia. ..."
"... Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing. ..."
"... Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of externalities, whether they be social or environmental. ..."
"... Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely. This is a wrong hypothesis. ..."
"... Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid balancing wind and solar energy production. ..."
"... The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural" and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about alternatives. Coal is one of them. ..."
It's not greenhouse gas and climate change that killed coal. It was sulfur and soot. For some
odd reason, people didn't like having acid rain and smog. So regulations were passed to manage
that. Natural gas stepped in as an inexpensive clean replacement.
Coal was already on the way out before carbon emissions came to the fore.
Recent coal ash spills into rivers are also adding new cost layers to coal. People downstream
of power plants want to have actual water in their streams and rivers. Power companies are spending
billions of dollars now managing coal ash. That item wasn't on their ledger 5 years ago.
coal is still king in the third world. it amazes me how provincial we still are not to know
such things, but then we don't have any vacation, so go figure.
A really good con builds trust, first. A genius con can have his "mark" eating out of his hand,
even if the mark is wary, at first. Then, the con reels in his "mark", little-by-little. A promise
here; a promise there; just delivering on the initial promise hooks the mark a little deeper.
The con's appeal is always to the mark's most vulnerable weaknesses and desires. A genius con
can spot vulnerabilities in a potential mark within minutes. It's uncanny.
Once the con has begun, the mark is presented with statements of reassurance by the con, with
the mark eventually engaging in more and more confirmation bias, as, over time, the mark begins
to realize that things are not "quite right". The con keeps the mark busy by throwing up all kinds
of smoke screens about how the mark "shouldn't worry". Eventually, before the mark comes to full
awareness of have been completely screwed over, the con is long gone, having profited from his
game, and moved on to his next thing.
well most grifters imo aren't like clinton; they don't have a nasty ideological streak which
gives their scamming a more sinister purpose than merely staid old self enrichment (they're fine
with that, too). i think some of them can be loyal, too, to people they know, and they have to
try to be realistic. so the question would be who trump is conning, and how much regard he has
for his kids interests, which is mixed in with his own self regard if only because they represent
his only shot at immortality.
i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits,
scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq
(yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into
a war with russia.
i didn't expect him to move so quickly to help us emit more co2. given the increasing pace
of climate change, that represents almost the level of threat of risking a war with russia. interesting
times.
I've often wondered why the Pentagon doesn't more aggressively 'lobby' both the Executive and
Legislative branches on such issues as climate change and income inequality. Both issues factor
heavily into defense planning scenarios and war gaming efforts. If the Pentagon were to openly
acknowledge that climate change and income inequality directly impede their ability to fulfill
their role in the national security strategy and defend the country, I'd have to believe the public
would rally around them on these issues, the President and Congress as well.
Its always hard to tell with those individuals. Plenty of them are 'true believers', but its
become impossible to get anywhere in Republican politics without buying into the 'climate change
is a hoax' meme – even McCain was forced to recant. So I would guess that some of them know full
well its a threat and would be pragmatic when it comes to decision making. I think also international
pressure could be significant, even isolationists don't want to become pariahs.
My guess is that his instinct will be to pull a fast one on the coal industry if its in his
interest. The energy industry is not a monolith – as an obvious example, the gas frackers would
love to kill coal stone dead, by shutting down coal thermal capacity they guarantee themselves
a bigger future market as gas displaces coal as base load. And the blob will be whispering in
his ear that oil and gas is more important than coal in maintaining energy independence. So I
suspect he will deliver his promises on oil and gas, but not coal.
I think saying that since Trump will be unable to bring US coal back to its heydays in the
70's that he somehow broke a campaign promise is unjust. All he said he would do is "save" the
coal industry. Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks
ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal
and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing.
And whatever environmental damage that may be created by extending the life of the US coal
industry will be more than offset for by the decrease in environmental damage due to the decrease
in immigration Trump will bring about.
Overpopulation used to be discussed in environmental circles but since the related concept
of overimmigration became an item this whole discussion has been shut down. The more Trump's enforces
immigration restrictionist policies, the lower the US population will be in 2100. Current immigration
trends end up with a US population of 520 million or so. Very strict immigration restrictions
could result in steady state or no-growth population policy which could mean only around 340 million
in 2100.
The non-polluting part is key We are still cleaning up manufactured gas plants from the 1800s.
The converted coal into coal gas and coal tar to provide lighting and heat.
Well, H fuel cell cars are already on the scene, so it's a question of whether people like
them or not. You can purchase a Toyota Mirai with three years' complimentary fuel for a mere $57,500.
(CA rebate–$5,000)
"very expensive process (if it is done in a non-polluting way)"
Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in
context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of
externalities, whether they be social or environmental.
I have worked in power industry O&M for 35 years. The prospect of a coal renaissance is as
welcome as a zombie invasion, and about as likely. Burning gas is leaps and bounds better in every
imaginable way, and there wont be any going back.
Burning coal is miserable brutal work. wearing full body PPE while shoveling all day in the
summer is certainly an honest respectable living, Bill Ramey and the rest of the coal lobbyists
are welcome to come on down and pitch in if they think its so wonderful.
Telling ex-coal miners "we are sending you back in to the mines (because there is no other
work for you), and you will like it" (and they cheer) is the most appalling con worked in modern
times.
....Nothing trumps (sorry) population growth. It is the engine. Per-capita energy consumption
in the US is well below the 1970 peak – total is only going up because of population growth. As
far as the rest of the world: India makes noises about green tech, but these are fantasies: the
real plan is to burn so much coal that even if the US eliminated all carbon emissions it would
not matter.
Unless we address population growth as a factor which cannot be ignored – which is largely
the result of pro-natalist government policies and official silence – anything else is irrelevant.
In a word, no. Coal and oil fired electric plants are converting to natural gas at a rapid
pace. As the conversions continue and old coal fired plants are retired the outlook for coal grows
more dire. Even if the GOP Congress manged to provide some tax incentives or significantly eases
regulations, coal mining is not the manpower intensive enterprise it once was so employment will
not reach pre "slump" levels. Even so, it cost 66$ to generate 1MWh using natural gas, $92 for
coal. The economies of scale, ease and lower cost of transport and less wear and tear on the physical
plant and of course lower harmful emmisions of all types means natural gas is the fuel of choice
for the foreseeable future.
Coal's economic issues also stem from technological innovations that favor natural gas over
coal for to generate electricity. New Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants generate more electricity
per unit of fuel than Coal Steam power plants. According to the U.S. Department of Energy "Coal
steam power plants require more energy input per megawatthour of generation than natural gas-fired
combined-cycle plants the low cost of coal relative to natural gas until recent years favored
the use of coal-fired generating":
I think this means that current technology allows us to convert more energy to electricity
from Natural Gas than Coal. This favors Natural Gas as a power source unless Coal is significantly
cheaper.
No, costs are getting too high for extraction even without regs and there are limits to how
much even Trump can do. The amount of labor engaged in the industry is less and less each year,
the antagonism toward the industry is growing in tandem. Wrecked roads, property, watersheds,
it is too visible and too messy, fracking is a bit cleaner, at least on the surface, pun intended.
Maybe the coal industry can swing it for a few more decades in Wyoming but not in Eastern KY
and to a certain extent in W. Virginia (W. Virginia is fine for a while, they still have a less
compromised "coal culture" and a lot of coke quality coal with a much higher wholesale rate).
Also, you can't deregulate natural gas and "save" coal at the same time. Natural gas will drop
in cost displacing what little room is left for coal. Remember that many coal plants are being
retired for wear and tear reasons, not just regulations. Lower natural gas will accelerate a move
to combined cycle facilities in a climate of low natural gas prices.
Once the domestic market is saturated with natural gas, producers will (try to) export the
natural gas, then the price will go up, then utilities will be in a pickle. Even if that doesn't
happen, as is always the case with fracked wells, the depletion rate is logarithmic. What to do
then, build more coal plants and swing back into a dying realm of power production? I doubt it.
Irony is, Trump may very well be the push needed to force utilities in the middle US to consider
renewables as viable to their portfolio. My hope is a less shitty candidate in 2020 can take advantage
of the stressful utility market to push a federal level energy initiative. Dreams, dreams.
Even if federal regulations are removed, there are still state regulations and the fastest
growing demand for energy is coming from states that are ideologically blue and committed to expanding
renewable energy use and fighting pollution. Chances of getting any new coal fired plants in the
states with the greatest demand and greatest capability to build new plants is unlikely.
Plus, there are the economics of natural gas as mentioned numerous times above. Trump promising
to "bring coal back" is like promising to bring horse and carriages back. Technology, demand,
and costs have moved on.
Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely.
This is a wrong hypothesis.
Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon
and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for
chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid
balancing wind and solar energy production.
The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural"
and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about
alternatives. Coal is one of them.
"... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix , click here .) ..."
"... 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," the source said. ..."
"... Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control 90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now ..."
"... They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough. ..."
"... Their little trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century. ..."
(To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix ,
click here
.)
It was instant legend.
Trump met yesterday with the rancid cream of media in his golden tower. They were there thinking
it was all about creating a structure for access to the next president. Little did they know.
Charlie Rose was there. Wolf Blitzer. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN. Martha "I weep for Hillary" Raddatz.
Gayle King. Lester "the weasel-king of interrupters" Holt. Chuck Todd. George "property of the Clintons"
Stephanopoulos.
Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. The whole gang.
The NY Post has the story : "It was like a f–ing firing squad," one source said of the encounter.
"Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said 'I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar
and you should be ashamed,' " the source said.
"The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would
be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style
dressing down," the source added. "Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful
dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest,
deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was
[a] network of liars," the source said.
" he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who [also] hosted
a [presidential] debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room." So You can hate Trump,
but if you can't find joy in this story, you're in need of a blood transfusion.
Way back at the beginning of the presidential campaign, I said that if Trump does nothing but
run against the media he'll be doing the country a great service, because they're all snakes and
cover-up artists and liars and they've been hypnotizing the population for as long as they've been
around. Trump went on to exceed my expectations in that regard.
If you can't stand Trump, you can fantasize about some other theoretical president who might have
carried off his attacks on fake news as well, and with the same effect, but this is the man who did
it. And yesterday was a landmark event in history.
Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and
the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control
90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now
They're lost inside their own bubble. They've never felt this kind of fury from a president. They
don't know what to do.
They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough.
Of course they're outraged, and of course they'll continue doing whatever they can to undermine
Trump, but they know he couldn't care less that they're deeply, deeply offended. Their little
trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago,
one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust
in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century.
These media honkers can stand in front of their mirrors and keep combing their hair and they can
bring in new make-up people, and adjust the studio lighting and build new desks, and they can laugh
and smile at cocktail parties and pretend they're still in the ascendance, but they're rapidly turning
into laughingstocks, and the derision keeps building. If you feel sorry for them, your sympathy is
grossly misplaced.
The final straw here is Steve Bannon, Trump's new chief strategist and special counselor. The
editor of Breitbart,
Bannon recently stated in an interview : "The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong
with this country. It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f-ing idea what's
going on. If The New York Times didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington
Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It's a closed circle of information
from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence. That was our opening."
Trump is carrying out a sustained war against big media. He hasn't stopped. There is no sign he
will stop. He knows, and Bannon knows, that the public is fed up with mainstream media.
The unchallenged authority of The News has been cracked like an egg.
Yesterday, Trump doubled and tripled down.
Wake up and smell the singed hair and the sagging plastic surgery. The media stars are fading
in their fake sky.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections,
THE MATRIX REVEALED
, EXIT FROM
THE MATRIX , and
POWER OUTSIDE
THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California.
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of
personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter
for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly,
Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered
lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the
world. You can sign up for his free emails at
NoMoreFakeNews.com or
OutsideTheRealityMachine
.
"... Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative party of Ronald Reagan. ..."
"... They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments. ..."
"... "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party," ..."
"... Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics. ..."
"... "It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. ..."
"... "Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow in these areas." ..."
"... Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them. ..."
"... "He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package. ..."
"... It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it. ..."
"... "But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is not going to flourish. ..."
"... But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned it into the Trump party." ..."
's economic adviser Stephen Moore told a group of top Republicans last week that they now belong
to a fundamentally different political party.
Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting
last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative
party of Ronald Reagan.
They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the
House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several
lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments.
"For God's sake, it's Stephen Moore!" the source said, explaining some of the lawmakers' reactions
to Moore's statement. "He's the guy who started Club for Growth. He's Mr. Supply Side economics."
"I think it's going to take them a little time to process what does this all mean," the source
added of the lawmakers. "The vast majority of them were on the wrong side. They didn't think this
was going to happen."
Asked about his comments to the GOP lawmakers, Moore told The Hill he was giving them a dose of
reality. "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party," Moore said in an interview Wednesday. "In some ways
this will be good for conservatives and in other ways possibly frustrating."
Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade.
He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience
of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics.
"It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in
the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Michigan.
"Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the
everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and
pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow
in these areas."
After such a transformative experience - and after witnessing Trump's stunning victory - Moore
now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give
the voters what he promised them.
"He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially
trillion-dollar infrastructure package.
It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans.
Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus
package, but he is prepared to support it.
"I don't want to spend all that money on infrastructure," Moore said. "I think it's mostly a waste
of money. But if the voters want it, they should get it."
"If Trump says build a wall then he should build a wall. If Trump says renegotiate TPP [the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal], he should renegotiate TPP." "Elections have consequences," Moore added,
"and I do think Donald Trump has a mandate." Moore says his "view on trade has adjusted a bit" over
the course of the 2016 campaign. "I used to be unilateral free trader," he said. "If somebody wants
to sell something to us at less cost than we can produce here, then do it."
