"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement,
in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten
in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost
us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves,
to our fellow men.
Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with
the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued
only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct
in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous
and selfish wrongdoing.
Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness
of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933
Globalization and free trade are fast becoming dirty words. That’s because they are culprits
for major shocks—like the 2008 financial crisis. In the United States alone, median household
income has been practically stagnant for about three decades, the labor market continues to be anemic,
manufacturing jobs have been lost, and many have experienced a significant deterioration in living standards.
Much of the post-Brexit and primary election conventional wisdom seems to be stuck in a political
narrative in which the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump_vs_deep_state in the United States are seen as symbols
of the populist revolution. These symbols are combined with a nationalist tide has been sweeping
not only the United Kingdom and the United States, but also many other parts of Europe, including
Poland, Hungary, France, The Netherlands and Scandinavia, not to mention, Russia, Turkey, India and
According to this narrative, economic insecurity and cultural anxiety that reflect sociodemographic
trends have given momentum to ethnonationalism and religious separatism in both the United States
and the United Kingdom. The Rust Belt is pitted against New York City, and the Midlands against London.
All this means that the crisis of neoliberalism, which started in 2008 now obtained political
dimension, when the institutions created by neoliberalism are under attacks from the disgruntled
population. The power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of
population via MSM, schools and universities to push forward neoliberal globalization started to
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it
(neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this
ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:
High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via
higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
"Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a
specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed
as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating,
or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market
techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own
present and future market value.
Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under
neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.)
The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for
permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant
regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of
citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class
(0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was
in the USSR.
"Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making
transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who
decide about the level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that
previously were prerogative of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in
early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power
over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum,
as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the
New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to
crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the
USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
Advocates of the neoliberalism constantly repeat the refrain that "there is no alternative" (TINA).
Brexit is a powerful demonstration that this is not true (Back to (our) Future)
A major crack has appeared in the edifice of globalization, and the neoliberal order that has
dominated the world’s economy since the end of World War II is now in danger.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by any means. But poisonous weeds are just as likely as green
shoots to grow up through those cracks. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy: Those who make constructive
evolution impossible may be making destructive devolution inevitable.
We now know that Great Britain, itself an amalgam of older nations, is divided. England and Wales
voted to leave Europe, while Scotland, Northern Ireland, and ethnically diverse London voted to remain.
This vote was a stunning rejection of Great Britain’s political establishment. “Leave” prevailed
despite opposition from all three major political parties. Prime Minister David Cameron, who will
now step down, called on voters to “Remain.” So did socialist Jeremy Corbin, the most left-wing Labor
leader in a generation. Barack Obama crossed the Atlantic to stand beside Cameron and offer his support.
Voters rejected all of them.
The uprising has begun. The question now is, who will lead it going forward?
Globalism’s Shadow Self
The world’s financial and political elites must now face the fact that resistance to their economic
order, which has shaped the world since the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, is a major phenomenon.
These elites are apparently more out of touch with the citizens of the industrialized world than
at any time in modern memory.
Make no mistake: The “Leave” vote was a rejection of globalization, at least as it’s currently
structured. This was a revolt of working class Britons who have seen their postwar prosperity erode
around them and their social contract eviscerated by the corporate and financial oligarchy.
But it was also the sign of a darker and more sinister worldwide phenomenon: the resurgence of
global nativism and xenophobia. This worldwide turn toward fear of the Other is globalization’s shadow
But this near-victory wasn’t won with leftist arguments about resisting the global oligarchy.
The left was too divided to make that case clearly or forcefully. It was largely won by stirring
up bigotry against immigrants, cloaked in flimsy arguments about excessive regulation. Legitimate
economic grievances were channeled into nationalist hostility.
Many “Leave” voters felt powerless, that they no longer had much of a say in their own destinies.
They weren’t wrong. The European Union was largely a creation of transnational financial forces driven
by a self-serving neoliberal ideology of “free” markets, privatization, and corporate economic governance.
But ,even at its worst, the EU is a symptom and not a cause. Great Britain’s citizens haven’t
been losing control over their fate to the EU. They’ve been losing it because their own country’s
leaders – as well as those of most other Western democracies – are increasingly in thrall to corporate
and financial interests.
The British people have lost more sovereignty to trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP then they
could have ever surrendered to the European Union. Their democratic rights are trampled daily, not
by faceless EU bureaucrats, but by the powerful financial interests that dominate their politics
and their economy.
Low Information Voters
This vote won’t help the middle class. British workers will no longer be guaranteed the worker
rights that come with EU membership. British corporations will be less regulated, which means more
environmental damage and more mistreatment of employees and customers. They will not, in the words
of William Blake, “build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.”
Most “Leave” voters probably don’t know that, because the media failed them too. Instead of being
given a balanced understanding of EU membership’s advantages and disadvantages, the British people
were fed a constant diet of terror fears and trivial anti-government anecdotes meant to reinforce
the notion that EU was needlessly and absurdly bureaucratic.
Martin Fletcher explains, Boris Johnson played a key role in degrading the performance of Britain’s
corporate press back in his days as a journalist. Other outlets were all to eager to mimic his anti-government
and anti-Europe stereotypes. And now? It’s as if Sean Hannity’s
deceptive sensationalism had made him a top presidential prospect.
Johnson and UKIP leader Nigel Farage played the same role in the Leave campaign that Donald Trump
is playing in US politics. Like Trump, they have used economic fears to stoke the anti-immigrant
fear and hatred that is their real stock in trade. Their slogan might just as well have been “Make
England Great Again.”
The campaign’s fearmongering and hate has already claimed a victim in Jo Cox, the Labor MP who
was violently martyred by a white British racist. Tellingly, her murder was not described as an act
of terrorism, which it clearly was. The decision to restrict the “terrorist” label to Muslims, in
Great Britain as in the United States, feeds precisely the kind of hatred that fuels movements like
Great Britain’s immigrant population
by 4.5 million under EU membership. But in a just economy, that would lead to growth for the
existing middle class. Britain’s immigrants didn’t wound that country’s middle class. They’re scapegoats
for rising inequality and the punishing austerity of the conservative regime.
What happens next? Markets are already reacting, retrenching in anticipation of new trade barriers
and political uncertainty.
Before the voting,
estimates of a Leave vote’s effect on Britain’s economy ranged from “negative” to outright “calamitous.”
The outcome will probably fall somewhere between the two.
Will the reprehensible Mr. Johnson, who pushed aggressively for Brexit, now lead his party -perhaps
even his country? How much will this boost UKIP? By rejecting the EU, will Great Britain soon experience
even harsher economic austerity measures than Cameron’s?
Scotland may once again pursue independence so that it can rejoin Europe. Sinn Fein is calling
again for the reunification of Ireland. Suddenly anything seems possible.
There are already calls for a similar referendum in France.
British workers are likely to be
worse off without EU protections, especially if the far right prevails in future elections as
the result of this vote.
Trade deals will need to be negotiated between Britain and the EU, along with the terms of separation.
Judging by its behavior toward Greece, Germany prefers to punish any nation impertinent enough to
try guiding its own economic destiny. These negotiations won’t be pleasant.
The New Resistance
The current order is unstable. The uprising has begun. But who will lead it?
All over the world there are Boris Johnsons and Nigel Farages poised to capitalize on the chaos.
The US has Trump, who was quick to
tie himself to the vote. Greece has Golden Dawn. Germany has the far-right, anti-immigrant AfD
party. Scandinavia has the Sweden Democrat Party and the Danish People’s Party. Hungary’s ruling
Fidesz party, itself nationalistic and totalitarian by nature, is in danger of being outdone by the
racist and anti-Semitic Jobbik party.
Hungary is already building a Trump-like wall, in fact, a barb-wired fence meant to keep Syrian
refugees out of the country and Jobbik out of political power.
There is also also a growing democratic counterforce, poised to resist both the global elites
and the nationalist bigots. It includes Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and the Corbin movement
in Great Britain (although Corbin’s fate is unclear in the wake of this vote). In the US it has been
seen in both the Occupy movement and, more recently, in the newly resurgent left inspired by Bernie
The global financial order is fracturing. But will it fall? It’s powerful and well organized.
Even if it does, what will replace it: a more humane global order, or a world torn by nationalism
and hate? Should these new progressive parties and factions form a transnational movement?
That’s the goal of economist
Yanis Varoufakis, among others. Varoufakis confronted the EU’s economic leadership directly when
he negotiated with them as Greece’s first Finance Minister under Syriza. They prevailed, and Varoufakis
is now a private citizen.
The Greeks chose economic autonomy when they voted for Syriza. They didn’t get it. The British
aren’t likely to get what they want from this vote either. No matter what happens, British citizens
will still be in thrall to corporate financial forces – forces that can rewrite the rules they go
Greece’s fate has been a cautionary tale for the world, a powerful illustration of the need for
worldwide coordinated resistance to today’s economic and political elites. We can vote. But without
economic autonomy, we aren’t truly free. In the months and years to come, the people of Great Britain
are likely to learn the truth: We are all Greece now.
It is unclear why he calls this "incompetence". Tories clearly want to sabotage the deal and at the same time save face. That's
a very tricky task and mistakes were made.
"... Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves. ..."
"... You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them. ..."
"... Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated". ..."
"... "It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph. ..."
gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:07pm A little over a year ago I wrote
Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are
so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves.
...This is a political and economic disaster, not just waiting to happen, but firmly scheduled...unless Labour's neoliberal
Blairites save them, the Tory government is headed for an epic collapse.
It's rare that my predictions are 100% accurate, but this time I totally nailed it. To give you an idea of how badly the Tories
have bungled things, look at these two headlines.
You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a
radical socialist over
But while Corbyn may be less popular than no deal among the public, The Daily Telegraph says "the scourge of bankers and avowed
opponent of capitalism, is winning support from unexpected new quarters" with two of the biggest global banks operating in the
City of London "warming to the Labour leader".
According to the paper, he is now seen as the lesser of two evils by analysts at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, two titans of
the financial system.
Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey
says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated".
"It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases
and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the
To put this sentiment in
hard numbers , a coalition led by his party would spur the pound more than 5%.
As for those overstated fears about the Labour leader, that's because of a highly coordinated three year smear campaign by the
very same business community.
Then, his efforts to secure a snap general election -- with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates
more aligned with his hard-Brexit views -- were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.
Now, he is effectively trapped in Downing Street, with Corbyn holding the keys. The government plans to propose new elections
again on Monday, but the opposition leader says his party will only support the move when its efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit
are locked down.
"Certainly his biggest tactical mistake so far was not to realize that it was Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, who effectively
had veto power over when a general election could be held," said Professor Tony Travers, director of the Institute of Public Affairs
at the London School of Economics.
This allows time for Corbyn to appear like a professional leader, so that when he finally allows a general election the memory
of his steady hand will be fresh in the public's mind.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must
in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
I think Brexit is like tariffs. Tariffs are a good idea for the working class because it puts a cost on off-shoring jobs. BUT
the way Trump is doing it is stupid and doesn't help anyone. Same thing with Brexit. It probably helps the 99%, but not the way
the Tories are going about it.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit
must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me
think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes
me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
"The Trade War Spurs China's Technology Innovators Into Overdrive" [
Industry Week ]. "In Shenzhen's glitzy financial district, a five-year-old outfit creates a
360-degree sports camera that goes on to win awards and draw comparisons to GoPro Inc.
Elsewhere in the Pearl River Delta, a niche design house is competing with the world's best
headphone makers. And in the capital Beijing, a little-known startup becomes one of the biggest
purveyors of smartwatches on the planet. Insta360, SIVGA and Huami join drone maker DJI
Technology Co. among a wave of startups that are dismantling the decades-old image of China as
a clone factory -- and adding to Washington's concerns about its fast-ascending international
Within the world's No. 2 economy, Trump's campaign to contain China's rise is in fact
spurring its burgeoning tech sector to accelerate design and invention. ." •
Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
a farmer has at least 3 PhD qualifications just to contend in the business
No need for a tongue-in-cheek, you're on track, if manufacturing food is akin to other
. . .from last year
August 2018, The fall of employment in the manufacturing sector
Today's manufacturing output is at least 5 percent greater than it was in 2000, but it has
become much more capital intensive and much less labor intensive. Accordingly, workers in
the sector are more likely to have at least some college education than their counterparts
of years past. But there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5
million jobs lost since 1980.