"But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like
it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is
not going to flourish. "We can scream and whine all we want but that's reality."
Moore is excited about large parts of Trump's agenda. He helped write Trump's tax plan and thinks
the cuts will accelerate economic growth and create new jobs. He's also had a hand in Trump's energy
plan and looks forward to slashing regulations hindering American energy production.
But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological
conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned
it into the Trump party."
"... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
"... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
"... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
"... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.
He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist,
I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American
working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to
not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent
of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about
."
Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy.
As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he
plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world.
Those rates may not be negative for too long.
" Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement
," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the
guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the
world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all
jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be
as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists,
in an economic nationalist movement."
How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"
It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation,
syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul
Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability
of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed
most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent
from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak
of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty
thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found
such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled
with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that
they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates
with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches,
so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows
up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When
they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400
kids."
Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"
At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal,
middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen.
Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting
patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return
to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed
over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They
got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.
To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly."
Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges
to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes
as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in
July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too
.
Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:
Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus
- in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains
run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision,
goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions
and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective
office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts
of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse
to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.
"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."
" The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.
The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he
means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the
black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they
were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people.
It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."
... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team
... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities
... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful
accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.
........ from wiki ...
Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class,
Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in
1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983,
Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster
as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the
Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers
& Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched
Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated
the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial
stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in
1998.
In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science
research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from
researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the
project in 1995.
After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry
in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon
became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film
and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled
In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter
Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a
number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The
Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News
Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.
Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute,
where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked
No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".
Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment.
Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From
2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.
Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew
Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company
of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach
towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon
identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of
ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."
The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the
fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over
material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how
Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking
to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality.
They lost sight of what the world is about ."
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political
movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.
Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost
in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.
Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump
will fail as well.
"... All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs. ..."
"... even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Brazil. ..."
Meanwhile as Trump has repeatedly pointed out, many American airports are so dysfunctional and badly
served by ground transport that they would not be out of place in the Third World. According to the
latest annual survey by the Skytrax company of the world's best airports, Denver placed highest among
American airports – but ranked a mediocre 28 in the world. By comparison five East Asian airports,
including two in Japan alone, made it into the top 10.
Infrastructure apart, far bigger problems lurk just below the surface. They are summed up in one
statistic, albeit a statistic that a perennially out-to-lunch American press rarely mentions: the
trade deficit. Measured on a current account basis (which is the widest and most meaningful measure),
the trade deficit last year was $463 billion. This represented a stunning 4.7 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP). By comparison the worst figure in the 1970s – a decade when the United States was
already seen, both at home and abroad, as losing out badly in global competition – was a mere 0.5
percent. The truth is that the United States has not run a trade surplus consistently since the 1960s,
and in the last two decades the deficits have rarely fallen below 3 percent of GDP.
Why does trade matter matter? For many reasons, not least because deficits have to be financed.
In practice most of the financing has come from major sovereign investors, particularly the governments
of China and Japan and to a lesser extent other East Asian nations. Typically it comes in the form
of massive purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. So far, the money has kept flowing but there is evidently
an implicit understanding: in return for doing their bit to keep both the U.S. dollar and U.S. financial
markets on an even keel, the East Asians will brook no lectures from Washington on opening their
markets to foreign trade. Hence a conspicuous silence in Washington in recent years on East Asian
trade barriers. Washington has entered a Faustian bargain and it is hard to see how even Trump, with
all his undoubted energy and determination, can break out of it.
He has talked about reopening shuttered factories. That is easier said than done. Once a nation
loses its position in any advanced manufacturing specialty, it finds it almost impossible to get
back in.
Take electronics. Trump seems to believe that by the simple expedient of imposing stiff tariffs
on Chinese imports he can encourage Apple to make iPhones in America. In reality, this badly misdiagnoses
the problem. Where the manufacture of sophisticated electronic consumer products is concerned, China
is a much less significant player than meets the eye. The product may bear a "Made in China" label
but this refers merely to the place of final assembly. Admittedly China does possess the knowhow
to make some components but generally only the simpler ones such as the plastic housing for a smartphone.
The serious components are made typically in high-wage nations like Japan and to a lesser extent
Korea, Taiwan, and Germany. Meanwhile Japan reigns supreme as the source of many of the most important
materials and production machinery used in the industry. Little noticed outside East Asia, such materials
and machinery are the ultimate driver of the electronic revolution.
All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value
may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the
best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs.
Moreover such jobs would be labor-intensive and therefore fundamentally unsuitable for a high-wage
economy. In any case it is highly debatable whether such jobs would be created in the first instance:
the point is that even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple
would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam,
India, Mexico, and Brazil.
"... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs
or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages.
The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the
Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid
jobs.
The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly
to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans
could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.
An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that
would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works
Progress Administration established in the 1930s.
Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty
threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would
establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would
be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure
needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep
and the provision of quality child care services""
"... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs
or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages.
The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the
Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid
jobs.
The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly
to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans
could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.
An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that
would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works
Progress Administration established in the 1930s.
Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty
threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would
establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would
be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure
needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep
and the provision of quality child care services""
"... Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. ..."
"... Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral." ..."
"... Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried. Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere near enough spending cuts to pay for them. ..."
"... But Republicans love irresponsible tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich. ..."
"... We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which was already supposed to be built under a 2006 law ), an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration, and enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists. ..."
"... A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here. ..."
"... Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards starting on day one . Phil Levy put it well in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively for unfair trade practices. ..."
Pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be the president-elect right now. As a result,
few spent much time gaming out the scenario we find ourselves in: next year, Donald Trump will be
the president, accompanied by a Republican (though not filibuster-proof) Senate and a solidly GOP
House.
I'm as guilty as anyone.
My last pre-election column was about what President Clinton would do to the Supreme Court. A
month ago I
tried to find Obamacare tweaks that Republicans could demand in exchange for helping to fix the
law, because only a moron would think anything more dramatic might be possible.
So here's an attempt to atone for my sins and outline the possibilities for a Trump presidency
in a number of domestic-policy areas.
The Supreme Court
Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities
he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing
in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Problem is, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-Supreme Court nominations back in 2013
via the "nuclear option" -- setting a precedent that could easily be followed in a second bombing mission,
this time directed at nominations for the high court. And to up the temptation, just weeks ago Tim Kaine was
mouthing off about how Democrats were already prepping the nuke. "If these guys think they're
going to stonewall the filling of that [Scalia] vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate
majority will say, 'We're not going to let you thwart the law,'" he said.
(It is not thwarting the law to stonewall a nomination.)
Unless they wimp out-a possibility that
should not be discounted -- Republicans are going to grab that bomb and set it off right in the
Democrats' faces, to the immense enjoyment of conservatives everywhere. Any Trump nominee acceptable
to Senate Republicans will be confirmed, both to replace Scalia and in the event that another justice
retires or passes away during the time Republicans have the Senate and the presidency.
In that case, everything I wrote last week is the opposite of reality. With Anthony Kennedy as
the swing justice once again, there will be more victories for the conservative legal movement.
And if Kennedy or a liberal justice is replaced with a conservative as well, some might get their
hopes up about bigger wins, like overturning Roe v. Wade .
Obamacare
Here the politics are less straightforward. Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that
cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against
those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait
until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral."
And as with the Supreme Court, the Senate filibuster is an obstacle to any move Republicans might
want to make. To get around this, the GOP has a few options: (1) pass the bill through the budget
"reconciliation" process; (2) kill the filibuster for legislation too, not just nominations, which
would be a drastic step; or (3) find
some other creative workaround .
They already did a dry run of the first approach, sending a (predictably vetoed) repeal bill to
President Obama. There's an important limitation, though: only the parts of the law that affect the
budget can be changed through the reconciliation process. The law's insurance regulations, for instance,
would still stand .
Another major question is whether to replace the law immediately, or sunset it gradually while
a replacement is hammered out. Considering there's some intra-party disagreement about how to replace
Obamacare, and considering no one has actual legislative language handy, the second option seems
wise.
(Both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan do have health-care plans outlined, though. Like most
conservative health-care plans, these are attempts to combine flexible subsides with consumer choice
and deregulation to provide coverage at an affordable cost.)
A note of caution will hang over the proceedings. Democrats passed Obamacare with zero Republican
support, twisting the rules to avoid a filibuster after the election of Scott Brown. By the time
problems with the law started cropping up, Republicans had gained some power back and refused to
help fix the mess. If Republicans do what Democrats did in 2009 and 2010, Democrats will respond
the way Republicans did when the tables turn once again.
Budget
Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed
to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried.
Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere
near enough spending cuts to pay for them.
With most of Trump's more harebrained ideas, we can hope that he'll back off a bit, that new advisors
will be more serious (or influential) than the ones he listened to (or didn't) during the campaign,
or that Republicans in Congress won't send him a bill to sign. But Republicans love irresponsible
tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement
of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich.
Immigration
This is one of those areas where we can expect Trump to back off of his campaign rhetoric a bit.
Mass deportations and a ban on Muslim immigration won't likely become a reality.
We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by
a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which
was already supposed to be built under a
2006 law ),
an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger
enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration,
and
enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists.
A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control
could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here.
Trade
Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards
starting on
day one . Phil Levy
put it well
in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic
and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will
conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively
for unfair trade practices.
All of this just scratches the surface. Trump's election completely changes the picture, from
climate-change and energy efforts to criminal-justice reform. The electorate's decision may prove
right or wrong, but that it's exciting is undeniable.
Robert VerBruggen is managing editor of The American Conservative.
Follow @RAVerBruggen
My biggest question for Republicans is how is Trump going to implement trade changes. I know everybody
loves big steel mills that employ thousands but these are things of past. However, the steel employment
is less than 55,000 so an increase of steel production of 10 – 20% means we would be lucky to
see an employment increase of 5,000. With 150M workers, that is drops in the bucket and now steel
is 15% higher in price.
And now all infrastructure and construction will be 3% higher in price. Can you imagine how
many jobs that will impact?
Rust Belt states hammered by free trade have actually been more hammered by automation. When those
jobs don't return but we have 35% tariffs raising the cost of a vast number of goods, the Rust
Belt states, and every other state, will be much worse off.
Fortunately, there is evidence already that this statement was a mere campaign ploy (like building
a wall, deporting them all with a deportment force, banning Muslims, special prosecutor for Hillary,
getting rid of all Obamacare, etc.), with Wilbur Ross stating in an interview the goal isn't to
get rid of trade agreements but negotiate to lower the trade deficit (using examples tried by
every president, like getting Asian countries to buy cotton from us).
It is fortunate, as stomping free trade would decimate the economy and act as a form or welfare,
by instituting higher costs on everyone to bring a few (but nowhere near as many as before automation)
jobs with salaries that are dwarfed by the amount of the cost to consumers.
But you know all this…this is Milton Friedman, this is basic conservative economic thought
that has been accepted by the mainstream conservatives forever and only criticized by (wrongfully
and through emotion rather than a conservative thoughtful analysis) by radical winds of the conservative
movement, such as one of this forums founders. There is no benefit to the country as a whole economically
from any limit to free trade. Even without considering all the other side effects (permitting
other powers to become hegemonic by leading trade platforms, creating animosity toward the US,
removing soft power of having our goods being exported), protectionism is a losing choice for
the country as a whole. To assume that is our only choice to help small groups hurt by free trade
merely evidences an obstinant refusal to even attempt to consider any alternatives.
"…getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty
those already here."
Allowing immigration scofflaws to keep what they broke the law to obtain (i.e., permanent US
residency) would subvert any attempt to control illegal immigration, just as it did with IRCA
in 1986 . Amnesty was a bad idea then and it's a worse idea now.
Alas.
Governance. Such a different world from being an irresponsible grandstander to the "Base".
I wish them all well.
And, since I became thoroughly disgusted with both major political parties years ago and registered
as an independent (to hell with the vanity… err… "Third" Parties), I am sitting back sipping Jameson
and munching popcorn while all the smart people sort things out.
As the saying goes in the antique stores, "You broke it, you bought it."
This article is totally blind to the local economy that has been obliterated by the global economy.
We once had a Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and earned 6% on a CD; and
in turn, that money was lent to young families to buy homes and start businesses. It was virtuous
because it recycled money between generations and needed cultural values like saving, hard work,
ingenuity and a profit motive.
Conversely, a Global Economy requires that capital be diverted into stocks and bonds and away
from local banks. The vehicle for doing this is zero interest rates. This creates asset bubbles
in stocks and commodities especially real estate. And it shifts cultural values from saving, hard
work and profit motivation to earning money from contrive economic bubbles, arbitraging and gaming
the system.
The working class can't afford homes under a Global Economy so they were thrown a bone of sub
prime loans, that decimated their families with foreclosures, bankruptcies, divorces and substance
abuse.
What "made America great" was a pluralistic economy that was both Globalist and Localist. What
needs to be restored is "free trade" at the local level. But a Global Economy forces everyone
into a one-size-fits-all system that only benefits those along the "Left Coasts" and abandons
the "fly over country".
"... The angry and disaffected are victims of the neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by Fed chair Alan Greenspan ..."
"... As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards. ..."
"... in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work. ..."
According to current information, Trump broke all records in the support he received from white voters,
working class and lower middle class, particularly in the $50,000 to $90,000 income range, rural
and suburban, primarily those without college education. These groups share the anger throughout
the West at the centrist establishment, revealed as well in the unanticipated Brexit vote and the
collapse of centrist parties in continental Europe. The angry and disaffected are victims of the
neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by
Fed chair Alan Greenspan – St. Alan as he was called reverentially by the economics profession and
other admirers until the miraculous economy he was supervising crashed in 2007-8, threatening to
bring the whole world economy down with it. As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes
in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working
people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating
wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards.
Working people who have been the subjects of these experiments in economic theory are, oddly,
not particularly happy about the outcome. They are not, for example, overjoyed at the fact that
in
2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than
they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while
spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction
of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions,
matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work.
The fate of the minimum wage illustrates what has been happening. Through the periods of high
and egalitarian growth in the '50s and '60s, the minimum wage – which sets a floor for other wages
– tracked productivity. That ended with the onset of neoliberal doctrine. Since then the minimum
wage has stagnated (in real value). Had it continued as before, it would probably be close to $20
per hour. Today it is considered a political revolution to raise it to $15.
With all the talk of near-full employment today, labor force participation remains below the earlier
norm. And for a working man, there is a great difference between a steady job in manufacturing with
union wages and benefits, as in earlier years, and a temporary job with little security in some service
profession. Apart from wages, benefits, and security, there is a loss of dignity, of hope for the
future, of a sense that this is a world in which I belong and play a worthwhile role.
The impact is captured well in Arlie Hochschild's sensitive and illuminating portrayal of a Trump
stronghold in Louisiana, where she lived and worked for many years. She uses the image of a line
in which these people are standing, expecting to move forward steadily as they work hard and keep
to all the conventional values. But their position in the line has stalled. Ahead of them, they see
people leaping forward, but that does not cause much distress, because it is "the American way" for
(alleged) merit to be rewarded. What does cause real distress is what is happening behind them.
... ... ...
These are just samples of the real lives of Trump supporters, who are deluded to believe that
Trump will do something to remedy their plight, though the merest look at his fiscal and other proposals
demonstrates the opposite – posing a task for activists who hope to fend off the worst and to advance
desperately needed changes.
Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that
he represented change, while Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress.
The "change" that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that
the consequences are not clear to isolated people in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations
(like unions) that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between today's despair
and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working people under much greater duress during the great
depression of the 1930s.
Donald Trump's proposal for $1 trillion worth of new infrastructure construction relies entirely
on private financing, which industry experts say is likely to fall far short of adequately funding
improvements to roads, bridges and airports.
The president-elect's infrastructure plan largely boils down to a tax break in the hopes of
luring capital to projects. He wants investors to put money into projects in exchange for tax
credits totaling 82% of the equity amount. His plan anticipates that lost tax revenue would be
recouped through new income-tax revenue from construction workers and business-tax revenue from
contractors, making the proposal essentially cost-free to the government.
Mr. Trump has made a $1 trillion infrastructure investment over 10 years one of his first priorities
as president, promising in his victory speech early Wednesday morning to "rebuild our highways,
bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."
The Trump team's $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan over 10 years is laid out in a
description of the proposal on the website (#) of Peter Navarro, an adviser to Mr. Trump and a
public-policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. A presidential transition website
that went up this week (*) said Mr. Trump planned to invest $550 billion in infrastructure, without
offering details on where that funding would come from. Top Trump aides couldn't be reached to
comment on the proposal.
Experts and industry officials, though, say there are limits to how much can be done with private
financing. Because privately funded projects need to turn a profit, they are better suited for
major projects such as toll roads, airports or water systems and less appropriate for routine
maintenance, such as repaving a public street, they say.
Officials also doubt that the nation's aging infrastructure can be updated without a significant
infusion of public dollars. ...
Sanjait and PGL tell us that Hillary plans about $1.65
trillion in additional spending over the next ten years.
Wow that sounds like a lot! No wonder conservative web sites
are all up in arms about the new spending. (No doubt they're
trying to fan the flames of their already enflamed readers.)
Alan Blinder is a smart economist. He says otherwise:
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical
that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton
wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter
surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by
her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at
Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is
ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore
it.""
But PGL bashed Bernie Sanders supporters and supported
centrist Clinton during the primary. What gives?
Why is he lying about her fiscal plans now?
And what about Hillary's endorsement of the centrist view
that we are not allowed to discuss the Fed during a
Presidential election. The deplorable voters aren't to be
trusted (when the experts like PGL and Bobby Rubin did such a
fine job with the housing bubble and financial crisis).
As the Blinder quote shows, Fed policy is very important
especially if it can "brush off" fiscal policy's effects on
employment levels and aggregate demand.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
Larry Summers and Krugman argue that Hillary Clinton's
infrastructure investment plans are "substantially" too
small. And they supported her!
Krugman went so far as to lie about Sanders and his
supporters. Summers called them populist authoritarians.
And yet PGL just outright ignores what they have to say
when he brown-noses them on every other occasion.
We know Sanjait is a centrist at heart the way he
bad-mouths Dean Baker on a regular basis.
If you still can't decide which candidate the "best policies", you're the enemy.
Here is the list of the "Contract with the American Voter" policies detailed by Trump:
Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
Institute a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through
attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Institute a five year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists
after they leave government service
Create a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
Institute a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
Announce intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.
Announce withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Direct Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.
Direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign
trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under
American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing
American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
Lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like
the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's
water and environmental infrastructure.
Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President
Obama.
Begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges
on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities.
Begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and
cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.
Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting
of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
Work with Congress on a Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.An economic plan
designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive
tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and
lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle
class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of
brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The
business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American
corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
Work with Congress on a End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies
from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products
back to the U.S. tax-free.
Work with Congress on a American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private
partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure
investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
Work with Congress on a School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education
dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet,
religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to
local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college
more affordable.
Work with Congress on a Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces
it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines,
and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the
FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval
of life-saving medications.
Work with Congress on a Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.Allows Americans to deduct
childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare
services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents,
with matching contributions for low-income families.
Work with Congress on an End Illegal Immigration Act. Fully-funds the construction of a
wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing
the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal
prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year
mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor
convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties
for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Work with Congress on a Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and
violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that
train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and
federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
Work with Congress on a Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating
the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability
to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital
infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure
those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
Work with Congress on a Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms
to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
While trump idea of cutting taxes for business might work in a sort term, the whole neoliberal
system is so corrupt that any attempt to make distribution more fair will be sabotaged. and Trump
appeal to small business owners is somewhat fake. When political in the USA talks about small
business owners typically he is a Wall Street stooge.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday. ..."
"... The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go to hell. He stands up for our workers. ..."
"... Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign. ..."
"... What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda. ..."
"... For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15 years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent wage. So that's the grim reality. ..."
"... Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean 2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. ..."
Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able
to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes
the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday.
Navarro said on the program, which aired on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
on Saturday:
The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene
amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and
the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the
fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can
tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go
to hell. He stands up for our workers.
Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and
made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign.
Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday of the speech:
This is basically a broad overview of the whole Trump policy agenda for America. It's very
exciting news. If you think about what's going on this year in America, we've got the slowest
growth since World War II. We've got a national security mess in every theater in the world
from Asia to the Middle East, and we've got a healthcare plan that is imploding, and we've got
an immigration plan that is overwhelming this country, so in the remaining days until Nov. 8
Mr. Trump is going to lay all of this out and it's going to be exciting to hear positive
policies talked about to the American people instead of anything but policy.
Trump, Navarro noted, has been giving detailed policy-oriented speeches across the United
States over the past several months while his Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton has been
running a policy-free campaign focused on insults and the politics of personal destruction.
Nonetheless, the media completely ignores Trump's solutions-focused campaign. So what Trump plans
to do now is circumvent the media while taking his message directly to the American people.
Navarro said:
What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in
precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that
that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through
that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda.
So what Mr. Trump's going to do is just take the case to the American people between now
and election day that his agenda is the right one on the economy, immigration, healthcare, and
everything on down-national security-this is a critical election.
Hillary Clinton's agenda, Navarro said, would devastate the United States on every front. He
said:
In fact, if we turn the country over to Hillary Clinton at this point we know the
following: We know that she can't possibly be better at economically than we've been doing and
she'll probably do worse. We know that she will continue with the Obamacare agenda which is
collapsing before our eyes. We know that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy agenda will continue
to be weakness and chaos in places like the Middle East. We know all of this and it's
important for the American people to learn more in more granular detail about the competing
policies of each of the candidates and that's the mission between now and Nov. 8.
One of the key points he brought up during the interview was Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
growth in the United States, which since the early 2000s has significantly slowed down compared
with the latter half of the 20th century. That crushes Americans' chances of getting a good job
with high-paying wages, as the slowdown in the 21st century has cost the United States around 20
million jobs, maybe more. Navarro went on:
Let me give you just the central statistic of American life right now: From 1947 to 2001,
our economy grew at an average rate of 3.5 percent a year. Since 2002, that rate's fallen to
1.9 percent a year. For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15
years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be
over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent
wage. So that's the grim reality.
Navarro said the reason this has happened is because of a "structural problem" in the U.S.
economy that people like Hillary Clinton refuse to solve:
Now, the question is: Why has this happened? The answer is simply that we have a deep
structural problem in our economy and the basic answer is we don't invest on American soil
like we used to. That's a major problem. We invest in Mexico and China and Vietnam and
Cambodia instead. That drains our GDP directly, and then we also run a massive trade deficit:
$766 billion a year, which alone probably takes a point off our growth rate. Now, Donald Trump
recognizes this. He recognizes that two of the most important things are to get more
investment on domestic soil by corporations and businesses and to eliminate the trade deficit.
Trump will solve the problem on four separate fronts, Navarro said, something that will take
bold leadership and courage in Washington. Navarro continued:
So what do you do? You attack that on four different fronts: regulatory, trade directly,
energy, and basically what we need to do is realign the incentives of corporations so that it's
better to invest in Michigan than Mexico. One of the ways to do that is to reduce the corporate
tax rate from 35 percent down to 15 percent, which would make us competitive with all of those
countries which have lower corporate tax rates and are basically running huge surpluses with us:
Germany, Japan, South Korea, China, Mexico. These are the countries that are just killing us
strategically. So, if we want to get better growth-stronger growth-we have to attack this
structurally. Now, what Obama and Clinton have been doing is treating the problem not
structurally but as a cyclical phenomenon that you can simply use what we call Keynesian stimulus
- named after John Maynard Keynes, famous economist: the idea that if you simply spend a bunch of
government money and print a bunch of government money that somehow that will stimulate the
economy. Well, we've had eight years of that. Barack Obama has doubled our debt from $10 to $20
trillion using fiscal stimulus and our Federal Reserve balance sheet has been totally destroyed
and what do we have to show for it? We have one percent growth instead of 3.5 or 4.
Navarro said Clinton has two separate ideas to "stimulate the economy," both of which he said
won't work.
"One is to basically tax the rich and give the money to everybody else," he said, noting that
that is essentially classic leftist redistribution of wealth that will "depress savings and
investment from the people who save the most and allow the most investment." Navarro added:
And the other is this wacky thing to significantly raise business taxes to get a pot of
money and then build some infrastructure. It might sound good to some people-we definitely
need the infrastructure-but the last thing we want to do is reallocate funds in America from
the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector. Trump has an infrastructure
plan which will produce twice as much spending without having to raise any taxes. He uses an
elegant system of a tax credit to incentivize the private sector to build this stuff.
Navarro said the problem is, in addition to cheap labor overseas, a number of government
policies that strangle business development in the United States while encouraging offshoring of
U.S. companies. He elaborated:
Cheap labor is a small part of the problem at work here. If it were only cheap labor,
America would be in trouble. Because it's other things too, we have a great chance to turn it
around. Here's the problem: Our high corporate tax rate pushes our companies offshore. Our
high regulatory burden pushes our companies offshore. To the extent we put our coal miners and
oil and gas industry out of business and raise electricity costs and energy costs, that pushes
our corporations offshore. To the extent that we allow China to illegally subsidize goods and
sell them into this country, that pushes our jobs and factories offshore. To the extent we
don't hold the World Trade Organization and Mexico accountable for manipulating the rules of
the VAT versus income tax is very injurious to this country.
Navarro added that if someone is elected president with the "will and the intelligence" to
take on the special interests and fix the problems, America can survive this threat. He
concluded:
All of this stuff is in our hands. It simply takes the will and the intelligence to do it,
and the ability to resist the special interests who are on the other side of that equation.
Trump will solve this problem, Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary
to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad
trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She
did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean
2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions
of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. If anybody is
listening to this in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, please
recognize that Hillary Clinton bears a major responsibility for whatever misery your state is
going through.
LISTEN TO PETER NAVARRO'S FULL INTERVIEW ON BREITBART NEWS SATURDAY:
David Dayen reenforces the point that Paul Ryan is party ideologist (and has
been for years) in bringing up Ryan's Wednesday statement that "he intends to
jam through the Ryan budget next year under a procedure that bypasses
Democratic opposition in Congress-and make that vow without fear of reprisal,
right in the heat of election season":
. . . Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance
himself from Donald Trump-when in reality, Trump would likely be little more
than an
autopen as president
, signing whatever noxious
policy Ryan shuttled through the House and put on his desk. Despite this,
the media almost affords him sympathy for his plight about dealing with
Trump (he's campaigning with Trump on Saturday, so it can't be that
wrenching), rather than recognizing his role as the author of the agenda the
next Republican president will carry out.