What is most responsible for the manufacturing job losses? Rising trade with China is often
cited as a possible culprit. But competition from China only accounts for about a fourth of
the decline in manufacturing during the 2000s. This theory is further eroded by the fact
that local markets that did not compete with Chinese imports also saw employment
A skills mismatch -- the gap between the skills workers have and the skills employers need
-- has also contributed to the decline of manufacturing employment.
Prime age men and women with less than a high school degree have been hit particularly hard
by changes to manufacturing employment. As the manufacturing sector has shifted from
low-skilled to high-skilled work, workers who possess higher skill levels (e.g., engineers,
computer programmers, software developers, etc.) have become more sought after than before.
. . here
And the US supply of STEM graduates for any technical profession seems to be wanting.
Meanwhile we must recognize that employment is not directly tied to the economy, given
"... Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60% higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's. And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's $27.7bn. ..."
John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. This reminds me of an
under-appreciated fact – that it is not trade rules that are significantly holding back
Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same
trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK
exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60%
higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany
exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of
over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita
difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's.
And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's
Now, these numbers refer only to goods where Germany has a comparative advantage over the
UK. But they tell us something important. Whatever else is holding back UK exports, it is not
trade rules. Germany exports far more than the UK under the same rules.
As for what it is that is holding back exports, there are countless candidates – the
same ones that help explain the UK's relative industrial weakness: poor management; a lack of
vocational training; lack of finance or entrepreneurship; the diversion of talent from
manufacturing to a bloated financial sector; the legacy of an overvalued exchange rate. And
If we were serious about wanting to revive UK exports, we would be discussing what to do
about issues such as these. Which poses the question: why, then, does the possibility of
trade deals get so much more media attention?
One reason is that the right has for decades made a consistent error– a form of
elasticity optimism whereby they over-estimate economic flexibility and dynamism. Back in the
80s, Patrick Minford thought, mostly wrongly, that unemployed coal miners and manufacturers
would swiftly find jobs elsewhere as, I dunno, astronauts or lap-dancers. The Britannia
Unchained crew think, again wrongly, that deregulation will create lots of jobs. And some
Brexiters in 2016 thought sterling's fall would give a big boost to net exports.
In the same spirit, they think free trade deals will raise exports a lot. But they won't -
and certainly not enough to offset the increased red tape of post-Brexit trade with the EU.
Jobs and exports just aren't as responsive to stimuli as they think. The economy is more
sclerotic, more path dependent, than that.
Secondly, the BBC has a bias against emergence. It overstates the extent to which outcomes
such as real wages, share prices or government borrowing are the result of deliberate policy
actions and understates the extent to which they are the emergent and largely unintended
result of countless less obvious choices. In this spirit, it gets too excited about trade
deals and neglects the real obstacles to higher exports.
But there's something else. Perhaps the purpose of free trade deals is not to boost
exports at all. It is instead largely totemic. Such deals are one of the few things we'll be
able to do after Brexit that we couldn't do before. They are therefore a symbol of our
new-found sovereignty. They are, alas, largely just that – a symbol.
"John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. "
Clueless. The US and the UK do not need a trade deal, Brexit is happening because the UK
decided it didn't need any trade deals, open market trading on whatever restrictions foreign
government makes is fine with brexiters.
Way back when we were a smarter people, we assumed that trade deals are a restriction on
trade. They exist to overcome protectionism which was there prior.
"... What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour." [link above] ..."
"... It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit their ideology... ..."
"... How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies ..."
"... Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China... FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is a chicken, which egg is not important. ..."
"... Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk. ..."
"A new assessment of the role of offshoring in the decline in US manufacturing employment,"
by Christoph Boehm, Aaron Flaaen, Nitya Pandalai-Nayar 15 August 2019 What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were
a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a
reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed
labour." [link above]
It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit
As for kurt, expect him to continue to deny the fact that 'free' trade has cost a
significant number of jobs and caused enough economic disruption to tilt the election to
Trump in 2016.
Further, expect the Democratic leadership to continue to tout the benefits of 'free' trade
without acknowledging its severe adverse effects, both economically and politically. And of
course, as long as they never acknowledge the adverse effects, they will never have to
address it which will allow Trump to continue to bludgeon them on the issue.
How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies
Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China...
FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is
a chicken, which egg is not important.
The US worker lost in the evolutions. Aside from Trump who has tried anything for the US
Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not
doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference
toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that
there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk.
Without suppression of Wall Street speculators the renaissance on manufacturing is impossible...
"... A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back? ..."
If I lived in the past, I might assume that re-industrialization would be as easy as building a new plant and plopping it down
in my model town; "build it and they will come." But this America is not that America. Things aren't that frictionless. They are
not, because of a concept that comes with the seventy five-cent word hysteresis attached,
covered here in 2015. Martin Wolf wrote :
"Hysteresis" -- the impact of past experience on subsequent performance -- is very powerful. Possible causes of hysteresis
include: the effect of prolonged joblessness on employability; slowdowns in investment; declines in the capacity of the financial
sector to support innovation; and a pervasive loss of animal spirits.
(To "loss of animal spirits" in the entrepreneurial classes we might add "deaths of despair" in the working class.) And if there
were a lot of people like me, living in the past -- in a world of illusion -- that too would would cause hysteresis, because we would
make good choices, whether for individual careers, at the investment level, or at the policy level, only at random.
Our current discourse on a manufacturing renaissance is marked by a failure to take hysteresis into account. First, I'm select
some representative voices from the discourse. Then, I will present a bracing article from Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing Its Toolbox? " I'll conclude by merely alluding to some remedies. (I'm sure there's a post to be written
comparing the policy positions of all the candidate on manufacturing in detail, but this is not that post.)
"We're in the midst of -- something which nobody thought you'd hear," Trump said. "We're
finally rebuilding our country, and we are doing it with American aluminum, American steel and with our great electrical contractors,"
said Trump, adding that the original NAFTA deal "stole our dignity as a country."
Despite Trump's promises of a manufacturing "renaissance," the country is now in a manufacturing
. The Federal Reserve just reported that the manufacturing sector had a second straight quarter of decline, falling below Wall
Street's expectations. And
for the first
time ever , the average hourly wage for manufacturing workers has dropped below the national average.
Amazingly, under Trump, America has experienced a 2½-year manufacturing jobs boom. More Americans are now employed in well-paying
manufacturing positions than before the Great Recession. The miracle hasn't slowed. The latest jobs report continues to show robust
manufacturing growth, with manufacturing job creation beating economists' expectations, adding the most jobs since January.
Obviously, the rebound in American manufacturing didn't happen magically; it came from Trump following through on his campaign
promises -- paring back job-killing regulations, cutting taxes on businesses and middle-class taxpayers, and implementing trade
policies that protect American workers from foreign trade cheaters.
But nothing has reversed the decline of the county's manufacturing base. From January 2017 to December 2018, it lost nearly
9 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and 17 other counties in Michigan that Mr. Trump carried have experienced similar losses,
according to a newly updated analysis of employment data by the Brookings Institution.
A mere 20% of parents associate desirable pay with a career in manufacturing, while research shows manufacturing workers actually
earn 13%more than comparable workers in other industries.
If there were a manufacturing renaissance, then parents' expectations salaries would be more in line with reality (in other
words, they exhibit hysteresis).
Another good reality check is what we can actually do (our operational capacity). Here is Tim Cook explaining why Apple ended
up not manufacturing in the United States (
from J-LS's post ).
From Inc. :
[TIM COOK;] "The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working
with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here.
"The vocational expertise is very very deep here, and I give the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on
that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said this is a
key thing and we've got to correct that. China called that right from the beginning."
So are we really in the long-hoped-for manufacturing renaissance? The agency with the most accurate predictions on the future
of jobs is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Their projection to 2026
shows that US manufacturing sector will lose 736,000 manufacturing jobs. I spoke with BLS economists James Franklin and Kathleen
Greene, who made the projections, and they were unwavering in their conclusion for a decline of manufacturing jobs.
This prompted me to look deeper into the renaissance idea, so I investigated the changes in employment and establishments in
38 manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries from 2002 to 2018. I really hoped that the optimists
were right about the manufacturing renaissance, but
the data I collected in Table 1 (see link) shows some inconvenient truths -- that 37 out of the 38 manufacturing industries
are declining in terms of both number of plants and employees.
So, yeah. Mirage.
... ... ...
A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The
manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley
closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge
flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone
simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back?
So, when I see no doubt well-meant plans like Warren’s “Economic Patriotism” — and not to pick on Warren — I’m skeptical. I’m
not sure it’s enough.
Here are her
More actively managing our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing.
Leveraging federal R&D to create domestic jobs and sustainable investments in the future.
Production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States
Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.
R&D investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities.
Increasing export promotion to match the efforts of our competitors.
Deploying the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American-made products.
Restructuring worker training programs to deliver real results for American workers and American companies.
Dramatically scale up apprenticeship programs.
Institute new sectoral training programs.
There’s a lot to like here, but will these efforts really solve the hysteresis that’s causing our tooling problem? Just spit-balling
here, but I’d think about doing more. Start with the perspective that our tooling must be, as much as possible, domestic. (“If your
business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.” Similarly, if your industrial base depends on the tooling of others,
it’s not an industrial base.)
As tooling ramps up, our costs will be higher. Therefore, consider tariff walls, as used by other developing nations when they
industrialized. Apprenticeships and training are good, but why not consider skills-based immigration that brings in the worker we’d
otherwise have to wait to train?
Further, simply “training” workers and then having MBAs run the firms is a recipe for disaster; management needs to be provided,
Finally, something needs to be done to bring the best and brightest into manufacturing, as opposed to having them work on Wall
Street, or devise software that
customers with dark patterns. It’s simply not clear to me that a market-based solution — again, not to pick on her — like Warren’s
(“sustainable investments,” “research investments,” “R&D investments,” “export promotion,” and “purchasing power”) meets the case.
It is true that Warren also advocates a Department of Economic Development “that will have a single goal: creating and defending
good American jobs.” I’m not sure that’s meaningful absent an actual industrial policy, democratically arrived at, and a mobilized
population (which is what the Green New Deal ought to do).
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Christoph Boehm, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Aaron
Flaaen, Senior Economist, Research and Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Board, and Nitya
Pandalai-Nayar, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin. Originally
published at VoxEU
What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a
key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction
in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour.
One of the most contentious aspects of globalisation is its impact on national labour
markets. This is particularly true for advanced economies facing the emergence and integration
of large, low-wage, and export-driven countries into the global trading system. Contributing to
this controversy, between 1990 and 2011 the US manufacturing sector lost one out of every three
jobs. A body of research, including recent work by Bloom et al. (2019), Fort et al. (2018) and
Autor et al. (2013), has attempted to understand this decline in manufacturing employment. The
focus of this research has been on two broad explanations. First, this period could have
coincided with intensive investments in labour-saving technology by US firms, thereby resulting
in reduced demand for domestic manufacturing labour. Second, the production of manufacturing
goods may have increasingly occurred abroad, also leading to less demand for domestic
New Facts on Manufacturing Employment, Trade, and Multinational Activity
On the surface, the second explanation appears particularly promising. Manufacturing
employment declined from nearly 16 million workers in 1993 to just over 10 million in 2011,
shown by the black line in Figure 1. This large decline in manufacturing employment coincided
with a surge in outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by US firms (the blue line in Figure
1). Nevertheless, existing theories of trade and multinational production make ambiguous
predictions regarding the link between foreign production and US employment. Further, due to a
lack of suitable firm-level data on US multinationals, there has been limited research on their
role in the manufacturing employment decline (see Kovak et al. 2018 for a recent
Figure 1 US manufacturing employment and US outward FDI
Source : BEA for FDI; Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) and authors'
calculations for employment.
In a recent paper, we address the question of whether foreign input sourcing of US
multinationals has contributed to a decline in US manufacturing employment (Boehm et al. 2019).
We construct a novel dataset, which we combine with a structural model to show that US
multinationals played a leading role in the decline in US manufacturing employment. Our data
from the US Census Bureau cover the universe of manufacturing establishments linked to
transaction-level trade data for the period 1993-2011. Using two directories of international
corporate structure, we augment the Census data to include, for the first time, longitudinal
information on the direction and extent of firms' multinational operations. To the best of our
knowledge, our dataset is the first to permit a comprehensive analysis of the role of US
multinationals in the aggregate manufacturing decline in the US. With these data, we establish
three new stylised facts.
Fact 1: US-owned multinationals were responsible for a large share of the aggregate
manufacturing employment decline
Our first finding is that US multinational firms, defined as those US-headquartered firms with
foreign-owned plants, contributed disproportionally to the decline in US manufacturing
employment. While 33.3% of 1993 employment was in multinational-owned establishments, this
group directly accounted for 41% of the subsequent decline.
Fact 2: US-owned multinationals had lower employment growth rates than similar
In Figure 2, we show that multinationals exhibited consistently lower net job creation rates in
the manufacturing sector, relative to other types of firms. Compared to purely domestic firms
and non-multinational exporting firms, multinationals created fewer jobs or shed more jobs in
almost every year in our sample. Of course, these patterns may not be causal, and other
characteristics of multinationals could be driving the low job creation rates. To address this
concern, we control for all observable plant characteristics, and find that multinational
plants experienced lower employment growth than non-multinational owned plants in the same
industry, even when the size and age of the plants are held constant.
Figure 2 Net US manufacturing job creation rates by type of US firm
Source : Authors' calculations based on the LBD, Directory of Corporation
Affiliations (DCA), and Longitudinal Foreign Trade Transactions Dataset (LFTTD)
Fact 3: Newly multinational establishments experienced job losses, while the parent
multinational firm expanded imports of intermediate inputs
An alternative way to assess the role of multinational activity on US employment with our data
is to use an 'event study' framework. We compare the employment growth trajectories of newly
multinational-owned plants to otherwise similar plants in terms of industry, firm age, and
plant size. As can be seen in Figure 3a, prior to the plants becoming part of a multinational,
their growth patterns are not different from the control group. However, in the years following
the multinational expansion, there is a brief positive but then sustained negative trajectory
of employment at these manufacturing plants. Ten years after the transition, these newly
multinational-owned plants have manufacturing employment that is about 20% smaller than an
otherwise similar plant.
Figure 3 US employment and import dynamics at new multinational plants
a) Relative imports
b) Cumulative relative employment (Index)
Source : Authors' calculations based on LBD, DCA, and LFTTD.
Further, these newly multinational firms increase imports following the expansion abroad. As
Figure 3b demonstrates, these firms substantially increase imports both from related parties
and other firms (at arms-length), relative to their control group. Taken together, Figures 3a
and 3b suggest that offshoring might explain the observed negative relationship between trade
Structural Analysis: Did the Offshoring of Intermediate Input Production Result in a Net
Employment Decline in the US at the Firm Level?
While the patterns we identify above are suggesting that increased foreign input sourcing by
multinational firms led to a decrease in US manufacturing employment, they are not necessarily
causal. Standard models of importing, such as Halpern et al. (2015), Antras et al. (2017) or
Blaum et al. (2018), make ambiguous predictions as to whether foreign sourcing is associated
with increases or decreases in domestic employment. At the heart of this ambiguity are two
competing forces. First, a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing leads firms to have
access to cheaper intermediate inputs. As a result, their unit costs fall and their optimal
scale increases. This 'scale effect' raises their US employment. On the other hand, firms
respond by optimally reallocating some intermediate input production towards the location with
lower costs. This 'reallocation effect' reduces US employment. Theoretically, the scale effect
could dominate the reallocation effect and lead to positive employment effects of offshoring,
or vice versa.
We use our microdata to estimate the relative strengths of these two competing forces. We
show that in a conventional class of models and in partial equilibrium, the value of a single
structural constant – the elasticity of firm size with respect to firm production
efficiency – completely determines which of the two forces dominates. Our estimation
approach is to develop a method to structurally estimate an upper bound on this constant using
our data on the universe of US manufacturing firms. While a high value of the upper bound
leaves open the possibility that foreign sourcing and domestic employment are complements, a
low value of the bound unambiguously implies that the two are substitutes.
Our estimates of the bound are small, indicating that during the period 1993-2011, the
reallocation effect was much larger than the scale effect. In other words, during this period
of aggregate manufacturing employment decline, multinationals' foreign input sourcing was
leading to a net decline of manufacturing employment within these firms.
Aggregate Implications for US Manufacturing Employment
It is important to point out that the model we use only speaks to employment changes within
existing firms and does not take into account general equilibrium forces that can also affect
employment. Since such general equilibrium effects are inherently difficult to assess,
estimates of how much of the observed aggregate decline can be attributed to offshoring of
multinational firms are uncertain and often require strong assumptions. We thus proceed under
two alternative sets of assumptions. In the first, we conduct a simple partial equilibrium
aggregation exercise, which uses observed changes in firm cost shares of domestic inputs
together with our estimated parameter bounds to obtain model-implied predictions of the
employment loss due to foreign sourcing. This approach captures both the direct impact of
foreign sourcing by existing firms as well as the first-order impact on domestic suppliers,
holding all else equal. Under the second, we model these indirect, general equilibrium effects,
such as firm entry and exit, explicitly. In both of these scenarios, we find that the
offshoring activities of multinationals explains about one-fifth to one-third of the aggregate
US manufacturing employment decline.
Our research shows that the global sourcing behaviour of US multinational firms was an
important component of the manufacturing decline observed in the past few decades. These firms
set up production facilities abroad and imported intermediate goods back to the US, with the
consequence of reduced demand for domestic manufacturing workers. While our research suggests
that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we caution that it does not support the
view that offshoring and trade should be contained with tariffs or other policy interventions.
Previous research has shown that both trade and offshoring are critical for consumers' access
to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our research implies that government assistance for
displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other
Authors' note: Any opinions or conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the view of the US Census Bureau or the Board of Governors or its
It's not just big-ticket manufacturing (appliances, etc) .little stuff that a nation uses
on a daily basis has been off-shored as well -- electrical wiring, capacitors, even
foodstuffs like cookies and candy.
I think an overlooked aspect is environmental protection and labor working conditions as
well as wages.
We are offshoring our pollution by moving manufacturing to other countries with much less
stringent environmental regulation. Similarly, labor rules in those countries don't require
as much worker safety, so we are offshoring injuries as well.
As the other countries become wealthier and more educated, they are starting to push for
more of these protections as well as higher wages which is forcing the companies to move
their production again to keep their costs low.
An interesting recent trend is the rejection of our "recycling" from countries that used
to receive it, so the feel-good greenwashing of filling the recycling bins is started to
boomerang back to North America as countries ship back the trash parts of the recycling. This
will likely require a second recycling revolution with more domestic processing of recycling
or an admission that it simply isn't going to happen in which case the righteousness quotient
of many suburbanites is going to plummet.
This is such an easy problem to solve from a policy standpoint- and it has been solved by
countries as small as the Netherlands.
Legally mandate a small list of fully recyclable materials for manufacturers to use in
production and packaging, and enforce it with punitive tariffs on non conforming goods. This
can take many forms, one logical option being that of holding companies responsible for the
costs of recycling their products.
This is as applicable to soda bottles as it is to large and complex products like
automobiles; BMW is a world leader in lifecycle waste reduction and recycling of
As usual, the impediment isn't technology or consumerism, it's corporate profitability and
one time costs of adjusting the supply chain.
So the writer says "that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors." I take it to mean that a policy
such as "free college" as advocated by Sanders which would involve government funded
vocational training in other sectors would go a long away toward helping those displaced by
I remember all that BS back in the 80's and 90's everybody was on the bandwagon about
careers in computers, or any other hi-tech. I was one of those who had *some* training at
least .. right before they offshored all those jobs to India. It was a double kick in the
nuts.So, manufacturing went to China, computing went to India. And people wonder why I'm so
bitter and cranky sometimes.
Napoleon: "Money has no Fatherland. Financiers are without patriotism and without shame.
Their sole object is gain." IMHO US manufacturing is the reason why we're not all speaking
German today. And we gave all that capacity away like a bunch of lemmings over the
"that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their
transition to new jobs in other sectors."
This "implies" that there are "jobs in other sectors" that create as much economic value,
expertise and "innovation" as manufacturing jobs do. What are they–"service" jobs?
Taking in each other's laundry? Delivering McDonald's to your door? Netflix?
Manufacturing is not just a job category that can be changed out for something shiny and
new, it's vital infrastructure that represents a nation's ability to provide for itself, and
to create a standard of living that reflects that capability. Those "affordable goods" so
important to american "consumers" are manufactured goods. It's not just the price to
buy them, it's the ability to make them that's important.
Like it or not, the once mighty american economy was built on the mightiest manufacturing
capacity that the world had ever known. Trivializing it as being only about cheap stuff is a
colossal mistake. We used to know that, and we've only begun to pay the price for
Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs by multi-nationals contributed to job losses ..
30 years too late for this info.
Wasn't hard to see even way back in the 1980's how multi-nationals were working very hard to
export jobs and import their "anti-labor" behaviour they were excising outside the laws and
borders of the US.
Yes, during the wave of industrialization. But they don't work so well once consolidation
starts. 1875-1925(roughly) was the golden age of US manufacturing, even the WWII bounce was
government DoD driven. Private ex-DoD manufacturing peaked in 1924 and was flat since then.
Then we have the 97-05 downwave which then has boosted us about back to 1925's ex-DoD high.
Just like the tech wave, it ended.
I mean, by 1925 Portsmouth Ohio was done by 1925, by 1950 they just bled manufacturing
while it consolidated around bigger cities after WWII.
We need self-efficiency not capitalists growth. It ain't happening people. Its over. We
need 10% contraction of GDP just to get manufacturing growing again from a much lower base.
Tariffs are dead in the water for growth now, and act like the opposite. They are also
creating a bubble in "base" consumption while killing domestic production and yes, eventually
overcapacity will kill base consumption and it crash again like last years 4th quarter
driving down domestic manufacturing further.
Anecdotally, in a field I worked in for a while, middle management in a small privately
owned "needle trades" firm, the "growth" among our competitors was in firms that (we assumed)
did their design work in US but manufactured overseas. Domestic manufacturers either adapted
to this, or closed down.
At least in this field, automation had next to nothing to do with it.
Instead, our research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing
workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
Ah yes, the subsidised retraining for manufacturing jobs that, in fact, do not exist.
Louis Uchitelle covered this policy failure in his 2006 book "The Disposable American:
Layoffs and their consequences". Is the phrase "got the T-shirt" relevant here?
For the government to re-employ workers who have lost their factories would be a form of
industrial policy. Ours is never clearly stated, if there is one. But one thing is clear and
that is the government gave the internationals every opportunity to offshore our national
productivity without any safety net for labor except unemployment insurance. Which runs out.
Michael Pettis has just backed a proposal to tax foreign capital saving and investment here
in this country. Because most of it is just financial "investments". Foreign investment for
long term capital projects would be virtually unaffected. It is claimed that this tax on
money parking would reduce out trade deficit and make it fluctuate within an acceptable
balance. By doing something that sounds like real-time exchange rate adjustments for every
transacted trade, now to include foreign investment and savings. So why didn't the
government, after offshoring all those jobs, re-employ all the laid-off workers as banking
and investment managers? So all this unproductive foreign money is skewing our trade balance.
Making our unemployment deeply structural. It is so bizarre that we are "trading" in money at
all. We are trading in the medium of exchange, which is fiat, which itself is susceptible to
exchange rate adjustments with other money and all of it supposedly backed by the
productivity of that country. That foreign productivity is frequently nothing more than IMF
money, stolen and taken out of the country. The P word. Because the world has reached
manufacturing overcapacity, I assume, all this money is totally skewing the ledgers. It's
laughable except for the fact that the bean counters take it seriously. The mess we are in is
something more fundamental than balanced exchange rates. It's more like hoarding at its most
irrational. Way over my head. And for us to fix unemployment here in the US will take far
more than a tax on all this loose international money.
Yeah it's nice to have it "officially" credentialed etc its not like I haven't been saying
this since they passed NAFTA, but then I wasn't "credentialed" so nobody listened . its like,
"No $#!t sherlock ???" pretty much *everyone* who has spent some time in the industrial
sectors knows this by heart without even needing to be told. Of course maybe now its OK to
say it out loud or something . smh.
===the Role of Offshoring in the Decline in US Manufacturing Employment===
It is not just the role of offshoring in the decline of US manufacturing employment, BUT
the effect the offshoring, and the competing with foreign manufacturers, had on the existing
US manufacturing workforce. The manufacturers and manufacturing workers that remain in the US
have to compete with their cheaper foreign competition for work.