The normalization of Ryan as a serious, honest figure allows him to put
out as radical a budget as would ever be initiated
in American
history
without anyone batting an eyelash. This may not come back
to sting the country next year, if Trump falls the way his poll numbers
currently suggest. But at some not-too-distant point, when conservatives
capture the entire government, they'll be able to implement this blueprint,
the Ryan budget, that should have been made into nuclear waste long ago.
Isn't it nice that Ryan's plan is to save the Democratic Party in 2018
when they face challenges in keeping their seats at the same level the GOP
is facing this year?
If Ryan thinks there won't be consequences in ramming through changes to
Social Security or Medicare, he's bleeping insane and clearly hasn't been
paying attention.
I almost wonder if he can get the rest of his coalition to sign his
little suicide pact. If Trump doesn't implode him then Ryan's budget just
might.
Republicans merely can cherry-pick Ryan's budget-but they're a
monolith on core doctrine, tax cuts on income from wealth and
deregulation, eh?
. . . or this bonus–Robert Kuttner in American Prospect:
Trump has promised to repeal the
Dodd-Frank Act
.
That would take an act of Congress, but would not be necessary. He'd
need only to appoint stooges to several key Treasury positions, or
repeal existing regulations and not write new ones. The same is true
of a broad swath of environmental, civil-rights, and labor regulation,
not to mention rights of immigrants. . . Trump could reach out to such
relatively conservative unions as police, fire, and building trades
with a blend of carrots and sticks. He could try to enlist industrial
unions such as the Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers that are
most threatened by trade, and ask for their explicit support. Then he
could concentrate his fire on left unions like the Service Employees
International Union, which has a heavily black and Latino membership.
His white working-class bona fides would be strengthened-and the labor
movement's alliance with the Democratic Party sundered.
As a white union guy in an AFL union who knows plenty of other
white guys in other AFL unions, I find your whole scenario entirely
plausible.
Trump is very popular among my cohorts, which I find rather ironic
since he spent years on TV playing the role of boss. It wouldn't take
much, maybe a federal pre-emption of state right-to-work laws, to get
the union factions you spoke of on board. Cardcheck seems to be more
of an SEIU/UFCW type of issue and those definitely aren't Trump
unions.
Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance himself
from Donald Trump
Curiously, he fails to mention - or mentioned but editors cut -
allegations that to do so was official Hillary policy. The impending
flame-out of this Party system can be hung right on her and her mooks'
shoulders.
I have no fear of Ryan enacting his budget. Any party that enacts that
budget will be removed from power for the following three generations.
Everyone that was alive when that happened would have to die before that
party ever got another chance.
No doubt that party would then repeat that same mistake.
he High Dollar: President Clinton's Unaffordable Tax Cut
by Dean Baker
Truthout, November 15, 2006
Everyone knows about George W. Bush's unaffordable tax
cuts, the big tax breaks that gave millions to millionaires
and billions to billionaires, but few people are aware of the
even more unaffordable tax cut from the Clinton
administration. That is because President Clinton's tax cut
took a somewhat different form: an over-valued dollar.
While few people recognize it, the effect of an
over-valued dollar on the US economy is very similar to the
effect of large tax cuts. Tax cuts reduce revenue, which
leads to deficits and a growing debt, which will impose a
larger interest burden on the country in the future. In the
same way, an over-valued dollar leads to a trade deficit,
which results in borrowing from abroad. In future years, the
country will have to pay interest on the money it borrows
from abroad today, leading to lower living standards in the
future. In fact, the most important difference between the
two is that the trade deficit is much larger, clocking in at
more than $800 billion in 2006 (6.1 percent of GDP), while
the budget deficit is a comparatively modest $260 billion
(2.0 percent of GDP).
Clinton did not start his administration with a high
dollar policy. Lloyd Bentsen, his first Treasury Secretary,
deliberately allowed the dollar to weaken in the first years
of the Clinton administration, with the hope of keeping the
trade deficit at a manageable level. When he left office in
1994, the trade deficit was less than 1.5 percent of GDP, a
level that could be sustained indefinitely.
The high dollar policy came into being under Bentsen's
replacement, Robert Rubin. Rubin argued that a high dollar
would help control inflation. He made it the official policy
of the Clinton administration to support a high dollar.
As a short-term measure, Rubin is exactly right; a high
dollar does help to control inflation by making imports
available at a lower cost. This has the effect of keeping
prices lower in the United States and putting US
manufacturing firms at an enormous competitive disadvantage.
The basic story is relatively simple - if the dollar is
over-valued by 20 percent, then this is equivalent to
providing a 20 percent subsidy to imports, while placing a 20
percent tariff on all goods exported from the United States.
With the high dollar policy in place, it should not be a
surprise that we have lost more than 3 million manufacturing
jobs in the last decade.
But, it is important to realize that the feel good part of
the high dollar policy is only a short-term story. Just as a
tax cut can put more money in people's pockets until the
interest burden starts to exceed the size of the tax cut,
eventually the foreign debt builds to the point where it is
no longer possible to sustain the over-valued dollar. At some
point in the future, the dollar will fall, and it will hit a
level that is much lower than would have been the case if we
had not built up a massive foreign debt (now more than $3
trillion) during the years of the high dollar. As a result
future generations will be paying much more for everything
that the country imports from abroad - oil, other raw
materials, manufactured goods and services. In other words,
future generations will experience lower standards of living
because of today's high dollar, and the impact is more than
three times as large as the impact of the budget deficit.
The blame for the high dollar policy is bi-partisan. It
started under Clinton-Rubin, but it has continued in the Bush
years, even as the trade deficit exploded to more than twice
its previous record (measured relative to the size of the
economy). The Bush administration could have taken steps to
bring down the value of the dollar and thereby reduce the
trade deficit, but this would have meant sharp increases in
import prices, which would lower living standards. This would
be no more popular than tax increases - it is not surprising
that Bush would not choose to go this route.
Instead, President Bush continued the high dollar policy
that he inherited from Clinton, obviously hoping that its
collapse occurs when someone else is sitting in the White
House. For the politicians, this is a convenient pass the
buck story; only the person sitting there at the time will
have to take the blame when the bill from the high dollar
policy comes due. But, those of us who will have to pay this
bill should be clear, it was Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin
who started the tab running and George W. Bush who lacked the
courage to close the account.
The desire to beat
up on Donald Trump is
understandable, but it
is important to
realize that not
everything he says is
wrong. For example,
according to press
accounts he adheres to
the belief that the
world is round.
Anyhow, Greg Ip
goes a bit over board
in a Wall Street
Journal piece where he
argues that Trump's
claim that a trade
deficit can be reduced
or eliminated with
tariffs is wrong.
Referring to Trump's
approach to the trade
deficit, Ip tells
readers:
"But that is out of
step with standard
economics, which
predicts that a
country's trade
balance is determined
by the gap between
what it invests and
saves, not by
tariffs."
As an accounting
identity a country's
trade balance is
always equal to the
gap between what it
invests and what it
saves. This means that
if the U.S. invests
$200 billion a year
more than it saves,
then it will by
definition be true
that it has a trade
deficit of $200
billion.
However this
accounting identity
tells us nothing about
causation. If we are
below the full
employment level of
output, and Donald
Trump's tariffs or
threats of tariffs,
reduce our annual
trade deficit by $200
billion (@ 1.1 percent
of GDP), then this
would lead to
additional employment,
output, and savings in
the United States. A
standard multiplier
would suggest that a
$200 billion reduction
in the size of the
trade deficit would
lead to a $300 billion
increase in GDP. This
higher GDP would lead
to more corporate and
individual savings, as
well as more tax
revenue, which also
count as savings. (The
growth in GDP would
also led to more
imports, partially
offsetting the initial
improvement in the
trade deficit.)
In other words, it
is totally possible to
reduce the size of the
trade deficit as long
as the economy is
below its full
employment level of
output. This is basic
economic theory. Folks
should be clear on
this point, even if it
suggests that Trump
might be partly right
on something.
"... Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe and North America.' ..."
"... Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats. ..."
"... 'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose? ..."
"... 'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.' ..."
"... 'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going to pay a 35 percent tax."' ..."
Let's take Donald Trump's trade policies at face value.
If he is elected, "The era of economic surrender will finally be over," Trump declared, repeating
a favorite theme in a July speech in Monessen, Pa., once the heart of the state's steel industry.
(#) "I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again."
As the world knows, Trump's rhetoric has found a receptive audience among angry white working-class
voters who have lost well-paying jobs to automation and outsourcing.
Legions of Trump supporters have legitimate grounds for discontent. As my colleague Peter Goodman
wrote last week:
'Trade comes with no assurances that the spoils will be shared equitably. Across much of the industrialized
world, an outsize share of the winnings has been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock
options and the need for accountants. Ordinary laborers have borne the costs and suffered from joblessness
and deepening economic anxiety.'
Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied
the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked
government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe
and North America.'
Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact
of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats.
On Sept. 30, Rex Nutting, a columnist at MarketWatch.com, wrote "How Donald Trump hijacked
the Democrats' best issue":
'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned
their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question
of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose?
The downside of Trump's trade policy proposals is, however, considerable. Trump's protectionist
policies would negatively affect overall American economic performance and further aggravate the
harsh distributional consequences of globalization for just those workers who support him.
Gordon Hanson, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, emailed me his
analysis of Trump's economic scheme:
'Trump's strategy is essentially one of withdrawal from the world economy. He wants less trade
and less outward foreign investment. He offers no plans for how to improve our export performance.
This is protectionism, pure and simple.'
Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management, was more forceful:
'No nation can succeed by trying to protect the past from the future. We will succeed by having
the confidence to embrace competition, and leveraging our comparative strengths, which are numerous.
We have the largest, most productive and most technologically advanced economy that's ever existed
on this planet. The more open the world economy is, the more we have an opportunity to leverage
our many strengths.'
Looked at this way, Trump's stance is an implicit admission that he and his followers do not
"believe in America" - an argument that the United States cannot compete successfully in the world
arena unless protected by the imposition of high tariffs and punitive taxes on foreign production
and foreign competitors.
Robert Reich, an economist at Berkeley, former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton and a leading
supporter of Bernie Sanders during the primaries, agrees.
Trump's trade proposals, Reich argues, 'assume the U.S. can't compete and must erect trade
barriers lest other countries flood America with better and cheaper products. That's the opposite
of believing in America.'
On Jan. 7, Trump told The New York Times that he would impose a 45 percent tax on goods imported
from China. "I would tax China on products coming in," he told the paper's editorial board. "The
tax should be 45 percent."
When Ford proposed building new manufacturing facilities in Mexico, Trump declared in a September
2015 speech that he would call the president of Ford and tell him:
'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming
across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.'
Trump said the same thing in March after the Carrier Corporation announced plans to move air-conditioning
production facilities to Mexico:
'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But
every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going
to pay a 35 percent tax."'
Andrew McAfee, a director of M.I.T.'s Initiative on the Digital Economy and co-author of "The
Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," was sharply
critical of Trump. In an email, McAfee wrote:
'There's a reason that all good economists support free trade, and that none of them are supporting
Trump's proposals. The reason is that trade gives us more and better access to goods and services
than we could produce on our own. It also provides jobs for exporters, people working in airports
and ports, and so on.
Free trade is not surrender, and not something that only suckers do. In fact, just the opposite.
Closing our borders would be surrender to a nonexistent enemy. It would make us poorer without
bringing back the jobs.'
Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, contends that Trump's proposal is only slightly less drastic
than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff - a law passed over the objection of more than 1,000 economists and
signed by Herbert Hoover in June 1930. Smoot-Hawley is largely acknowledged as one of the principle
causes of the subsequent worldwide economic catastrophe. In an email, Wilentz wrote:
'Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs across the board, with every trading partner. The results were disastrous
for the world economy, let alone for the U.S. at the opening stage of the Great Depression. A worldwide
trade war commenced, and international trade was shattered. Trump so far has proposed only sharp
tariff hikes with Mexico and China - but these are two of the three largest sources of U.S. imports.'
...
... A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump's last three construction
projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United
States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. ...
"... Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason. See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant means actually working in the public interest not her own. ..."
"... Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans. ..."
"... The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication. ..."
"... These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times. ..."
"... It's not cheerleading. It's the reasonable assessment that Trump MIGHT be a disaster, but Clinton WILL be a disaster. ..."
"... OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok. ..."
Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason.
See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately
Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her
own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant
means actually working in the public interest not her own.
For that alone she needs to be dropped kicked into obscurity and a future where she and Bill really
do find out what being broke and looking forward to the Social Security Check is like.
Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to
partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald
as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans.
If we had journalism instead of Poodledom there would be first a laying out of
what are presidential powers-given the limited possibilities of who controls the other branches of
government. And secondly, a replay of recent history of the two parties' actions on the major issues
affecting the common good (which admittedly doesn't exist for libertarians and Thatcherites).
The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans
move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication.
Donald Trump is not a "much better candidate" than Clinton. More's the pity.
The Donald is a heel; a frivolous egotist who has screwed up many times over the decades. His
money and showman's cunning allowed him to prosper despite all the screw overs and screw ups.
He's been a heel for decades and there is no likelihood he'll improve if he attains high office.
Hillary Clinton - by contrast, not - is a supercilious elitist with more baggage than the cargo
compartment of a fully loaded 747.
These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both
stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable
as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times.
OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire
countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok.