I spent most of the last 25 years working in plastics injection molding. After spending
the first six years of my career in plastics/ polymer research and development, I
transitioned to injection molding. In the mid 90's when I started in injection molding,
globalization had already begun especially in the automotive sector. The car manufacturers
were already setting up global and domestic supply chains. But even then the Chicago area
(and the US in general) was heavy in mold making and injection molding businesses.
Then China became a major player in the world economy, NAFTA started, etc. and in the
early 2000's it was like the last manufacturer who gets stuck in the US gets to turn out the
There were a lot of small to medium size mold maker shops and plastic injection molders in
the Chicago area that went under because they could not compete with the cheaper foreign
competition. It was very sad as I knew many small mom and pop mold makers and injection
molders in the Chicago area who were in business for 20 – 30+ years that closed.
The fact that many businesses/corporations in the US, due to offshoring and globalization,
are forced to compete with foreign competitors that have cheaper labor, less regulation,
cheaper land costs, etc. etc. is beyond reason.
And to this day you can see the effects of neoliberal globalization in any manufacturing
or other business you visit as they are dealing with consequences of having to compete
directly with cheaper foreign competitors through cost cutting, low wages, and running the
employees into the ground.
The tables were tilted against manufacturers and manufacturing employees in the US. It is
like the US manufacturing (and other sectors) are trying to fight a battle with one hand tied
behind our backs.
There is a good book that relates to this post. The book is called Failure to Adjust: How
Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy by Edward Alden.
NAFTA killed a bunch of material extraction jobs, but boosted a bunch of auto production
jobs down the supply chain. You can see that on the data. Granted, auto sales have been flat
for 20 year which has led to a flattening of employment growth since 2005 after the material
extraction driven drop.
That is why the Trump Administration just basically rebooted it.
lol, but it created a bunch of debt finance jobs throughout the economy as well, that
boosted existing manufacturing. Offshoring accounts for .1% of the job loss. Most of it is
consolidation and technology. My great grandfather lost his job in 1925 during the first wave
of consolidation. What about that?
As someone working in manufacturing, while I am glad that there is some acknowledgement
that outsourcing is responsible, I strongly disagree about not implementing tariffs.
Effectively workers are competing for a race to the bottom in wages, working conditions, and
other factors like environmental laws.
Guess what if there are tariffs? Things will cost more, but there will also be more jobs
for the working class. Actually there will also be quite a few white collar jobs too.
Engineering, HR, Finance, Sales, etc, are all needed in any manufacturing industry.
I suspect that net, most workers would be better off even if prices were higher due to the
jobs. The thing is, the top 10 percent would not be and the 1 percent would not be. That's
the main reason for this outsourcing. To distribute income upwards so the rich can
parasitically take it.
While our research suggests that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we
caution that it does not support the view that offshoring and trade should be contained
with tariffs or other policy interventions. Previous research has shown that both trade and
offshoring are critical for consumers' access to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our
research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
This is where I strongly disagree. As discussed above, I think that the net effect might
be beneficial for the majority of society.
The other is the old retraining claims, which never pan out. What jobs are there? Visit
the communities in the Midwestern US and Southern Ontario. Retraining for what? For jobs that
are part time, minimum wage, with few or no benefits?!
Manufacturing may not have been perfect, but at least there were benefits, it was often
full time, and the salaries allowed a middle class existence.
When I read things like this, as much as I dislike Trump, I can understand why people
would support him.
For the life of me I don't see how any other outcome could have happened. With the
economic system we have embraced at least in my long lifetime, it was inevitable that
"capital" would seek the lowest level playing field in the long term. Nation's boundaries
kept that flow "fenced" to a certain limit for as long as there have been physical borders
between countries. Once the cat was let out of the bag of competing countries after WW2, for
example the Japanese with computer driven machinery (lathes) that crushed American companies
that in too many cases refused to invest and welcomed the slow destruction of organized labor
here in the US, it was inevitable that that condition would be the future of manufacturing
here. The advent of the Mexican maquiladoras gave a great push to the exporting of jobs.
NAFTA put the nails in the coffin so many more of those good paying jobs. "Labor" was never
invited to those global meetings that proved to be so destructive to so many countries.
But, again. The system we embrace can have no other outcome. "Tariffs" will eventually lead
to wars. So in the words of that famous Russian: "What is to be done?"
Anybody have a solution? You will be saving civilization from itself. We need a complete
rethinking of how we live on this planet. That will take better humans that we have now that
lead nations. In the meantime it's, "kill them all and let God sort them out!" The weak will
succumb; the strong will continue to battle for territory, in this case jobs, jobs, jobs.
The United States is openly encouraging a hard or radical split between the United Kingdom
and the European Union. This by way of John Bolton. Why the administration would take such a
position is a puzzle to me, and the openness is shocking.
U.S. supports no-deal Brexit with trade deals ahead, says Bolton
The United States would enthusiastically support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the
British government decided to do, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday
during a visit to London aimed at reassuring Britain over UK-U.S. ties.
"If that's the decision of the British government we will support it enthusiastically, and
that's what I'm trying to convey. We're with you, we're with you," Bolton told reporters
after his first day of meetings.
"They will have to figure out how to do what they can by October 31 or soon thereafter.
From our point of view, we would have been happy to do it before that," the official said.
"The previous government didn't want to do it, this government does. We're very happy about
it," he added.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union
on October 31 and Washington will be ready to work fast on a U.S.-UK free trade agreement,
Bolton told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
BBC quoted Bolton as saying that a bilateral agreement or "series of agreements" could be
carved out "very quickly, very straight-forwardly."
He said British officials had given him an unmistakable sense that they were determined to
honor the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.
"The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the
elites want to go, it's to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,"
The central message Bolton was delivering is that the United States would help cushion
Britain's exit from the EU with a free trade deal that is being negotiated by U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer and his British counterpart, Liz Truss.
Bolton said Britain and the United States could agree trade deals on a sector-by-sector
basis, leaving more difficult areas in the trading relationship until later.
He said the ultimate aim was a comprehensive trade deal, but highlighted that financial
services could be one of the more difficult industries to reach an agreement on.
Bolton had been expected to urge officials from Johnson's government to align its policy
on Iran more along the lines of the United States, which has pushed a much tougher line
against Tehran since withdrawing from world powers' 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.
But, after his meetings Bolton said talks on some of these thornier diplomatic issues
Johnson has told the European Union there is no point in new talks on a withdrawal
agreement unless negotiators are willing to drop the Northern Irish backstop agreed by his
predecessor Theresa May.
The EU has said it is not prepared to reopen the divorce deal it agreed with May, which
includes the backstop, an insurance policy to prevent the return to a hard border between the
British province of Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland.
Good to catch you around these economic matters. The WWIII is actually just being waged by
one side, I think. China is the caravan moving on. The fading bark of the dogs is the western
end of the deal, I think. But no time to enlarge on this right now, what with Europe having
Everybody got economics going on, it seems like, and Europe is no exception. Check out
Brexit and the EU
Alastair Crooke has a new piece out, riffing largely on a Pritchard Evans article in the
Telegraph, and including a very hot video clip from the heart of German concerns as the UK
I didn't realize how important the UK is to the EU and how its exit changes everything for
Germany. But the EU realpolitik illustrated in this Crooke article and in the 6-minute video
clip of the German speech is an entire facet of Brexit I had never seen until now. Check this
Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor
Merkel for her and the Brussels botched handling of Brexit (for which "she, Merkel bears
some responsibility"). Weidel pointed out that "the UK is the second biggest economy in
Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined". "From an economic
perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9." [My emphasis]
Crooke and co are saying that the UK departure from the EU changes the entire regime of
monetary controls within this economic union. Crucially, the lead is now shifting away from
Germany and to the failed economic model of France.
To make the chronic acute, now Trump cares, and the US has a stake in this - who knew? The
EU didn't know. It always thought the US was a partner, but maybe not.
If you want to dive straight into the German angst, here's the six-minute video of Alice
Weidel ripping German complacency apart with a call to attention from her constituency in
marginalized eastern Germany: German view of
And for the containing article from Crooke - be warned that he quotes Paul Krugman but I
have to say it sounds pretty good to me - here's his article: Germany
Stalls and Europe Craters
J.M.Keynes addressed 'foreign exchange' between sovereign states in his original version
of World Bank and International Money Fund, both addressing the fundamental causes of the
Great Depression. These presentations to U.S. government authorities also included the
British application for war debt forgiveness at the termination of hostilities to avoid
repeating post WWI scenarios. These presentations were then made to the Bretton Woods
Conference as the American version of the proposals, reversing institution and purpose as
contrived by Washington's design. Makes interesting reading the cables between Keynes and
London. What exists since Bretton Wood is the American version and as usual it was all
screwed up, but Keynes original proposals contain policies needed for the EAEU's ability to
function (and to avoid the economic causes of the Great Depression).
I recalled it was tax collection that became the failure of the colonial confederation,
the failure of the Continental Congress to meet its obligations, but then interpretations can
Finally got around to reading Crooke's latest. Yes, the EU's surely in a fix; but IMO,
he's correct about the ultimate source of the problem and the inability of solving it without
a total reformation. However, I would argue that reforming the EU would be a massive error.
IMO, it makes far greater sense to learn from the mistakes and negotiate with Russia and
China to consummate Putin's proposal for an EAEU sans the strangulating aspects of an EAEU
Central Bank and currency--the Euro and EUCB being two of the EU's mistakes. Such a creation
would also see the demise of NATO and the freeing of monies for war to be used on debt
relief, infrastructure, and building public/human capital. Russo- and Sinophobia would
immediately cease. The issues of South Asia would become easier to handle. And to be included
in the club Occupied Palestine would need to become Palestine--one state--thus defusing the
last colonial imposition impeding Eurasian integration/unity.
Yes, the five anglophone entities would be left out in the cold, although I can't see The
City allowing its politicos to blow its opportunity to cash in by having a piece of the
action (but then the British are unpredictable) while Scotland, Ireland and Wales prosper.
Africa would see its future lies in joining with Eurasia.
I don't think either Merkel or Macron have the vision required to even imagine the above
possibility, although I'd be happy to get surprised. But would such a suggestion need to come
from either France or Germany; why not Central and Southern Europe as such a change would
really benefit those nations?
Don't forget the generation that formed the Treaty of Rome and conducted subsequent
negotiations were mostly replaced by the 1980's with a generation not sharing common
experiences that the war generation had. Also, by the 1980's the economic theories being
taught had substantially changed from the economic understandings and experiences of the war
The war generation had each sovereign country having sufficient and adequate laws governing
banking and finance that prevented most aberrations within that country. Each country had
developed from differing circumstances and had drafted their laws to those specific
circumstances. Finding a common legal denominator proved to be, as they say 'a bridge too
far' but as long as each country's laws were effective, no problems presented.
The subsequent generation under the neoliberal economic theories found the central EU
government devoid of economic governance or regulatory structures; an open field easily
commanded by removing the abilities of each country to provide such governance for their
state. Centralisation of economic power became the problem and the cause of problems that
remain unaddressed and unless address is done, the economic house of cards will not last for
Agreed! That's why I made it a point to list the EUCB and Euro as the two main mistakes
that must be learned from if an EAEU is to be formulated. Both Russia and China are
determined that each nation must remain sovereign, which means each must have control over
its monetary and political systems. Instead of a Union implying a federal structure, the
proposed political entity would be better termed as a Confederation with each nation
retaining its homogeneity. The major difference being the proposed Confederation would have
no trade barriers and visa-free movement for its citizens. (Recall the main failing of the
initial Confederation of United States were the trade barriers erected between states that
prompted the businessmen's revolt that led to the 1787 Constitution and the formation of the
federal United States of America.) If a regional grouping of nations--say the former
Yugoslavian entities--wanted to reform into a larger political-economic unit to better
provide for their collective citizenry, there would be no objection; and the reverse would be
possible as sovereignty of people would remain a foundation of human rights.
Given future challenges, IMO the above makes the best sense for Eurasia and Africa. The
implosion of the Outlaw US Empire and its affect on its hemispheric neighbors remains
unknown. It's possible the once formidable economic magnet of the Empire's economy will
reverse its polarity and drive people out as it did during the Great Depression. The vast
amount and depth of corruption within the Empire will take several generations to be
extinguished, and only then will political reformation become possible.
"... US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism, as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it." ..."
"... Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. ..."
"... IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner. ..."
"... It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning. ..."
"... Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. ..."
"... I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance hegemony and fiat money. ..."
"... The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy. ..."
"... Trump hasn't proposed any new policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him. ..."
I will mention this again, to see what people here think, as they are intelligent people. I sent mails to Russian and Chinese
authorities about this.
"I will provide you with possible reasons behind the current trade wars and rejection of globalisation by the US. In short,
they think that they will save their hegemony, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate Change, so these GDP estimates are
important. The scenarios are with time horizon 2100.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic. They describe the scenarios for
There are 5 main scenarios, or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways". All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity.
Low cooperation, fragmented world, high conflict scenarios consistently lead to low growth in the developing world and thus
to the US and the West retaining some of its positions - a world with overall bad economy and low level of multipolarity.
Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation
means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing.
Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the
relative power of the West and empowering the developing world. The US now needs to kill globalisation if it is to stop its relative
So what do we see: exactly attempts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Climate Change Agreement (which if accepted would put constraints on the US economy),
on the UN, bullying of Europe, lack of care for european energy needs, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on
chinese students and scientists in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for
poor countries in the WTO, etc. This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well.
By destroying the world economy, the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism,
as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science
community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much
as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer
serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it."
"In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal."
The key point for the Chinese during negotiations as I understand them via their published White Paper on the subject is
development and the international rules put in place at WTO for nations placed into the Developing category, which
get some preferential treatment to help their economies mature. As China often reminds the global public--and officials of the
Outlaw US Empire--both the BRI and EAEU projects are about developing the economies of developing economies, that the process
is designed to be a Win-Win for all the developing economies involved. This of course differs vastly from what's known as the
Washington Consensus, where all developing economies kowtow to the Outlaw US Empire's diktat via the World Bank and IMF and thus
become enslaved by dollar dependency/debt. Much is written about the true nature of the Washington Consensus, Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man and Klein's Disaster Capitalism being two of the more recent and devastating, and many nations
are able to attest to the Zero-sum results. The result is very few nations are willing to subject their economies to the pillaging
via Washington Consensus institutions, which Hudson just recently reviewed.
The Empire is desperate and is looking for ways to keep its Super Imperialism intact and thus continue its policy aimed at
Full Spectrum Dominance. But the Empire's abuse of the dollar-centric institutions of international commerce has only served to
alienate its users who are openly and actively seeking to form parallel institutions under genuine multilateral control.
However as Hudson illustrates, Trump doesn't know what he's doing regarding his trade and international monetary policies. Today's
AP above the fold headline in Eugene's The Register Guard screamed "Trump threatens 10% tariffs;" but unusually for such
stories, it explains that the 10% is essentially a tax on US consumers, not on Chinese companies, which provides a message opposite
of the one Trump wants to impart--that he's being tough on the Chinese when the opposite's true. China will continue to resist
the attempts to allow the international financial sharks to swim in Chinese waters as China is well aware of what they'll attempt
to accomplish--and it's far easier to keep them out than to get them out once allowed in, although China's anti-corruption laws
ought to scare the hell out of the CEOs of those corps.
The Empire wants to continue its longstanding Open Door policy in the realm of target nations opening their economies to the
full force of Imperial-based corps so they can use their financial might to wrestle the market from domestic players and institute
their Oligopoly. China already experienced the initial Open Door (which was aimed at getting Uncle Sam's share of China during
the Unequal Treaties period 115 years ago) and will not allow that to recur. China invokes its right under WTO rules for developing
economies to protect their financial services sector from predation; the Empire argues China is beyond a developing economy and
must drop its shields. We've read what Hudson advised the Chinese to do--resist and develop a publicly-based yuan-centered financial
system that highly taxes privatized rent-seekers while keeping and enhancing state-provided insurance--health, home, auto, life,
etc--while keeping restrictions on foreign land ownership since it's jot allowed to purchase similar assets within the domestic
The Outlaw US Empire insists that China give so it can take. Understandably, China says no; what we allow you to do, you should
allow us to do. Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. Obviously,
the latest proposal was merely a repetition of what came before and was rejected as soon as the meeting got underway, so it ended
as quickly as it started. IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and
nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner.
It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same
since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning.
Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. D-Party Establishment
candidates have yet to let it be known they'll try to do what Trump's failing to do, which of course has nothing to do with aiding
the US consumer and everything to do with bolstering Wall Street's Ponzi Scheme.
Good comment, karlof1 , i think that the attack against China is attack against the heart of multipolarity. It will be good
if b could post about the escalation of the trade war. This is important. The US clearly intends to resist multipoarity, and tries
to stop it.
If I would have had my act together last night I would have posted another link fro Xinhuanet (can't find now) about how
China wants to retain developing nation status and provides as data that the (I think) per capita GDP had gone down....gotten
worse in relation to the US per capita GDP.
I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance
hegemony and fiat money.
Passer by @30--
The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates
what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it
all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it
to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy.
Thus, there's no need to sponsor the reindustrialization that would lead to MAGA. Indeed, Trump hasn't proposed any new
policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate
Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him.
In your outline, it's very easy to see why BRI is so attractive to other nations as it forwards SSP1. Awhile ago during a discussion
of China's development goals, I posted links to its program that's very ambitious and doing very well with its implementation,
the main introduction portal
being here .
psychohistorian @11 asked: "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private
finance issue and I am not of faith but of questions...."
karlof1 @31 covered it pretty well I think, but I want to try to answer in just a couple sentences (unusual for me).
Global private finance is driven by one thing and one thing only: making maximum profits for the owners quarter by financial
quarter. Global public finance is driven by the agendas of the nations with the public finance, with profits being a secondary
or lesser issue.
This boils down to private finance being forever slave to the mindless whims of "The Market™" (hallowed be Its name),
while public finance is, by its nature, something that is planned and deliberated. Nobody can guess where "The Market™"
(hallowed be Its name) will lead society, though people with the resources like placing bets in stock markets on the direction
It is taking us. On the other hand, if people have an idea which direction society should be heading in, public control
over finance is a precondition to making it so.
"The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire"
I'm not sure this will be the case anymore -
Former heads of DHS and NSA explain how the U.S. can keep Huawei at bay
"Perhaps more importantly, this proposal demonstrates one way the U.S. can reinforce elements of what the government calls
the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB), the collection of companies who design, build and supply the U.S. with vital
national-security related technologies."
I think that 10 years from now the biggest impact from Trump will be from his cancellation
of the Iran nuclear accord and unilateral imposition of strict sanctions which the Europeans
were not able to bypass in any meaningful way due the prevalence of the US dollar in global
There is now significant motivation in Europe and even China in creating a real
alternative to the US dollar for international transactions which bypasses US banks. If this
happens to any significant degree, it would undercut the US dollar as the world's reserve
currency, resulting in a permanent drop in its value.
Without international support, US Government deficits and trade deficits will become
unsustainable, and there will be a significant drop in the American median standard of
The overwhelming correlation between austerity and Brexit
July 22, 2019
Across the pond, the Brexit disaster continues to unfold in newly disastrous ways. Theresa
May has resigned as prime minister, and the Trump-esque Boris Johnson looks like a lock to
replace her. Parliament members -- up to and including Johnson's own fellow Conservatives --
are panicking that the new prime minister may try hardline tactics to force Brexit through,
plan or no plan.
At this point, predicting how this mess will end is a fool's errand. But there are still
lessons to be learned from how it began.
In particular, the Conservatives might want to look in the mirror -- and not just because
it was their government that called the Brexit vote in the first place. It turns out the
brutal austerity they imposed on Britain after the global 2008 financial crisis probably goes
a long way towards explaining why Brexit is happening at all.
In the run-up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, much of the campaigning in favor of
"Leave" was unabashedly racist. Hard-right political groups like the U.K. Independence Party
(UKIP) painted a picture of native Britons overrun by hordes of foreign immigrants that were
straining the country's health care, housing, public services, jobs and wages to the breaking
point. The thing is, the racism was a particular poisonous way of framing a very real
underlying economic fear: all those necessities really had become harder to come by.
Yet, as it is in America, actual evidence linking influxes of immigrants to rising
scarcity in jobs and wages and other services is scarce. But something else had also recently
happened that could explain why hospitals and schools were closing and why public aid was
drying up: massive cuts to government spending.
A decade ago, the aftershocks of the global financial crisis had shrunk Britain's economy
by almost 3 percent, kicking unemployment up from 5 percent to 8 percent by 2010. Under
then-Prime Minister David Cameron, the Conservatives in power concluded that "confidence"
among investors was necessary to restore economic growth -- and that meant cuts to government
spending to balance the budget.
Thus the Conservatives pushed through a ferocious austerity package: Overall government
spending fell 16 percent per person. Schools, libraries, and hospitals closed; public
services like garbage collection ground to a halt; poverty shot up; and homelessness doubled.
Despite unemployment staying stubbornly high and GDP growth staying stubbornly low -- in
defiance of their own economic theory -- the Conservatives crammed through even more
reductions in 2012. "It is hard to overestimate how devastating Cameron's austerity plan was,
or how fast it happened," the British journalist Laurie Penny observed. A United Nations
report from last year called the cuts "punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous."
But the damage was not evenly distributed across the country. At the district level --
Britain's units of local governance -- the reductions in spending ranged from 6.2 percent to
an astonishing 46.3 percent from 2010 to 2015. The districts that were already the poorest
were generally the hardest hit.
These differences across districts allowed Thiemo Fetzer, an associate professor of
economics at the University of Warwick, to gauge the correlation between the government cuts
and whether a district voted Leave or Remain. "Austerity had sizable and timely effects,
increasing support for UKIP across local, national, and European elections," Fetzer wrote in
a recent paper. He found that UKIP's share of a district's vote jumped anywhere from 3.5 to
11.9 percentage points in correlation with austerity's local impact. "Given the tight link
between UKIP vote shares and an area's support for Leave, simple back-of-the-envelope
calculations suggest that Leave support in 2016 could have been easily at least 6 percentage
points lower," Fetzer continued. As tight as the Brexit referendum was, that alone could have
been enough to swing it.
Other studies have shown links between how a local British community's economic fortunes
fared and how it voted for Brexit as well. Economists Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig found
that support for Leave was "systematically higher" in the regions of the country hit hardest
by trade with China over the last three decades. Another analysis by Torsten Bell showed a
strong correlation between British income inequality as of 2015 and Brexit support, with
higher local vote shares for Leave the lower the local incomes were. (It's worth noting the
Bell didn't find a correlation with Brexit when he looked at how local incomes changed from
2002 to 2015, but that's also a weird time frame to choose, as it mashes together a period of
wage growth before 2008 with a major drop afterwards.)
Inequality in Britain had been worsening for decades, as the upper class in the City of
London pulled further and further ahead of the largely rural working class, setting the stage
for Brexit. And then austerity fell hardest on the shoulders of the latter group, compounding
"Individuals tend to react to the general economic situation of their region, regardless
of their specific condition," Colantone and Stanig wrote. But Fetzer was able to break out
some individual data in his analysis of austerity, and he found a correlation with Brexit
votes there as well. Individual Britons who were more exposed to welfare state cuts -- in
particular a reduction in supports for housing costs -- were again more likely to vote for
UKIP. "Further, they increasingly perceive that their vote does not make a difference, that
they do 'not have a say in government policy' or that 'public officials do not care,'" Fetzer
It isn't that the economic dislocation of the 2008 crisis and the ensuing austerity crunch
made Britons more racist. By all accounts, half or more of the country has consistently
looked askance on immigration going back decades. (Indeed, international polling suggests a
certain baseline dislike for immigration is a near-universal human condition.) What changed
in the last few years was the willingness of certain parts of British society to act
politically on those attitudes. And that, arguably, is where the economics come in.
Work from the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman is instructive here. He found that
periods of economic growth, where people feel the future is bright, make national populations
more open, generous, and liberal. Times of economic contraction and stagnation have the
The British people, like everyone everywhere, are a mix of good and evil impulses. But by
decimating public investment in a self-destructive quest for investor-led growth, the British
government created a monster from those impulses. And the reckoning for that terrible error
is still unfolding.
Tut! Tut! Tut! It's not politically correct for Democrats to talk about the economy,
inequality, and dislocation, is it? If people keep raising the issue, Democrats might be
forced into acknowledging problems they helped to create. Worse, they might have to craft a
coherent economic message that their Big Money puppeteers might not like! OMG!!!