The New York Times did what we should expect newspapers to
do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers
that Donald Trump's energy plans don't make any sense. In the
first paragraph of a piece * on a speech Donald Trump gave in
Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase
production of both coal and natural gas is "impossible." This
is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact,
the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the
last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas
from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is
almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in
coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but
now NYT readers do.
Dean seems to be saying that coal production fell as a result
of a fall in its demand curve which would lower coal prices
along the supply curve. This chart of coal prices confirms
this story:
All excellent points but let me expand on one that I have
blogged about:
"his estimates of the additional growth we
would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly
inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would
amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years
which is not politically feasible."
Cutting nondefense Federal purchases by 25% would be very
bad policy. At the same time, it would not reduce spending by
nearly the made up numbers Trump is claiming even if this
really bad policy were passed.
Of course Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan whose magic
astericks if actually turned into a real policy proposal
would mean eliminating all nondefense Federal purchases. And
for some reason people consider Ryan a serious policy person.
No? He is nothing more than a lying clown.
Anon. :
, -1
How do you reconcile these views with the lack of reaction
from the stock market as Trump's chances improve?
For being an outsider he seems devoid of new ideas and other
than some distinctions in defense, immigration, and trade,
mostly conventional. Hardly a change candidate, only more of
the same.
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what
it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while
Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows
The
question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my
situation?
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work
in the shadows
The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?
"Trump is a pure outsider. He
knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern."
Does not the absence of Washington experience
make him preferable by definition? ;-)
Because we know the results of those who supposedly "knew something" (the son of previous
President with English language problems and "change we can believe in" -- junior senator with
questionable biography and very little experience in governing as well as Joe Lieberman as
his Senate mentor).
But in more serious mode it is unclear whether he can be worse then Hillary, who is "status
quo" candidate.
My hope is that with his paleoconservaive inclinatins, he might be able to suppress excessive
financization and slightly tame Wall Street sharks. Looks like he does not like Wall Street
and that might be huge positive.
While Hillary is definitely is in the pocket (like her husband Bill).
According to Mark Thoma for internal economic policy Trump is a more questionable choice.
And that might well be true. But neoliberalism is now in deep internal crisis anyway, so all
choices are bad.
As for foreign policy he is definitely preferable over more jingoistic and reckless neocon
Hillary.
Looks like we have a very difficult choice here folks.
I'm shocked at how quickly the
GOP has fallen in line behind his anti free trade policies. It appears that the official platform
of the GOP is now in favor of protectionism and subsidies. The silence from the small-l libertarian
wing of the GOP has been deafening.
Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Brexit was
the first swan.
That means "Free traders" now are under the gun as the results of their policies are pretty
evident and different from the promise that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans attitude
reflect this reality -- that's why Trump managed to get into position he is now.
"Peak (or more correctly Plato) Oil" is another big factor here and if the price dynamics
is up this will be another nail in the coffin of neoliberal globalization.
As Obama put it in different context "I am the only one who is standing between you and
pitchforks". And he really served this role for eight long years.
But the mood of electorate changed dramatically. That's why both parties now try to distance
themselves from this idea at least for the period of elections.
With Trump election pitchforks might really move closer to their targets. That's why Wall
Street and "Clinton's Demorats" are so firmly behind Hillary candidacy.
Hillary is a "status quo" candidate and has two additional advantages over Trump:
-- her failing health which might prevent serving her the full term,
-- there is a possibility of her impeachment for "emailgate", which really would be a "skeleton
in the closet" for her administration.
"... In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans. ..."
"... However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers. ..."
"... Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House. ..."
Donald Trump's chances of becoming president are higher than I ever expected them to be, and there is
a chance that he will be able to put his economic plans into place. He claims his economic policies
will be good for the working class, but in reality his plans for high income tax cuts and deregulation
adhere closely to standard Republican ideology that has favored the wealthy and powerful. Even his plans
for international trade, an area where he claims populist support, would hurt far more people than it
would help. Here are the four areas where Trump's economic plans concern me the most:
Social Security and Medicare: In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on
fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social
insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect,
Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs
from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if
he implements his tax cut plans.
Donald Trump's latest tax plan does not increase the national debt as much as his original plan,
revenues will "only" fall between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of $9.5 trillion.
Trump has claimed that all of the lost revenue will be made up through the plan's impact on economic
growth, cuts to nondefense appropriations (essentially everything except defense, Social Security, and
Medicare), and deregulation.
However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating
are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately
25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would
likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts
to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers.
Republican members of Congress, who would almost surely be in control if Trump wins the election,
will not reverse the tax cuts. But they have been eager to cut entitlement programs, only the threat
of a veto from Obama stood in their way. Would Trump allow the debt to skyrocket, or would he, as I
believe, end up signing legislation from Congress that includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare?
Despite his promises, two key programs the working class relies upon would be vulnerable with Trump
as president.
Deregulation: I've already mentioned Trump's plan to reduce regulation, to the point of calling
for severe reductions in the budgets of agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, food safety
enforcement, and a reversal of Dodd-Frank and other financial regulation. Deregulation of the magnitude
Trump is proposing would be a disaster waiting to happen.
There are obvious dangers to areas such as the environment and food safety, but sticking with economics
it would also make the financial system, which needs more regulation not less, more likely to crash
again. There would be more tolerance of monopoly power – a source of rising inequality, and less protection
generally of workers and consumers from powerful business interests. Trump claims that deregulation
will create economic growth, but that didn't happen when Reagan and Bush deregulated and there's no
reason to think it will be different this time.
Federal Reserve Composition and Independence: Trump's statements about the Fed have been inconsistent.
In November he said that Janet Yellen hasn't raised interest rates "because the Obama administration
and the president doesn't want her to." But in May he said, "I'm not a person that thinks Janet Yellen
is doing a bad job. I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head,"
which he added he doesn't see happening anytime soon. But more recently he has gone back to a critical
stance, saying that Fed Chair Yellen is "obviously political," that "She's doing what Obama wants her
to do," and that she "should be ashamed of herself."
Trump has said he would replace Yellen if he is elected, and given his obvious lack of knowledge
about monetary policy he would likely rely upon his advisors to select a new Fed Chair and make appointments
to the Federal Reserve Board. That means we are likely to get a Chair and Board members who are hawkish
on inflation, opposed to financial regulation, more likely to base policy on strict adherence to a Taylor
rule (according to this framework, interest rates should have already been increased), and less likely
to take aggressive action if the economy crashes (except perhaps to bail out cronies on Wall Street).
That would be bad enough, especially for the working class who would take a back seat to concerns
about inflation and the interests of the financial sector, but my biggest worry is that Trump would
compromise the independence of the Fed. Trump's personality is such that he will want to be in control
of policy, and he will likely appoint people who are willing to do his bidding. The Fed's reputation
with the public is has fallen in recent years, and Trump's false accusation that the Fed is working
to serve Obama's political interests hasn't helped. If he further politicizes the Fed by appointing
Board members who will implement policy at his direction, it could do damage to the Fed as an institution
that would be very difficult to reverse.
International Trade: Trump's plans to renegotiate trade deals and impose tariffs on countries
that will not bend to his will have been discussed at length, and most economists believe it would be
very harmful for the economy. So let me just note that the most recent
estimate of the consequences of his
trade policy from the Peterson Institute is that his plan would cost the economy 4 million jobs,
send us into a recession, and be "horribly destructive." That's just an estimate, the actual number
could be larger or smaller, but whatever the actual number it would be very costly for workers.
There is little doubt that international trade has had a negative impact on workers in recent decades,
but the loss of millions of jobs and a recession is not the solution to this problem. We need tax and
transfer policies that ensure the gains from trade are widely shared, enhanced social protections for
workers who lose their jobs, and a concerted effort to attract more businesses that offer decent employment
opportunities. Trump's plans do not address these important issues.
Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their
lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite
Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the
White House.
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
To be sure, it's not clear what Trump would do if elected, because so many
of his "positions" are little more than sound bites. Still, here are six issues
in which he is mixing progressive or liberal Republican stances amid his authoritarian
outbursts. That strange brew means that for the first time in decades, Americans
could be facing two candidates with progressive planks on many issues.
1. The Anti-Free Trader. On no other issue does Trump so
closely parallel Sanders as he is when slamming trade deals and bragging that
he, the great negotiator, would push American CEOs into keeping jobs here or
bring them back. Last week, he singled out
Carrier Air Conditioning,
Ford and
Eaton Corp. for moving manufacturing abroad. A week before, he
boasted, "I'm going to get Apple to start making their computers and their
iPhones on our land, not in China. How does it help us when they make it in
China?"
Suffice it to say that Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade deals, at
least when it comes to sound bites.
2. Cutting America's Military Budget. That sounds out of
sync coming from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to rebuild the military
and never misses a chance to threaten ISIL. But according to reporters who have
trailed him since last year, he has repeatedly called for cutting military spending
by closing America's overseas military bases. "Donald Trump could be the only
presidential candidate talking sense about the American military's budget. That
should scare everyone," wrote Matthew Gault in a detailed
piece for Reuters. "As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can
build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying
now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive
prestige weapons systems."
It's hard to imagine that Trump will be the "peace candidate" in the campaign,
as a liberal strategist
told the Nation's Greider. But closing overseas bases would be
a hard break from both Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy, including
under Obama, where the Pentagon budget keeps rising and temporary cuts, like
sequestration, are seen as creating unnecessary crises. Here, too, Trump's positioning
could track to the left of Clinton. And unlike Sanders, whose state has an F-35
fighter plane base, Trump has explicitly said that plane was a waste of money.
"Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got
the right idea,"
wrote Gault.
3. Rejecting Big Money Political Corruption. You can expect
Trump will go after Clinton as a corrupt insider cashing in on her connections,
no matter how many millions he, as the nominee, would end up raising for Republicans
for the fall or take from party coffers because presidential campaigns cost
upward of $1 billion. Trump has the higher moral ground, compared to Clinton,
who hasn't even released the texts of her speeches to Wall Street banks or discussed
returning speaking fees. As Trump touts, he's been on the check-writing side
of America's corrupt but legal system of financing candidates for decades.
Trump's stance here echoes Sanders. It barely matters that Clinton has said
she would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn decisions like
Citizens United, which created giant new legal loopholes for wealthy
interests and individuals. Being the rich outsider forced to play along, not
the political insider taking the checks, is in Trump's favor, pushing him to
the left of Clinton.
4. Preserving Social Security and Medicare. As most progressives
know, millions of baby boomers approaching their senior years are going to be
relying on Social Security for most of their income and for Medicare as their
health plan. Progressives also know that Social Security benefits could be cut
by a fifth after 2030 because of that demographic bump, and have proposed raising
payroll taxes to preserve benefits and increase them. Trump,
unlike the other GOP candidates, wants to leave Social Security alone, saying
a booming economy will fix the shortfall. While we have heard that before-Reagan's
rising tide lifts all boats-Trump's status quo stance is completely at odds
with the modern GOP, which wants to up the age when one can start taking Social
Security benefits, create new payment formulas, means-test recipients or flat-out
privatize it.
Clinton
said she wants to preserve Social Security and raise payments to people
who need it most, such as widowers, who see cuts after a spouse dies, women
and poor people who have historically been underpaid compared to white men.
Sanders, in contrast, said benefits must be raised for everyone. Trump's stance
on this issue is far from ideal, but it's outside the GOP's mainstream. It's
neither constructive nor destructive, but that tends to neutralize the issue
in a fall campaign with Clinton.
5. Lowering Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs. Here's another
issue where Trump is saying he wants to do what Democrats like Obama, Clinton
and Sanders have long called for, but which has been blocked by congressional
Republicans. Trump wants the feds to negotiate buying in bulk from pharmaceutical
companies, which has been explicitly prohibited by the GOP in past legislation.
"We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies," Trump
said in January before the New Hampshire primary. This is another issue
where he is blurring the lines with Clinton and the Democrats.
6. Breaking Health Insurance Monopolies. Trump has railed
against the health insurance industry for preserving its state-by-state monopolies
under Obamacare, saying neither Democrats nor Republicans made an effort to
repeal a 1945 law that prevents Americans from buying cheaper policies in another
state. "The insurance companies," Trump
said, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies
going all over the place bidding… It's so hard for me to make deals… I can't
get bids."
We know that Trump has pledged to get rid of Obamacare and he hasn't said
much about its replacement other than it would involve consumers crossing state
lines. But this is another area where Trump's sound bites can superficially
push him to the left of Clinton, who has made defending Obamacare part of her
campaign and agenda if elected president.
"... Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives. ..."
"... The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her. ..."
"... Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow Americans 'racist white nationalists.' ..."
What electing the donor class candidate again means to real wages, and why
Trump's promise to scrap and replace the Affordable Care Act with something
better matters: Zero Hedge citing the NYT: "…Health insurance companies
around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent
or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned
out to be sicker than expected.
Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests
are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many
states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois,
25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee
and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the
federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with
insurance executives.
The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests
of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her.
Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points
on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow
Americans 'racist white nationalists.'
"... BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz then
Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming Trump does
in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes. ..."
"... It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than Condeleeza
"I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable. ..."
"... I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc, etc
there's been ALOT of mistakes there) ..."
"... As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy horse
dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia, most choose
compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers stay sane and maintain
their identity in the ever more grueling workplace. ..."
"... Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not metaphoricallly,
but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about elites ("know your enemy").
..."
"... Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat and puts
on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts on the Campaign
hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep her mind and heart that compartmentalized,
no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude toward public service," as we put it, that's what
we'd have to believe. I don't believe it. ..."