No, he would have cited evidence.
If he had any brains he would have recognized that we got the secstags going around, meaning
the one cannot just look at the eight year recession cycle, one has to look at the full
It is easy to tell the dufas among economists, they never look at nor cite any data.
For example, Krugman ignored the fact that Obamacare raised monthly taxes about $500 per
household, lost four elections, proved himself a dolt and now want to write off Obamacare.
Never once did Krugman make any attempt to correlate the Obamacare taxes with election
losses, not once. He preferred the delusion, same as most of our favorite economists, I can
count the one who actually look.
As Kurt said, being delusional hysterical freaks who send hundreds of billions to wealthy
people then complain? Stupid,stupid stupid.
You are exactly right here - Obamacare subsidies should have tapered off or been taxed away
around the top 20% of income rather than the top 60. Big mistake - but it was a compromise to
get several republicans to vote yes, but they (the Rs) negotiated in bad faith and then
didn't do what they promised. But hey - when have the H brothers let facts get in the way of
what they know, know, know about me.
We are told constantly that the 2016 referendum gives our government a mandate for a No
Deal Brexit, and that we would not respect democracy if we failed to leave. Both arguments
are obviously false, yet they so often go unchallenged in the media.
EU bureaucracy is not compatible with UK identity.
I agree re. a sort of fundamental 'spirit'. So far, since 1973 (EEC, idk if this was
properly done, you say not: fraudulent ) EU-UK relations have not been riven by
disruptive strife or even temp. explosive argument (in part due to EU rules etc.)
Accomodations were made.. An apogee of hand-holding-harmony was reached when Mitterand and
Thatcher convinced the Germans to give up the D-mark in return for blessing the
re-unification of Germany. The UK did not join the Euro zone (1992). So the UK was overall a
big 'winner' on several levels (imho.)
Brexit is the first step in bringing politics back to local accountability
I hope so but dangers lurk and i am pessimistic. Crash-out on 31 Oct. will happen, and
will have a horrific impact. In any case the political accountability of the Gvmt. in the UK
is at present abysmally low.
Trump definitely contributes a lot to the collapse of classic neoliberalism. He rejected neoliberal globalization in favor of using
the USA dominant position for cutting favorable to the USA bilateral deals. That undermined the role of dollar of the world reserve
currency and several mechanisms emerged which allow completely bypass dollar system for trade.
"... US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence. ..."
"... A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. ..."
US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
In response, China (and perhaps Europe) will fight to establish their own networks and secure control of their nodes. Again, multilateralism
could be the victim of this battle.
A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. It's not the world according
to Myrdal, Frank, and Perroux, and it's not Tom Friedman's flat world, either. It's the world according to Game of Thrones
“One reason for this is that in an increasingly digitalised economy, where a growing part of services are provided at zero
marginal cost, value creation and value appropriation concentrate in the innovation centers and where intangible investments are
made. This leaves less and less for the production facilities where tangible goods are made.”
It depends on what you mean by value.
If value is dollars in someone’s Cayman Islands tax-free account, then value is concentrated in NYC and SF.
But if we follow Natural Law (Marx or Mohammed) and define value as labor, then this is exactly wrong. A Natural Law economy
tries to maximize paid and useful work, because people are made to be useful.
The digital world steadily eliminates useful work, and steadily crams down the wages for the little work that remains. Real
value is avalanching toward zero, while Cayman value is zooming to infinity.
He’s talking more about the whims of the stock market and of our intellectual property laws. For example the marginal cost
for Microsoft to issue another copy of “Windows” is zero. Even their revised iterations of the OS were largely a rehash of the
previous software. Selling this at high prices worked out well for a long time but now the software can practically be had for
free because competitors like Linux and Android are themselves free. So digital services with their low marginal cost depend on
a shaky government edifice (patent enforcement, lack of antitrust) to prop up their value. Making real stuff still requires real
labor and even many proposed robot jobs–driving cars, drone deliveries, automated factories and warehouses–are looking dubious.
Dean Baker has said that the actual investment in automation during the last decades has slowed–perhaps because expensive and
complicated robots may have trouble competing with clever if poorly paid humans. And poorly paid is the current reality due to
population increases and political trends and perhaps, yes, automation.
And even if the masters of the universe could eliminate labor they would then have nobody to buy their products. The super
yacht market is rather small.
With useful physical labor being off-shored, first world citizens should all be made shareholders in the new scheme. We shall
all then become dividend collecting layabouts buying stuff made by people we do not know, see, or care about. If they object we
simply have the military mount a punitive expedition until they get whipped back into shape. Sort of like now but with a somewhat
larger, more inclusive shareholder base. It will be wonderful!
I’m saying that it can be and historically, and that there are and have been multi-national systems of super exploitation of
peripheral, primarily resource exporting populations, relative to a more broadly distributed prosperity for “higher” skilled populations
of the center. This has been a common perspective within anti-imperialist movements.
The argument is not without merit. Is this a “contradiction among the people” where various sectors of a larger labor movement
can renegotiate terms, or is it some more intransigent, deeply antagonistic relationship is a crucial question. The exportation
of manufacturing to the periphery is disrupting the political status-quo as represented by the center’s centrism, political sentiments
are breaking away to the left and right and where they’ll land nobody knows.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
I was just reading this John Helmer below, like Pepe Escobar I’m not sure who’s buttering his bread but it’s all food for thought
and fresh cooked blinis are tastier than the Twinkies from the western msm, and this thought came to mind: Iran is the perfect
test ground for the US to determine Russian weapons and tactical capabilities in a major war context in 2019. That alone might
make it worth it to the Pentagon, why they seem so enthusiastic to take the empire of chaos to unforseen heights (depts?). Somewhat
like the Spanish Civil War was a testing ground for the weapons of WW2.
1. Because it has a lot of non US controlled Oil.
2. Because it is Central on the eastern end of the silk road.
3. Because it does not kiss the US Ring bearers hand at every opportunity, and the US is determined to make it an example not
to be followed.
An environmental insight here. The world stands devastated. It has reached its carrying capacity for thoughtless humans. From
here on in we have to take the consequences of our actions into account. So when it is said, as above, that the dollar exchange
rate is more important than the other bilateral exchange rates, I think that is no longer the reality. There is only a small amount
of global economic synergy that operates without subsidy. The vast majority is subsidized. And the dollar is just one currency.
And, unfortunately, the United States does not control the sun and the wind (well we’ve got Trump), or the ice and snow. Let alone
the oceans. The big question going forward is, Can the US maintain its artificial economy? Based on what?
That is a factor that seems ignored by the philosophers who are the subjects of the headline posting. It is a great oversight,
a shoe which has been released and is now impacting the floor. “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men”
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism  and Global Fracture .) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
 Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
 The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
Dmitry Orlov offers a highly-pertinent review of a current report to the US Congress about
the severe degradation of the US's capacity to produce ANY heavy industrial goods - including
advanced weapons such as replacement aircraft carriers, cruisers, tanks and all the rest -
within its own borders, independent of (exceedingly vulnerable) global supply networks:
Also, the US only has 'plenty' of fossil-hydrocarbon fuel on cloud-cuckoo-land paper. In
reality, it has quite a lot of such stuff which it will never access, and will never be able
to access, because of the non-negotiable, iron logic of EROEI and EROCI (the second acronym
relating to energy returned on financial capital invested; currently a long way red-ink
negative across the whole US fracking ponzi). EROEI refers to the even more intractable,
terminally-insoluble problem of energy returned on ENERGY invested. When this gets down to
around 4 to 1 or thereabouts, it's game over for actually being able to maintain an
industrial hitech society that can hope - credibly - to do fossil-hydrocarbon mining in any
seriously challenging conditions - which most of the world's remaining pools of such fuels
These predicaments are qualitatively different from problems; problems, by definition, can
hope to be solved; predicaments, inherently, can't be, and can only be endured. The world is
now close to the edge of a decisive non-availability of sufficient fossil-hydrocarbon fuels
to keep even a skeleton semblance of modern hitech industrial society operating - at all.
That's the predicament that is already staring us in the face, and that will soon be
trampling us into the ground. Doesn't mean that hopeless political inadequates such as
PompousHippo and The Insane Geriatric Walrus won't attempt to trigger such insanity as an
aggression against Iran, though, they being too stupid, too delusional, and too
morally-degenarate, to know any better.
This is the overall situation which insists that the US has literally zero chance of
attacking Iran, and actually getting anything remotely resembling a 'win' out of it. Read
Dmitry's piece to get a more detailed outline of why this is so.
PS: The above considerations apply just as decisively to the US's nuclear weapon capacity
as they do to all the other hitech industrial toys which USAmerica is now barely able to
produce on its own - at all.
"... Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S. manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers are benefiting from working alongside robots. ..."
"... Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). ..."
"... Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors. ..."
Don't blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs
Scott Andes and Mark Muro
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
a recent blog we described new research by George Graetz
and Guy Michaels that shows the impact of automation
technology in productivity statistics. So now there is good
evidence that robots are a driver of economic growth.
However, this new evidence poses a question: Has
productivity growth from robots come at the cost of
Between 1993 and 2007 (the timeframe studied by Graetz and
Micheals) the United States increased the number of robots
per hour worked by 237 percent. During the same period the
U.S. economy shed 2.2 million manufacturing jobs. Assuming
the two trends are linked doesn't seem farfetched.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no
shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S.
manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are
just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some
researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers
are benefiting from working alongside robots.
So is there a relationship between job loss and the use of
The substantial variation of the degree to which countries
deploy robots should provide clues. If robots are a
substitute for human workers, then one would expect the
countries with much higher investment rates in automation
technology to have experienced greater employment loss in
their manufacturing sectors. Germany deploys over three times
as many robots per hour worked than the United States,
largely due to Germany's robust automotive industry, which is
by far the most robot-intensive industry (with over 10 times
more robots per worker than the average industry). Sweden has
60 percent more robots per hour worked than the United States
thanks to its highly technical metal and chemical industries.
Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no
relationship between the change in manufacturing employment
and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots
between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its
manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33
percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year
time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market
and continued with the most recent data, 2012).
France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the
United States even as they introduced more industrial robots.
On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and
Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in
their manufacturing sectors.
Why Factory Jobs Are Shrinking Everywhere
by Charles Kenny
April 28, 2014, 1:16 PM EDT
A report from the Boston Consulting Group last week
suggested the U.S. had become the second-most-competitive
manufacturing location among the 25 largest manufacturing
exporters worldwide. While that news is welcome, most of the
lost U.S. manufacturing jobs in recent decades aren't coming
back. In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked
in manufacturing. By 2010, only one in 10 did.
The growth in imports from China had a role in that
decline–contributing, perhaps, to as much as one-quarter of
the employment drop-off from 1991 to 2007, according to an
analysis by David Autor and colleagues at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. But the U.S. jobs slide began well
before China's rise as a manufacturing power. And
manufacturing employment is falling almost everywhere,
including in China. The phenomenon is driven by technology,
and there's reason to think developing countries are going to
follow a different path to wealth than the U.S. did-one that
involves a lot more jobs in the services sector.
Pretty much every economy around the world has a low or
declining share of manufacturing jobs. According to OECD
data, the U.K. and Australia have seen their share of
manufacturing drop by around two-thirds since 1971. Germany's
share halved, and manufacturing's contribution to gross
domestic product there fell from 30 percent in 1980 to 22
percent today. In South Korea, a late industrializer and
exemplar of miracle growth, the manufacturing share of
employment rose from 13 percent in 1970 to 28 percent in
1991; it's fallen to 17 percent today.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
As Noam Chomsky
says, the term globalisation has been appropriated by a narrow sector of power and privilege to
refer to their version of international integration and it makes sense for them to own the term
because anyone who is opposed to their version becomes anti-globalisation -- someone who is
primitive and wants to go back to the stone age and that everyone likes international integration
but not the investor rights version of it.
In reality globalization was a politically correct term for neocolonialism
"... In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization ..."
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald
Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war
between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are
shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization's biggest boosters now concede that it
has produced lopsided benefits and that something
will have to change .