"... So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which is
it to be? ..."
"... If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part of
what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
..."
"... According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya while
Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration she was the
advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier. ..."
"... So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in Afghanistan
while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports the confrontation
with Russia. ..."
"... Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the neocons. It was a very different situation. ..."
"... Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree with her–particularly
the Democrats' wealthy backers. ..."
Cruz–Trump's mini-me–has apparently also been claiming lately that Hillary was a foreign policy
disaster who killed thousands. This is what Sanders hasn't been saying forever. Libertarian
Raimondo gives his take on the debate and says Rand Paul had a big night.
BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz
then Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming
Trump does in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes.
cwaltz
Sanders doesn't mention Hillary by name (probably because she isn't the primary problem. It
wasn't like Condeleeza Rice was a stellar Secretary of State or there weren't indictments under
the Reagan Secretary of State.) However, he has been saying that our foreign policy is part of
the problem which is the REAL problem. Clinton is just a symptom.
Steven D.
I thought you were going pin the blame on Barry O since he was Hillary's boss. The system doesn't
cut it as a target. It excuses the actors. Nobody has agency? Clinton had and has a lot of power.
She has had options. She has chosen her path.
cwaltz
Clinton's behavior was similar to her predecessors which was similar to her predecessors and
so on and so on.
It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than
Condeleeza "I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable.
I'm all for Hillary being held accountable.
I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc,
etc there's been ALOT of mistakes there)
Steven D.
Who makes foreign policy? People do. There are institutional prerogatives but she didn't have
to be so damned good at being so bad.
hunkerdown
As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy
horse dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia,
most choose compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers
stay sane and maintain their identity in the ever more grueling workplace.
Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not
metaphoricallly, but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about
elites ("know your enemy").
I said something similar - OK, "interesting" could mean confirming my priors -
here:
Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat
and puts on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts
on the Campaign hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep
her mind and heart that compartmentalized, no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude
toward public service," as we put it, that's what we'd have to believe. I don't believe it.
So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which
is it to be?
Nose- or rather brain-bleeds at the commanding heights….
different clue
Sociocorruptopath.
hunkerdown
Split attribution enables screwed-up principal-agent relationships. Think sex workers,
used-car salesmen, fresh-out-of-Harvard Democratic strategists, other agents who loyally if resignedly
carry out what the mainstream deems inhospitable and/or dirty work to the benefit of their principals,
yet share no interest apart from the engaged work.
Cultivating a straw self-identity or group-identity, or maybe role, for the purpose of attribution
is an effective though problematic way to keep the evil from sticking to one's self-definition.
If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part
of what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
Carolinian
According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya
while Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration
she was the advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier.
So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in
Afghanistan while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports
the confrontation with Russia.
In Honduras she covertly supported the coup government at the urging of her crony Lanny Davis
and the Honduran children who are fleeing to the United States can be chalked up as another of
HIllary's little missteps. Whether or not she was the worst Sec State ever she's up there.
Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and the neocons. It was a very different situation.
Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree
with her–particularly the Democrats' wealthy backers.
Clinton really believes that stuff. She's not pandering. Well, I mean, she's pandering too,
of course, but from a base of conviction, not political posturing.
Steven D.
You give her too much credit. Like Lyndon Johnson, she's afraid of the Republicans getting
too much to her right on foreign policy. It's purely reactive. If she believes anything, it's
probably that Democrats need to be hawkish to avoid being portrayed as pansies. A fruit of her
McGovern experience in 1972.
different clue
Then she may be misreading that experience. My brain keeps circling back to Hunter S. Thompson's
argument that McGovern didn't start falling badly until he was seen visibly seeking to appease
the Establishment Democrats that his campaign had just beaten. If Thompson't analysis is correct,
McGovern betrayed his own campaign and everyone who worked in it.
But of course the Clintons just saw "evil workers supporting Nixon against our beloved McGovern".
I still wonder how much of Clinton's support for NAFTA was driven by a desire for revenge against
the working class which voted against his beloved McGovern? Revenge being a dish best served cold,
and so forth.
Carolinian
You are probably right, which just makes it worse. No dissuading a fanatic.Hillary doesn't
seem like the type who is inclined to admit to mistakes.
Ted Rall says that for once Trump's "s-bombs" are justified.
(CNN)Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his first major
economic address on Monday. Most of the speech was devoted to putting forward
a more or less standard set of Republican policies -- Trump promised large tax
cuts that would primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers, ending the Affordable
Care Act and curtailing government regulation. But he also broke with Republican
orthodoxy, rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, proposing renegotiating
NAFTA, and vowing to take a firmer stance on currency management and other issues
with our trading partners.
What would some of this mean in practice?
The proposal for tax cuts would put in place a system with three tax brackets
of 12%, 25%, and 33%. Trump didn't indicate the cutoffs for the brackets, so
it's not possible to determine how much the different groups would save. However,
it is certain that the highest-income taxpayers would save under the Trump plan.
Currently, high-income taxpayers pay a 39.6% tax rate on income over $415,000
for a single individual. If a high-level executive or Wall Street trader makes
$2.4 million a year (roughly
the average for the richest 1%), they would save $120,000 from their tax
bill just on the reduction in the top tax bracket. For the richest 0.1%, the
savings would average almost $700,000 a year.
Trump also called for large cuts in the corporate tax rate. Currently, corporations
pay on average
a bit more than 25% of their profits in taxes. Trump committed to a tax
code in which no corporation would pay more than 15% of its profits in taxes.
This implies a reduction in revenue from the corporate income tax of more than
25%, or a loss in revenue of close to $100 billion a year.
These tax cuts
are virtually certain to lead to large deficits, as occurred with previous tax
cuts under President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush. Trump has also
proposed a substantial boost to infrastructure spending (although, while more
spending on infrastructure is badly needed, this will further boost the deficit).
Trump has suggested he will address the deficit by reducing waste, but presidents
from both parties have promised to reduce waste for decades. Unless he is prepared
to make large cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, or the military,
it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely increase the budget deficit.
Some increase in the deficit would actually be a good thing, because the economy
has not yet replaced the demand lost when the housing bubble burst. However,
Trump's plan almost certainly goes too far and will lead to high interest rates
and/or serious problems with inflation.
Trump's attack on government regulations,
meanwhile, are an illusion. While some regulations surely are wasteful, the
vast majority serve important purposes, like keeping lead out of the water our
children drink. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has been a
particular target of Trump and other Republicans, yet small businesses
report
that credit has never been easier to get.
Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act, which Trump promises to repeal, has given
insurance to millions of people. And contrary to Trump's claims, there is
no evidence it has cost jobs. In fact, job growth accelerated after the
ACA took effect.
Arguably, though, Trump's position on trade is the most interesting of the
policies he has outlined. We would benefit from having more balanced trade,
which could create millions of jobs, mostly in manufacturing. However it is
not clear that Trump knows how to get there.
He complained about countries not honoring our copyrights and patents. However,
more royalties for copyrights and patents are a tradeoff for a larger trade
deficit in manufactured goods. In other words, if we make China and Brazil pay
more money to Microsoft for Windows and to Pfizer for its drugs, then they will
have less money to buy our manufactured goods. Trump does not seem to appreciate
this trade-off and is promising that everyone will get more.
On the whole, the Trump agenda looks like the Republican agenda that we have
seen many times before: It centers on large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations,
something that has not worked in the past to create either strong growth or
rising living standards for working people. And while Trump does offer a qualitatively
different perspective on trade, it is too contradictory to be able to determine
if it will actually benefit ordinary workers.
Dave Green
"Unless he is prepared to make large cuts to programs like Social Security,
Medicare, or the military, it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely
increase the budget deficit." <-----------This whole article could be summed
up to that one statement.
So much for an alternative to the "establishment." Same ole GOP spend
spend spend but lower taxes and pray that increased revenue leads to investments
that make up for the shortage. It's never worked and it wont work now.
Tax and spend liberal or no tax and spend conservative. Gee...Somehow
that looks familiar.
Twick33
I wonder why the silence about Omar Mateen's father at a Clinton rally.
If the parents of Dylan Roof showed up to a Trump rally and offered their
endorsement, it would be all over the news.
But, I am sure there is some justification that democrats will push.
REZIN8
@Twick33 They love minorities! And as they said. Terrorists are the minority
of muslims. Makes total sense.
LALefty
@Twick33
To be sure, that was an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, but it hasn't
been at all silenced in the media. That story has been covered all day.
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost
all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration
influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from
for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance,
food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are
living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin.
Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut
Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty
and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice
political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if
Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party
registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and
national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth
you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government
funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number
of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately
owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person
hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and
shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health
plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business.
Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts
the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income,
wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and
revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive
infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private
industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt
with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them
demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their
newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image.
Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for
our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because
she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail
so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some
trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels
like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at
the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's
not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals
the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.
"... Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the only ones taxed under current law. ..."
"... "These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard." Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33 percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate, some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets. ..."
"... And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle- and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to no federal income tax. ..."
Donald Trump tried rebooting his presidential campaign Monday with an economic
speech in Detroit focused on American pocketbook anxieties, pushing tax cuts
and deregulation to the forefront after weeks of self-inflicted controversies
and plummeting poll numbers.
But the relatively modest speech made news mostly because it hewed closely
to conventional Republican policy doctrine, a fresh tack for an unconventional
candidate.
He repackaged some of his
older proposals, including big tax reductions for corporations and business
partnerships, and added some new tax-reduction benefits for the middle-class
and the wealthy.
He also promised a fat income tax deduction for child-care expenses, a policy
his daughter
Ivanka first touted in her Republican National Convention address last month.
Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that
could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth
families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the
only ones taxed under current law.
What is Donald Trump's economic vision?
The speech was an anti-trade version of trickle down economics, as Trump
proposed to tweak the global economy to benefit US businesses.
"These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan
tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start
America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard."
Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give
the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6
percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33
percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate,
some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets.
Trump kept his cool, sticking mostly to his script on how to make America
win again, as hecklers interrupted his speech more than a dozen times. He slammed
Hillary Clinton's economic policies and characterized her as a "candidate of
the past" while promising to "massively" cut regulations and renegotiate trade
deals in his quest for economic renewal.
Clinton is scheduled to deliver her economic rebuttal to Trump on Thursday,
also from Detroit.
Clinton is making jobs and the economy a centerpiece of her campaign, seeing
it as an area in which to draw a stark contrast with Trump. Her campaign tried
to preempt Trump's speech by posting a video Sunday arguing that "Trumponomics"
would trigger recession, job losses, and possibly another financial catastrophe.
Republican strategists praised Trump's speech for refocusing on a policy
area they see as his strength, and said Trump could have a "fighting chance"
against Clinton if, and only if, he spends the next three months delivering
his message in a disciplined and consistent manner.
He cannot afford to veer off course with any more unscripted personal attacks,
they said. Clinton's lead over Trump opened up by 10 points in the wake of both
conventions and a series of missteps including his
recent criticism of a Muslim couple whose son was killed in combat.
"It was a good, big-boy-pants speech," said Dave Carney, a Republican consultant
from New Hampshire.
"Compared to what he normally does, it was 180 degrees different. Ten days
ago, he was doing great, and then it was all over. The economy and national
security - those are the two baskets he should be peddling for the next 90 days,''
Carney said.
Some analysts expressed doubt whether the speech will make much of a difference
in a campaign they view as especially unorganized, with little to no ground
game in swing states.
"Is there anything different today than yesterday? I don't see that there
is," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Republican
National Committee who has said he would not vote for Trump.
"He'll give more speeches from teleprompters but it's hard to see how they
will make any more substantive difference for his campaign, because what you
see on the ground is a campaign that is nonexistent,'' Heye said. "It is a campaign
that exists on television and on Twitter but nowhere else."
The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls showed Clinton with
a lead of more than 7 points.
Trump doubled down on his criticisms of Clinton throughout his speech, repeating
a false statement about Clinton wanting to raise taxes on the middle class,
even though the fact-checking organization Politifact rated his claim as
"pants on fire" three days ago.
Clinton herself took direct aim at Trump's speech during a rally in St. Petersburg,
Fla., Monday afternoon.
She said his recently-named economic advisers "tried to make his old tired
ideas sound new, but here's what we all know because we heard it again: his
tax plans will give super big tax breaks to large corporations and the really
wealthy, just like him and the guys who wrote the speech."
As with foreign policy, the Clinton campaign is painting Trump as too dangerous
and erratic to command the helm of the US economy.
They point to his business record, emphasizing his companies' multiple bankruptcies
and the slew of lawsuits from vendors and contractors he didn't pay, as evidence
he is not a good steward for the economy writ large.
The Clinton campaign ran interference against Trump's economic speech Monday
by hosting about a dozen press events in battleground states.
Gene Sperling, a former top Obama economic aide, said in one conference call
that even with the tweaks announced Monday, Trump's tax plan would exacerbate
income inequality by delivering the vast majority of its benefits to the top
1 percent of Americans.
And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care
deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle-
and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling
paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to
no federal income tax.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association,
praised Trump's proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to
15 percent. The plan was seen as a bone to the GOP establishment.
The Clinton campaign criticized it Monday as simply another way to allow
millionaires and billionaires to pay lower taxes by reclassifying their salary
income as business income.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senator John McCain's chief economic adviser during
the 2008 presidential campaign and president of the conservative American Action
Forum think tank, called Trump's economic plan "more relaunch than revised."