Today's woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current,
hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy
instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of
the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield
themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international
trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property,
industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade
deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from
managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global
organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh
across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would
lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital
would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More
trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth.
these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although
economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker
demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe
products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect :
"the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the
plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic
statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
Now it seems to me the Koch-Soros think tank is an attempt to unify the neoliberal
globalist forces which represent factions from international greenies to nationalist
protectionists . In other words to repackage and rename neoliberal globalism while keeping
its essence. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
As for China opening to private international finance. They already did that but this
takes it to a new level. Like I said. Fake wrestling. This was one of the demands in the
trade negotiations by Trump. Why take one of your chips off the table if the game is for
China was Made in USA (includes the City of London) like the EU and Putins neoliberal
One day they will get around telling us they are all buddies, or maybe not. I suspect they
have a lot of laughs playing us like they do.
I could be wrong but this is more interesting than the official and semi official
"... if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of Iraq. ..."
"... An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these states ..."
"... 'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites, primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign states to a set of international institutions under their control. ..."
"... In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of fascism. ..."
"... The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations. ..."
Stating "globalism" is antithetical to "multipolarity" is a non-sequitor.
Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function. This is complex of course and includes capital markets, corporations,
multinational corporations, currency markets, commodities markets, trading agreements.
Politicians intervene in the functioning of globalism so there is seldom if ever anything
like a globalism free of political influence.
OTOH, "multipolarity" has no structure that I can see. It is an empty vessel, purely a
political, statist-inspired idea (whereas globalism is a "thing" which contains
political and economic ideas of course but those ideas may or may not be statist in concept
depending on the context) which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time.
I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian. Thus, without reading anything other
than James's comment I would guess the author's idea is either nonsensical or propagandistic
For me, the world became "multipolar" the minute the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The idea
that the US wishes to maintain its "unipolar" leadership of the world may be true in the
wishful sense of some neocons, however if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it
was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of
Today, I view the world as both multipolar and globalist. While many of the political and
economic tensions we see result from the disconnects between national political and global
economic conditions, I think we must admit if we are honest that many of the more recent
tensions are simply the result of Trump's presidency, which has the intended affect of being
"a bull in the china shop" of the globalist system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing in theory. Sadly, however, Trump is a geopolitical and
foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating
daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he
playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers.
'Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the
fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the
sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these
states , which are supposed to function on behalf of the population of each state, and
in democratic states, are also supposed to be under the control of the overall population
through their democratic institutions. International institutions are there to coordinate
commerce between the different economic systems of sovereign states.
'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not
about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites,
primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to
transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign
states to a set of international institutions under their control.
In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened
with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and
completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of
The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project
and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.
@ donkeytale 15
I think the world has always been multipolar, the differences that give the definition
coming to (being presented to) the forefront, or being dissimilated, according to choice and
circumstance. The globalist direction aims to interweave or merge these differences (cultural
and historic, religion, philosophy and so on), or at least bring them under a common control.
So the idea that multipolarity represents anything more than increased recognition of various
regional power as opposed to recognition of one regional power (say western) as more visible,
is not much more than an indication of how global policy will be conducted, i.e. with an
emphasis on regional responsibility.
Recent US policy is not aimed at destroying the globalist order, it is a result of the
failure of one format of the globalist order, where the global financial order no longer
fitted into national or regional economic sense. This was the gfc, and there is simply no way
to continue the flow of trade and finance as it existed for the previous decades. The easing
of rates across the globe is paliative, it is no solution, you only have to look at national
debt levels to understand this, or in Eurozone try target2 differences. The world is now
partly funded by negative yielding debt. All of this works contrary to capitalist (in its
basic honest philosophy) understanding. In short "something" is going to happen to readjust
this circumstance, planned or otherwise. I have watched how in EU the single currency has
been used to takeover the traditional national hierarchies (banking, political and to a
degree social), but we don't have that sort of framework accepted at global level, only
various currency pegs, bilateral arrangements and so on. The IMF and sdr is not much liked.
What I have noted is virtual central bank currency is being promoted in several ways, be it
the bis just announcing it may become a necessity face to cryptocurrency or similar (with a
caveat of harmonising monetary policy) , EU organising a parallel payment system that avoids
commercial banks, even Instex is along these lines. Where the US and some others truly stand
with regard to this is a different question, as for now it (et al) still enjoy a financial
hegemony that is both organised and profitable. Interesting times, I just hope that a major
event is not the catalyst for reform, that the various parties can agree to withdraw to more
localised structure and agreement if any grand plans meet the resistance or failure that is
already partly visible. I doubt that will be allowed though, by the time people really want
to take part, there won't be much option left and circumstance will already be already
confused and conflictive.
@31 donkeytale.. well, if the usa didn't commit as much paper money as it does to the
military complex it runs, i suppose the financial complex where the us$ can be printed ad
nauseam might come into question.. the sooner oil isn't pegged to the us$ and etc. etc.
happens, the better off the world will be... and, i don't blame the usa people for this..
they are just being used as i see it - much the same here in canada with our politicians
thinking the prudent thing to do is to support the status quo.. the problem is the status quo
can only go on for so long, before a change inevitably happens...
as for swift - they went along with usa sanctions back in 2011 on iran, but then it was
brought to court in europe and overturned... but again - they are back in the same place
bowing down to usa exceptionalism... call it what you want.. another system needs to get made
if this one that exists is beholden to a special interest group - usa-uk-europe, where others
are 2nd rate citizens of the world... same deal imf... these world financial institutions
need to be changed to reflect the changes that are taking place... the voting rights of the
developed countries are skewed to favour the ones who have been raping and pillaging africa,
and etc. etc.. you may not think it matters, but i personally do.. and i don't blame the usa
for it..but they are being used as a conduit to further an agenda which is very unbalanced
and unfriendly to the world as i see it..
I am afraid that I cannot agree with much of what you said.
Dictatorship, as a governance system, has always failed, and will always fail. The
'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S.
in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of
the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations. And
since 2001, they have used the U.S. and British military and intelligence services and NATO
as their personal bludgeon in order to force the submission of any state that did not
voluntarily submit to their project of a 'Global' dictatorship.
Resistance to this 'Globalist' project is at the root of almost all conflicts in the world
today. The 'Multi-Polar' nations resisting the 'Globalists', in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea,
Venezuela, etc. is one front in this resistance. The other front is the resistance of
'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe)
to the 'Globalists.
The Trump Presidency is not the cause of tensions in the world today, as you suggest, but
rather the symptom. Trump understands that without an industrial base, the U.S. is condemned
to becoming the 'India' of the Americas'. The central theme of his actions is to restore the
U.S. industrial base and U.S. sovereignty, which have largely been destroyed by the
'Globalists' and their 'Deep State' machine over the past 40 years. The 'Globalists' need
only the U.S. military and intelligence services, and care nothing for its population and
less for its sovereignty, and thus are fighting Trump every step of the way.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that
is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
Reversing the 'Globalization' that has savaged the U.S. and Europe over the past several
decades will not come easily, nor without pain and tensions, and winners and losers. However
failure to do so guarantees the likely rapid and long term decline and impoverishment of all
populations under 'Globalist' control.
dh-mtl @29 explained it well, I thought, but some still don't seem to get it.
It is the difference between the UN, which has a law-based charter which upholds the national
sovereignty of each nation and forbids aggression against any sovereign country, and
the WTO, which is a rules-based agreement which forbids any national government to pass laws
which interfere in the profits of corporations.
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Putin and Lavrov frequently point to the difference between international law, which they
support, and the "rules-based order" which the US and its partners-in-crime support, in which
the rules are used to destroy sovereign countries and enrich the multi-national corporations
which strip the planet at will, and go to the cheapest labor countries, with no environmental
laws, for their global production lines.
A multi-polar world is one with many sovereign countries, ruled by international law,
respected by all, with peaceful relations between all countries.
Globalism is when corporations rule the world, and we continue on the path of destruction of
all the natural wealth of the world in the turning of nature into commodities and then
@ wagelaborer who wrote
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
I appreciate you, dh-mtl, bevin and others responding to donkeytale. I have not read the
comment because donkeytale is on bypass for me but it is nice to read other commenters taking
on donkeytale BS for others to see....thanks
Sorry if I need to pick your resopnse to donkeytale apart but there are a lot of
inconsistencies in your argument.
The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in
the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the
destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their
You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not
exist or had power before the 1980s, which could not be further from the truth. There are
several reasons why neo-liberalism took hold in the 1980s, creating the economic narrative
and agenda of today, none of which, are related to some kind of power grab by people that did
not hold any power beforehand. The threat of the cold war was waning in the 1980s and elites
felt less pressured by local populations potentially becoming 'too' sympathetic to communism
anymore. So they began rolling back social policies implemented in the post-war years to
counter communism's appeal. Computer technology going mainstream, creating all sorts of
economic spillovers to be harnessed by increased open and international trade was another
reason, there were many more. But the people you call 'globalists' controlled matters much,
much earlier than the 1980s.
The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the
Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.
If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best
interest of their native people at heart, then why is that most European populists cosy up to
Israel? None of them have tried to reclaim control over their Central Banks and in the case
of i.e. Italy, do they try to break free from the Euro? Why are Polish nationalists rabidly
supporting the build up of US arms on their territory? I think it is about time to see beyond
this silly dichotomy of 'Globalist' vs 'Nationalist', at least while these Nationalists do
nothing substantial to actually help their lot and further squeeze the lower classes of their
countries in good neo-liberal fashion, same as their Globalist political 'opponents' they
claim to oppose.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see
that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
So you admit that Trump is essentially a controlled zionist buffoon but at the same time
he is working towards restoring US sovereignty on behalf of the people? You mean he worked
for the US people when he lowered taxes for the rich even further, creating an ever larger US
public debt, and throwing Americans further into debt servitude of private finance? Or do you
mean his still open promise to invest large sums in the US crumbling infrastructure? Oh
right, he has instead opted to increase defence spending to combat the US many imaginary
enemies around the globe.
Look, I agree with you that global neo-liberalism is bad for the vast majority of people
on this planet but don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump or other
'nationalists', you will only find yourself completely disappointed before long.
donkeytale , Jun 30, 2019 6:48:21 PM |
58dh-mtl , Jun 30, 2019 6:50:23 PM |
@50 Alexander P
Response to a few of your criticisms.
1. You say 'You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc.,
etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s'.
Not at all. They lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980. They regained power with Reagan,
followed by Clinton, W, and Obama. You only need to look at any graph that shows when income
inequality in the U.S. began to ramp up. The date is clear - 1980.
2. You say. 'If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold
the best interest of their native people at heart'.
I didn't say that these 'Nationalists' or 'Populists' hold the best interests of their
native peoples at heart. Usually they are only interested in what they see as best for
themselves. But there is no doubt that they are resisting the 'Globalists' push to strip
their countries of their sovereignty, to transfer their wealth to the 'Globalist' elites, to
transfer their industries to wherever labor is the cheapest. I said that this was a 'second
front' against the 'Globalists'. And there is no doubt, from the fight that the 'Globalists'
are waging against Trump, 'Brexit' and populists and nationalists across Europe, that the
'Globalists' take this 'front' seriously.
3. You say. 'don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump'.
You are right. It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At
best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a
necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the
middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.
I agree with Alexander P that nationalist and populist presentation is often either
controlled opposition or a method of splintering and isolating influence. That is not to say
there are a lot of public in many countries who are sincere in their sentiment.
Sorry no link, recent :
"As he arrived at the Kempinski hotel lobby last December, journalists scuffled with
bodyguards as they tried to get their microphones and cameras close. Despite being jostled,
Zanganeh remained calm and waited to deliver a simple message: Iran can’t participate
in OPEC’s production cuts as long as it remains under U.S. sanctions and won’t
allow other members to steal its rightful market share."
I.E. approval for continued reduced opec oil supply to support prices depends on Iran (?),
lower prices otherwise affecting all other producers, and/or Iran is making the case that
sanctions are a theft of market share by other producers. The latter has been a part of the
cause of hostility in the gulf.
"The 2018 report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany
(Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), which was released on June 27, 2019 by the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer and Thomas Haldenwang, head of the organization,
examines the activities of the intelligence services of the Iranian regime in Germany....
The BfV annual report states: "The central task of the Iranian intelligence services is to
spy against opposition movements and confront these movements. In this regard, evidences of
state-sponsored terrorism in Europe, which originates in Iran, have intensified during 2018."
is being used by ncr (the article source) to the effect of calling for closure of the
Iranian embassy. That aside, the report does show Germany is moving towards, or is willing
to, apply pressure on Iran now. France has also given indication that it is not fully behind
Iran (reprimand and warning on not respecting jcpoa etc.)