The new changes and Trump saying he plans to build upon GOP principles were
"a pretty clear olive branch to the rest of the Republican Party."
"That doesn't leave us with a lot of clarity about what his actual plan is,"
Holtz-Eakin said. "It's now a work in progress again."
"... One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent. ..."
"... A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the conservative Tax Foundation. ..."
"... Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest might be taxed at a 15 percent rate. ..."
"... Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application if he's elected. ..."
"... Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising $80 million for his campaign and party entities in July. ..."
Aug 08, 2016 | Bloomberg
Donald Trump on Monday sought to cast Hillary Clinton's economic program
as an ineffective relic, and to reset his own presidential campaign after a
string of missteps.
''We now begin a great national conversation about economic renewal for America,''
Trump said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, urging a return to his
''America-first'' governing vision.
''The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed
economic agenda,'' Trump said.
In prepared remarks released by Trump's campaign as he spoke, the nominee
proposed a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations. He also proposed
making U.S. families' child-care costs tax-deductible, which his daughter Ivanka
promised last month in a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention.
Protesters repeatedly interrupted Trump, who acknowledged them more calmly
than he sometimes has at campaign rallies. ''This is all very well planned out,''
he said.
One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a
new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher
than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a
cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent.
That tweak will reduce the estimated cost of Trump's tax plan-which some
analysts had set at roughly $10 trillion over 10 years. But the child-care proposal-which
Trump in prepared remarks said would allow ''parents to fully deduct the average
cost of childcare spending"-also represented a new cost. That measure's price
tag would be roughly $20 billion a year, said economist Stephen Moore, a Trump
adviser.
''It's not a big cost,'' Moore said.
Trump's tax plan would slash the tax rate on corporate and business income
to 15 percent, down from a current top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. It
would also consolidate the current seven individual income tax rates to three,
with the lower two brackets set at 25 percent and 12 percent.
A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the
wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard
from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate
on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy
would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects
at the conservative Tax Foundation.
''His rhetoric is not lining up with his proposals,'' Pomerleau said.
Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax
treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might
mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity
funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning
the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan
to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest
might be taxed at a 15 percent rate.
Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according
to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's
climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding
environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit
application if he's elected.
After Trump said Aug. 2 he would double Clinton's infrastructure spending
plan in a major government expansion, aides said he will speak later this summer
about his plan for the nation's roadways.
Trump's daughter's acknowledgement of soaring child-care costs, an issue
of growing importance in U.S. politics, won plaudits as Trump lags Clinton badly
in polls of female voters.
Child-care bills have proven to outpace rent and tuition costs in most states,
often threatening to derail parents' housing and job plans. The nation is the
third-most expensive for childcare among 34 countries, according to 2012 data
from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The issue offers a good example of the candidates' different approaches.
Where Trump is providing a simple supply-side prescription, Clinton is flooding
the debate with detail.
Her proposal includes tax relief but is more focused on government support
and broader investments in early childhood education, while pledging to ensure
that no family has to spend more than 10 percent of income on high-quality care.
Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic
advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen
Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising
$80 million for his campaign and party entities in July.
Unveiling the council and the better-than-expected fundraising results, and
giving the Detroit speech major billing, were moves by the Trump campaign to
steady its course after the Democratic National Convention, where the Muslim
parents of a slain U.S. soldier spoke out against Trump and drew the Republican
nominee into a multi-day feud on Twitter and TV airwaves.
Between that and other controversies-including Trump's initial refusal to
endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election-Trump has seen his poll numbers
slumped and has worried Republicans who are eager to save their majorities in
Congress in November's elections.
Trump's plans align in many ways with the election-year policy proposals
rolled out by Ryan and House Republicans, including his call for undoing the
2010 Dodd-Frank Act and limiting any regulations that burden businesses. The
House plan wouldn't allow any new financial regulations to take effect unless
the House votes.
Trump, however, has proposed deeper tax-rate reductions. The House plan would
drop the top individual tax rates from 39.6 to 33 percent. Corporate tax rates,
meanwhile, would be lowered from 35 to 20 percent.
Billy House, Lynnley Browning, and Michelle Jamrisko contributed.
Donald Trump will propose a temporary moratorium on new financial regulations
in an economic speech Monday in Detroit in an effort to draw a stark contrast
with the domestic policies of Hillary Clinton, who he says "punishes" the American
economy.
The Republican presidential nominee's speech will focus on providing regulatory
relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with
its contents. More broadly, Trump will say he will not propose any new financial
regulations until the economy shows "significant growth," the aides said. Trump
has previously said he would repeal and replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.
Trump will also propose a repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the
"death tax." Under current law, the 40 percent tax applies only to estates larger
than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples.
For U.S. businesses, Trump will propose a tax rate of 15 percent and suggest
strengthening intellectual-property protections. He's expected to call for three
income-tax brackets, down from the current seven. He'll call for the elimination
of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms
and other investment firms-the latter of which is a proposal his Democratic
rival
also supports .
Carried interest, which is a portion of investment gains paid to certain
investment managers, is currently taxed like capital gains-at rates that can
be as low as 23.8 percent. Trump proposes to tax them as ordinary income, but
for members of partnerships, that could actually mean a rate cut to 15 percent.
Trump will continue to stress his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade agreement backed by the Obama administration and many prominent
Republicans in Congress, and he will reinforce his commitment to the coal industry,
saying a federal moratorium on some coal-mining permits would be the focus of
a targeted review in his administration.
Other items on his energy agenda, he is expected to reiterate in the speech,
include asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application;
rescinding the Climate Action Plan and "waters of the U.S." rule; opening offshore
drilling; and killing the Paris climate agreement.
He will portray President Barack Obama's regulatory policies as having crushed
middle- and lower-class Americans and will propose making all child care tax
deductible. Clinton, in contrast, has
proposed a cap on child-care costs at 10 percent of a family's income.
Targeting the federal bureaucracy, Trump is expected to say that civil servants
whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would
help create jobs.
Trump will take direct aim at the Clintons and Obama, pointing to Detroit
as an example of their failed economic policies. He will argue that their "record-breaking
pace of new regulations, tax increases, restrictions on private-energy production
and one-sided trade deals" have hurt Detroit and other cities, according to
excerpts of his remarks shared with Bloomberg Politics.
He will call Obama's Clinton-backed regulations a "lead-weight on the economy,
an anchor dragging us down." And he will say that Americans "need to hit the
pause buttons on these regulations so our businesses can reinvest in the economy."
"She's the candidate of the past and ours is the campaign of the future,"
Trump plans to say. "Every policy that has failed Detroit has been fully supported
by Hillary Clinton. The one common feature of every Hillary Clinton idea is
that it punishes you from working and doing business in the United States."
His campaign aides said this is one of several economic speeches Trump will
deliver this summer. One will include the unveiling of an
infrastructure spending plan , while another will focus on financial regulations
such as Dodd-Frank, the aides said.
Crunch Time
For Trump, the challenge at this stage in the race is two-fold. His campaign
is coming off one of its worst weeks following a series of self-inflicted gaffes
that led to a sharp dip in national and swing-state polls, and economic indicators
suggest that the economy is improving.
The nation's unemployment rate in July was 4.9 percent-a sharp decline from
a post-recession peak of 10 percent in October 2009, according to federal statistics.
Clinton, who was set to campaign in Florida on Monday, has spent the days
following the Democratic National Convention attacking Trump on the economy.
The Republican is pushing an agenda "that experts across the political spectrum
say would lead to a recession and cost millions of American jobs," the Clinton
campaign said in a statement Monday.
Independent voters-particularly small-business owners and their respective trade
groups-have argued for years that Obama's regulatory proposals have stifled
the economy. Trump's proposal to issue a moratorium on regulations could help
him win support from workers at mid-sized banks as well as small-business owners
who say it's unfair for them to comply with Dodd-Frank regulations written for
big banks.
Trump enlisted conservative economists Peter Navarro, Larry Kudlow, and Stephen
Moore; former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco; and others to help with his speech.
Donors Watching
Republican donors and Trump supporters said they have high expectations for
the speech.
Texas investor Doug Deason, who backed Ted Cruz for president in the primary,
said he'd like to see Trump "lay out a plan to lower corporate taxes, eliminate
federal bureaucracy costs by 10 percent or more, end all corporate welfare programs,
convert welfare programs to work programs and dramatically reduce all of the
silly federal rules the current administration has put in place."
Deason, who helped Donald Trump Jr. raise money for his father in Dallas
and Houston last month, added that he'd also like to see Trump name three or
four agencies or departments he could eliminate.
Several donors said they're craving specifics on how to repatriate profits
trapped overseas, what exactly Trump would do with infrastructure, and how he'd
pay for it, and how he'd encourage capital investments in plants and equipment.
"I would hope that he would cover the full range of economic targets from
corporate and personal income tax to trade policy to regulatory reform and energy
strategy," said Wilbur Ross, chief strategy officer at WL Ross & Co., which
has invested more than $11 billion in distressed companies, including Bethlehem
Steel, since its founding in 2000.
Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he
said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which
he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.
Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory
in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged
system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.
Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary
of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.
"Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth
and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters.
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used
to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."
Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a
Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."
"The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource,
a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour
south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."
Echoing Clinton's chief
rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton
has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have
hurt U.S. workers.
Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.
The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a
swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.
"Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the
group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article
warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.
"I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton
said in a speech last week.
Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign
and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.
Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton
and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his
policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have
played to voters' fears.
The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency
manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World
Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.
And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving
a common theme of his campaign.
Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on
trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.
Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford
and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.
Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."
A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address
he has given so far."
Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced
as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.
As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is
successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and
imaginary future misdeeds".
They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the
Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a
voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now
bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
Notable quotes:
"... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
"... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
"... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of
it. ;
Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the
stuff shirts at the Washington Post.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite
distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra
Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot
in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins
in The Guardian ).
With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's
claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's
argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's
assertion
that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists
who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."
...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain
ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected
(though that old David Levine
cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...
However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what
he'd do if suddenly in a position of
nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama).
President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and
carry the biggest stick possible.
It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.
The Enemy of My Enemy
Both liberals and conservatives in the United States,
as I've written , have embraced
economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation
of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore
Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support
of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.
A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's
foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce
nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search
for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...
Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break
no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.
Trump on War
... ... ...
True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote
democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force
in general. Trump has
pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the
problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance,
that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo.
In terms of current conflicts, Trump
has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and
20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even
reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies
and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying
presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's
"madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.
This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump
believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp
points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields
and pipelines.
About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes,
it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...
... ... ...
Trump on Alliances
Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and
his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might
have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the
U.S. foreign policy elite.
In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:
If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting
other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if
we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able
to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations,
you will be defending yourself.
... ... ...
Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance
one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors
from whom one extracts concessions.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.
And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable
ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between
the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.
Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed
on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.
Trump on Pentagon Spending
Critics like Jean Bricmont
rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only
denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers,
but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."
But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has
stated on numerous occasions
his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong
and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."
More recently, in an interview with conservative
columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the
United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being
held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That
the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure
seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't
already have.
Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that
money more effectively. But Trump has promised to
increase
general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's
part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.
An Exceptional Ruler
Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the
right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.
... ... ...
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's
assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not
only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This
is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still
views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this
paradigm.
Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for
at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.
Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often
rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they
do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap
more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic
equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and
health care.
But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is
why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly
digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the
neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with
neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy."
Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider
the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party
candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.
Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom
are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald
Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they
don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.
Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he
occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious
example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any
reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an
eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save
his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans
weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of
Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican
politics.
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia
Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?
TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet
with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know
that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I
would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that
it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along
with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our
president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him
Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?
TRUMP:
Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I
would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the
world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin,
and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this
maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about
North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who
has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And
we don't even mention it.
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions
China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its
currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've
been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are
destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for
the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal
our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my
mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a
president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to
keep them from screwing us at every turn.
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies
I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are
the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in
it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But
for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in
Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your
tax burden, with their favorite government programs.
American can do better. I think we deserve
the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too
consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to
make American rich again.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy
There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength.
But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse
will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing
up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China
will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama
economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed
by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't
act fast.
For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each
year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's
first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.
A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all
there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen
many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges
of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of
today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27,
2010
Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement
In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He
argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the
systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be
a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east
he would focus on world domination.
Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville
Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we
would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed
population ready to go postal on command.
After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of
⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political
organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker
In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy
making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the
chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.
Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII,
and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the
first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations,
and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be
tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding
that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning,
secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America
had a president like that.
I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues
that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out
its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has
given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We
need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance,
at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need
them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.
Few respect
weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know:
unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order
are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development
Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly
unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much
to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of
China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it
clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.
We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime
continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it
inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want
and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade
away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries
that steal from us.
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights
to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to
invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them
as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our
China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by
incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the
Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.
Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take
a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of
business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.
Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?
RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call
Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not
that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What
we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent
extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized
online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this
is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000
people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of
them is an ISIS fighter.
Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good
relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?
TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it,
100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.
Q: They're not doing that.
TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in,
and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group
of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all
for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing
anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to
get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe
zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should
do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but
money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
US should not train rebels it does not know or control
Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.
TRUMP: Where they're hitting
people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days
ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who
they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not
saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many
times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess--
if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be
same thing.
Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very
little downside. Why?
TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and
technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at
what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.
Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--
TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've
gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of
ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.
Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?
TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see
the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in
Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.
What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase
sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should
have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched
uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the
Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013).
Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
Notable quotes:
"... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
"... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
"... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
"... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
"... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
"... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
"... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
"... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
"... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
"... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero
Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.
Joel Marcuson
It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't
for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our
Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.
onu labu
whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian
deal. idiots.
trucmat
The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are
decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!
ViktorZK
They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the
entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even
this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today
is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.
macmarco 1h
One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same
Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.
ClearItUp
The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the
US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.
rberger -> ClearItUp
Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to
start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.
ChangeIranNow
At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to
Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the
collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems
beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western
appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the
cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing
to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and
stability.
doublreed legalimmigrant
DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took
$100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded
ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate
their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large
donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
Zepp
Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?
They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100
bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for
this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.
itsmeLucas
Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving..
Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was
exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish
a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real
hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime,
might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)
It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake
(understatement of the year)
coffeeclutch
Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who
claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"
The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans
faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of
diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around
Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how
Americans should approach their foreign policy.
WorkingEU
To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical
perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against
globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.
The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial
analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.
coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU
If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not
micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off
on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of
desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly
exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.
Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and
student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and
public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis
situation.
jokaz
The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid
of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting
as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see
Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars
DBakes
I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it
really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent
threat to national security.
bobj1156 -> DBakes
There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It
was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route
to, well, anywhere?
MtnClimber -> DBakes
The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned
by bob.
MiltonWiltmellow
The US state department has denied this.
The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama
administration of ...
Does the accusation even matter?
A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political
sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?
Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.
Where's your fucking proof??
williamdonovan
However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian
American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.
Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"
Blacks Law 4th Edition
INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is
sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition
sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state
of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske
v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.
A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express
direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F.
710, 714.
A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction
which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the
trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an
INFERENCE
eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan
Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.
Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk
And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection
williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk
I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra
before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified
Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two
completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras.
The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far
fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much
later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then
I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.
You could easily draw inference between the these two events.
As I already have!
jrcdmc6670
Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding
the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"
Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it
print (or a tweet as the case may be).
jrcdmc6670
If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of
using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd
be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be
used.
Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia
at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too
friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's
strongman president. Mr. Trump,
who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security
leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as
a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United
States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we
could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with
Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential
nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause
from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good
thing, instead of a bad thing?"
"... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to
demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.
We will continue to get
blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle
East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.
The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today.
Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic
way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the
rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than
quality.
The people will stop this, dirt-bag:
Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President
Barack Obama
dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement
corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically
motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said
at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking,
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia,
just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only
way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."
The Us intervention were dictate by needs of global corporation that control the US foreigh
policy. And they need to open market, press geopolitical rivals (Ukraine, Georgia) and grab
resources (Iraq, Libya). The American people are now hostages in their own country and can do
nothing against the establishement militaristic stance. They will fight and die in unnecessary wars
of neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response ..."
"... Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well? ..."
"... The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago? ..."
"... In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? ..."
With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails
to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost
emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York
Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.
Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article
5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security
architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of
Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified.
What does this suggest?
Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and
Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We
got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in
Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.
The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And
as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands
dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?
On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a
war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt
the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague
Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.
Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that,
though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war,
or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration
of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."
Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to
war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."
Have we lost our minds?
The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still
in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops
out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack
Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump
to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript
the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question
55 years ago?
In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be
the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic
Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the
eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that
very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to
do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would
devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would
not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We
are right in her face.
On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues
that need to be debated.
How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a
Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?
When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist
and anti-American Russia inevitable?
Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?
If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed
Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia
over Estonia?
Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics
that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic
sanctions are the answer, not another European war.
"... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
"... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in
the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts
of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream
press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency.
It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy
while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American
society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are
caught on camera and spread through social media.
Who cares what foreigners think about our election?
Only people with financial ties to the outcome of the election can be expected to really care.
Goldman Sach's tentacles are worldwide.
I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists.
Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid which screams in agony
and bleeds to death.
I'm reminded of the buttinsky old woman from Austria who is always lecturing me on how we treat
our "Africa-Americans."
I respond with , "So, how do you treat the gypsies in Austria?"
" Oh, that's different!" she shrieks.
"... Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER. ..."
"... Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you? ..."
"... "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies. ..."
Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr
military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was
like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump –
ABSOLUTELY. NEVER.
Which is not to say that I am totally thrilled with neocon hawk Hillary. Number 1 on my list
of the 9 reasons why I voted for Bernie rather than her in our Primary is that she voted for Bush's
Iraq War and my son did six tours.
"The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it."
True enough, but that will not happen between now and 08 November.
We have a binary choice on 08 Nov – I do not think a replay Nader in FL in 2000 is a particularly
smart option.
Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone
does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did?
Really you really truly believe that do you?
"Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside
by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president
would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use.
The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options
(MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option
and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief,
the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however,
the two-man rule still applies.
The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary
of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with
United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska."
So there are some checks to prevent Donald Trump or HRC launching a nuclear strike in a fit
of temper..
Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails 'Sarcastic' | 28 July 2016
| Facing a torrent of criticism over his comments seeming to condone the hacking of Hillary Clinton's
emails by Russian intelligence services, Donald J. Trump and his allies on Thursday sought to tamp
down his remarks, with Mr. Trump saying he was simply being "sarcastic." In public interviews and
private conversations on Thursday, Mr. Trump; his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana; and campaign
staff members contended that Mr. Trump was being facetious when, during a news conference on Wednesday,
he said he hoped Russia would be able to find Mrs. Clinton's missing emails. "Of course I'm being
sarcastic," Mr. Trump told "Fox and Friends" Thursday morning as his aides accused the news media
of misconstruing his remarks.
"... If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense. ..."
"... If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid. ..."
"... For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison. ..."
"... Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes). ..."
"... The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well. ..."
If you should happen to like to see our Fern's excellent comment on here turned into a 'Letter
to the Editor', look no further than here: http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/
Hers is the second of three – the last one by an American friend about the Hillary convention
is a hoot!
It looks even more visionary in a newspaper format. And the third comment is indeed a cracker.
I don't understand why there is not a general revolt in the United States – are Americans seriously
going to put up with this complete and brazen hijacking of what was not even a democratic process
to begin with? And what next? Will Hillary simply rewrite the Presidential term in office to 'forever'?
I don't think Hilary is going to get in.
In the first place, the now nearly daily muslim terrorist acts in Europe add another 5% each to
Trump's vote.
In the second place, more and more dirt will come out on Hilary and Bill, and more and more people
are aware of the underhand dealings in vote counting. It was one thing to keep quiet four years
ago when most people couldn't give a toss about Romney, so squeals of voting fraud were not widely
reported.
Now they know, now they are aware, and now, unlike Romney, there's one candidate who's not afraid
of saying what most people think.
I belive Trump will do it.
What happens after he's in – well, it's gotta be better than Hilary.
If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American
elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and
China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in
Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America
paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's
brilliant missile defense.
If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation
of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid.
For the moment, at least,
Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton
for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone,
not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats,
amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison.
"Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not
reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense."
Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised
that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable
foes).
The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well.
"... Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass. ..."
But don't expect anything much in the way of 'keeping promises' post-election. "What, those
were promises? I was just putting on a show, and you _loved_ it." Posted by: fairleft | Jul 25, 2016 12:28:47 PM | 42
You wish...
Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and
his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and
'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality
or moral compass.
After one of his early promise-laden election victories, he had the gall to dismiss a press query
about several of his broken promises thus:
"Uhh, they were non-core promises."
Trump's too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises. If he's flogging a vague idea
it'll be vague BEFORE the election, not afterwards.
Remember Obama railed against "stupid wars". I assumed that he was referring to the destruction
of Iraq. Since then, Obama has engaged the USA in more stupid wars than any president in history.
Now we have Trump - America First. Also opposed to stupid wars. But his favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton.
That can't be good.
BUT Trump is not saber rattling straight out of the box like the Hell Bitch is doing.
"... According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans. ..."
In a guest editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, the FAZ writes of a possible
military coup in the oldest democracy in the world. Under the headline, "If Trump wins, a coup
isn't impossible here in the US," journalist James Kirchick develops a scenario in which
President Trump gives the military an illegal command, which it refuses to carry it out.
The article ends with the following: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a
danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."
German corporations with operations in the US reacted somewhat differently. As Die Welt
reports, notable large concerns from Germany gave more than two-thirds of their election
donations to the Republicans, and thus to Trump; above all BASF, Allianz, Siemens and Deutsche
Bank.
Since US law prevents American or foreign companies from making direct donations to
candidates, campaign funding takes place via so-called Political Action Committees (PACs). This
is a legal construct allowing the circumvention of both the strict limit on donations as well as
the ban on corporate donations. Via so-called super PACs, hundreds of millions of dollars flow
into campaign advertising.
According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The
lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising,
writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the
Republicans.
According to Die Welt, in this election campaign the chemical and pharmaceutical
group Bayer sent 80 percent of its donations to benefit the Republicans. At financial services
company Allianz it was 72 percent.
Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, changed political camps. The paper writes: "While Deutsche
Bank donated comparatively little, only $37,000, it is remarkable that 86 percent of this money
was distributed to the Republican camp." Such a clear tendency could not be seen in any other
German company.
That Deutsche Bank sympathies with the Republicans is new. In 2006 and 2008, the bank had
clearly tended toward the Democrats. The change of side was not surprising, "since Deutsche Bank
is the largest lender to Donald Trump." For the renovation of a hotel in Washington, Trump
borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank.
@37 jfl If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit. But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent.
And in sequel on #32 William Engdahl has to explain a lot. In his "A Century of War" he describes how the US industry was crippled in the 50's and 60's. And how the protestors were demonised.
p. 119 Riots were deliberately incited in industrial cities like Newark, Boston, Oakland and Philadelphia
by government-backed 'insurgents', such as Tom Hayden. The goal of this operation was to break the
power of established industrial trade unions in the northern cities by labeling them racist.
p. 120 The newly created U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity weakened the political voice of traditional
American labor and the influential urban constituency machines. The targeted white blue-collar industrial
operatives, only a decade earlier hailed as the lifeblood of American industry, were suddenly labeled
'reactionary' and 'racist' by the powerful liberal media. These workers were mostly fearful and confused
as they saw their entire social fabric collapsing in the wake of the disinvestment policy of the
powerful banks.
Hey William, did you read about Trump's ideas to bring back jobs to the USA? (and do you recognize something?)
And William, did you understand his remarks about that Mexican Wall (on American Soil). (preventing illegal immigration, ALSO because he wants higher minimum wages (impossible with illegal
immigrants))
In a YouTube video about the lawsuit, Jason Beck said there were six claims to the case. The
first is fraud against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally
binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton.
The second is negligent misrepresentation.
The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The
fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders' campaign.
The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a
fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor
information from hackers.
"... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic. ..."
PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're
terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican
Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the
whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an
attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and
make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major
policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing
stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying
the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that
otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American
labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending
to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only
kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not
going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about
that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.
"... The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017. ..."
"... The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America. ..."
"... Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. ..."
"... That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. ..."
"... I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. ..."
"... I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. ..."
"... And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. ..."
"... When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. ..."
"... In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come. ..."
"... We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. ..."
"... We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system. ..."
"... On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. ..."
"... But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. ..."
"... Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. ..."
"... My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes. ..."
"... She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. ..."
"... My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share. We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. ..."
Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international
humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees
by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.
This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and
gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation
came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant nothing.
In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down
in flames. America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the
decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy.
I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something
pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record.
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.
Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being
choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have?
ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff
were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim
brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.
Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis
that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars
spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now –
poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue
relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these
outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.
The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will
put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians
who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America
with respect. This will all change in 2017.
The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which
means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity
without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions
in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.
A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation's
most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic
system for their exclusive benefit.
Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because
they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have
total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.
That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things
have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for
the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.
I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair
trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer
have a voice.
I AM YOUR VOICE.
I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their
personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government
incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.
When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the
basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash
– I am not able to look the other way.
And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000
of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every
different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.
When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent,"
in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually
did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.
In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting
away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes
in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the
time for action has come.
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot
defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have
seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie
Sanders – he never had a chance.
But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions
of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans.
In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor
Mike Pence of Indiana.
We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of
character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration
will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their
communities.
... ... ...
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed
policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and
Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping
out Islamic terror.
This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must
immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such
time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.
My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive
refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that
there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.
I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.
Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will
be.
Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens,
especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that
works, but one that works for the American people.
On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann
Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands.
Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent
with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.
These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest
on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent
wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children
of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so
brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?
These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate
and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge
in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.
We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the
violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive
the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the
integrity of our lawful immigration system.
By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence.
Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions
who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.
Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied – and every
politician who has denied them – to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.
On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake
up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate
and compassionate to everyone.
But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite
of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled
immigration. Communities want relief.
Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan
will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder
for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.
I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects
our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. It's been a signature message of my campaign from
day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.
I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I'm going to make our country rich
again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third
of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported
by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our
country.
Never again.
I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America – and I am not going to let companies
move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.
My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying
our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization
– another one of her husband's colossal mistakes.
She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to
the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers,
or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual
countries.
No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages
long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade
violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.
This includes stopping China's outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal
product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with
China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much
better deal for America – and we'll walk away if we don't get the deal that we want. We are going
to start building and making things again.