You are correct to say inequality began rising again in 1980; however, the rise must be
attributed to Carter and Volker--Reagan just continued the process. It seemed odd the GHW
Bush initially opposed it as "Voodoo Economics" but readily championed it all as VEEP, making
it just a political posture in the nomination race.
Thanks for the excellent response. One thing I failed to take into account is the
difference between the EU and the US financial systems so thanks for that corrective
The Euro represents the biggest failure of the EU from where I sit. Centralised control of
the currency and banking systems is a grave error in that construct and the "European
Parliament" just seems too silly for me to even contemplate, although I'm sure there is some
logical explanation for its existence that I'm missing.
And you bet, I'm also sure the day of reckoning for the global debt overload is fast
approaching. What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus
another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed. China, for
instance, has used similar stimulus methods more frequently even than the US since 2008 to
keep its economic growth chugging along and certainly way more than the EU, which under
stimulated its own economy in response to the recession.
IMHO, Brexit is a forced over the top politicised reaction to this conservative German-led
response in light of the fact the UK kept its own currency and banking systems separate and
had the means to provide stimulus but didn't under the Tory buffoons in charge.
Grexit made much more sense to me than Brexit for many reasons. I was dismayed when the
Greek people failed in their courage after voting in Syriza follow through and tell the
Germans to take the Euro and their debt and put it where the sun don't shine.
What I believe people are tending to forget or overlook, such as wagelabourer @ 48 and
dh-mtl elsewhere, that while these postwar international re-orderings such as NATO, the UN
and the EU are nowhere near perfect, they are also not purely NWO conspiratorial constructs.
Rather they were created for a very specific purpose stemming from a lesson of history which
seems to have been rather easily tossed aside because of the relative success of these same
institutions: that is, clashing nationalisms inevitably lead to major conflict and
devastating wars, especially among the major imperialist states.
" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it
consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"
This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.
IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global
supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).
BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake
of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists
desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think
they are losing in the globalisation race.
The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of
mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and
contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries
want to import less and export more.
BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by
being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer,
so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as
Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).
So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it
creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing
We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many
brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it
easy for the UK to play mercantilist.
I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists,
but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed
This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also
EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are
rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a
rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in
practice trying to do.
The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries
inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that
must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money
finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.
The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as
on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on
an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes
known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)
The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets
VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.
So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic
inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and
asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy
that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net
The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal
consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where
internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by
exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net
However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end
up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to
blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are
forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.
“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may
not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”
As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a
(real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my
Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.
The first explicit reaction against globalization to gain
popular attention was the Battle of Seattle in 1999
Why not the Zapatista uprising in 1994? It was explicitly against Nafta and neoliberalism.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis also triggered a very strong reaction against the US centered
globalized financial system, its hedge funds, and the IMF.
the neoliberal ideology on which it rested, didn't face any serious challenge until the
Global Financial Crisis of 2008
In 2003, the unified challenge of the poorer countries was so serious that it the collapsed
the WTO talks to the point that it has never recovered. 2008 was simply catastrophic.
More than globalization being challenged, I think it is US hegemony. Trump is definitely
uniting its challengers with his media circus in Venezuela, disruptive tariff threats against
Mexico, and the blacklisting of Huawei.
Likbez 06.09.19 at 11:38 pm (no link)
Trump election in 2016 was in essence a rejection of neoliberal globalization by the
American electorate which showed the USA neoliberal establishment the middle finger. That's
probably why Russiagate hysteria was launched to create a smoke screen and patch the
The same is probably true about Brexit. That's also explains Great Britain prominent role
in pushing anti-Russia hysteria.
I think the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 (along with the collapse of financial
markets) mortally wounded "classic" neoliberal globalization. That's why we see the
conversion of classic neoliberalism into Trump's "national neoliberalism" which rejects
"classic" neoliberal globalization based on multinational treaties like WTO.
As the result of crisis of neoliberal ideology we see re-emergence of far-right on the
political scene. We might also see the emergence of hostile to each other trading blocks
(China Russia Turkey Iran; possibly plus Brazil and India ) vs G7. History repeats
I suspect that the USA neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy and MIC) views the current
trade war with China as the key chance to revitalize Cold War schemes and strategically
organize US economic, foreign and security policies around them. It looks like this strategic
arrangement is very similar to the suppression of the USSR economic development during the
The tragedy is that Trump administration is launching the conflict with China, while
simultaneously antagonizing Russia, attacking EU and undermining elements of the postwar
world order which propelled the USA to its current hegemonic position.
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street
Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as
announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British
politics in the age of
Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least
of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain,
visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British
society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of
people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May
was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a
single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her
valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with
ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster
and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been
blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down
the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to
the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a
place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from
its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the
interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though
and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort
of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed
in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by
self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient
history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication
coincided with the referendum in 2016.
who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The
only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In
this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant
emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised
what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting
scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got
them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up
critics, as in Turkey.
entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17
Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant,
the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through
which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation,
privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they
can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the
rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you,"
they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers
in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why
should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a
startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on
compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan,
though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end
of the country.
Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain.
In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a
low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
It is unclear whether May really wanted to implement Brexit deal but at least she negotiated several EU offers. It was UK
Parliament that rejects the offers.
I think May claim to fame might be not her failure in Brexit negotiation, but orchestration of infamous Skripals poisoning
false flag and the bout of Russophobia, as well as her attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections in the USA.
"... History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. ..."
"... she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking". ..."
"... a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ..."
"... When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. ..."
"... the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period. ..."
"... What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business. ..."
"... We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task ..."
"... The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves. ..."
"... Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. ..."
"... It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money. ..."
"... May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely. ..."
"... The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge". ..."
"... She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment ..."
History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself
at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that,
contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who
would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the
briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of
poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of
homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords,
services starved of funds and price rises.
And that's without even mentioning Brexit.
Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly
failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George
Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".
That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political
party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be
that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn,
in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a
thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring
campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.
The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political
nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct
sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her
intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and
global laughing stock ".
This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative
Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence
prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the
length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a
quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party
has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has
managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period,
however much one may deplore that climate and that period.
What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power
and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a
difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is
too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the
leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who
came from a (brief) career in business.
Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.
May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the
tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her
to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against
insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?
She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed,
she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand.
We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel
– and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the
The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of
her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment
in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after,
much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing
Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her
admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.
Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its
lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a
politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of
having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from
beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris
Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be
enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.
In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a
safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments,
thrills and spills.
Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially
insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What
do they get in return? Nothing at all.
This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US
had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.
Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and
most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute
force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.
The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US
took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.
The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is
anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military
support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.
ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer.
Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in
5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with
ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take
their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.
The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with
Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G,
they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.
Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp.
Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to
forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with
Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the
Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.
Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without
out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump
the idiots idiot.
May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the
shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under
the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.
The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors
contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been
the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you
may as well be looking at yourselves.
Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane
hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration
in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your
products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the
Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why
should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in
this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain
should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is
looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses
to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global
investment FOR NOTHING!
It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as
everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not
personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper.
Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about
themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.
May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.
To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.
As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an
alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I
swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.
When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT
party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous
referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other
mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the
electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.
Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British
democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.
May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to
"negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after
wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and
water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially
be bound to the EU indefinitely.
The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery,
in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has
prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be
a process of "subtle subterfuge".
The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything
else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by
Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed
away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the
clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats
work out the details later; they aren't that important.
She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM
who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment
**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until
Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump,
British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will
abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through
the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal
agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second
confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her
top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers,
effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed
MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed
May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the
contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver
Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel
to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her
resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended
up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed
nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their
majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been
telegraphed well in advance.
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her
husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards
new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to
placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are
plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss
words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And
the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
"... there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering. ..."
"... the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general ..."
"... It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. ..."
"... I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. ..."
So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have
happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes)
would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No.
10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments
Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone
long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that
couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.
Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office,
particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to
find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her
idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.
It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of
manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary.
Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head
against the wall for many months.
I imagine May's one hope for near term solace is if Boris is indeed the next prime minister. Even she
will benefit from being compared to him.
That's immaterial. Boris is exactly like Trump, he lies and lies and lies, and even when caught out
lying, he simply does not care and carries on lying.
As for Leadsom saying a second referendum would be 'dangerously divisive', what planet is she on? The
first referendum has proved incredibly dangerously divisive. To the extent, I doubt there can ever be
any general acceptance of either leave or stay, whichever happens.
If turnout is high, and Farage polls > than LD+SNP+GREEN+TIG, it could be seen as a strong signal
for no deal. Low turnout means little.
High turnout + result can mean something. But what exactly depends on the result. Even then, high
turnout with Farage winning (even getting less votes than remain) could easily generate some pro
Best pro-remain result (but IMO extremely highly unlikely) would be high turnout (>50%), Farage +/-
same as LD (say even with LD second but only by a few points), but significantly less than
I know this is anecdotal, but many of my European friends would like the Brits to stay in the
EU. However, as vlade mentions, the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on
Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general. If the populist gains are weak in the EU
elections and the Farage clique receives a mandate for hard Brexit, it is possible that the EU will
severely punish the UK. Many European citizens want the Brits to stay, but are tired of their
whinging and the anti-european propaganda being vomited forth by the UK tabloid press. Assaults on
EU citizens speaking European languages are becoming all too common. If Farage is elected with a
big turnout, EU citizens will demand punishment.
There is no mandate granted by the EU elections, because there is no method a small EU
splinter faction (Farage's Faction, large only in his imagination) can achieve anything against
the "we are in the EU to stay" majority in the European Parliament.
The Farage Faction in the EU parliament, will be less effective that the Lone Libertarian
Senator in the US Senate, who is only there to demonstrate that the Republican Party are no
completely crazy, and do have one of two realistic policies.
1. No GE, May for Ever, Brext limbo, EU Membership continues until the UK stops paying the EU, or
the people over 50 die and the young eliminate this circus.
2. The Labor, Green, Scot's Nat's, and LibDems form a collision (intended) Government, and continue
Parliament has clearly demonstrated the wishes of the British people: No to the EU, No to the EU EU
dictated withdrawal agreement (aka the MAY (Make Everybody Yell in pain) agreement, and No Crash out
(No British 2 fingered salute, equivalent to the US 1 fingered salute)*
What remains is Limbo, without flexibility – Remain but with Denial, and a change from a Badly
Managed County, to a Badly Managed Country by a different set of Clowns.
As Maggie Thatched remarked: There Is No Alternative.
* The UK uses a two fingered salute, because British Men can consider two things at the same time,
Beer and Women, unlike the French (Hereditary Enemies) who can only consider one thing at a time.
**Just to clarify – British men can CONSIDER two things at the same time. Actually performing two
things at the same time runs into the standard limitations of the Male Brain.
And to think that it was only yesterday that yet another Brexit date went by. That was the one agreed to
in March where the EU agreed to delay Brexit until May 22nd if British MPs back Prime Minister Theresa May's
deal. The idea was that any later and a resentful UK would be taking part in the EU elections. Well, that
didn't work out for anybody.
It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the
bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. The UK has cut those
bonds and the results are so bad that the United Nations has come out with a report (
saying that they have created a "harsh and uncaring" environment for people, that '14 million UK residents
live in poverty, and that some 1.5 million of them were unable to afford basic essentials in 2017.' No
wonder people feel little connection between themselves and those running the country
I was just listening to the news and it sounds like May was making all sorts of concessions in the deal that
she was working on without consulting anybody else in government. There are so many people leaving her side
now, that she may be the last person left standing in government. She is still clinging onto power but her
own party members are busy stomping on her fingertips as a tipping point has been reached. Labour does not
seem to be gaining by this either as they are bleeding votes to other parties due to their own Brexit
position. This is going to get ugly when it comes time to choose a new leader. Prime Minister Nigel Farage
Yaargh for the "No Sex Please" reference!
Plus, "skidmarks" is a common reference of an insulting nature here Down South. Kudos!
The infamous joke ends with; " and the dude had skidmarks on the front of his drawers!"
So, 'skidmarks' is all too likely a result from the upcoming EU elections.
I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to
resign. There is nothing they can offer to trade with her in return for her resigning because she won't
listen, ever, to anyone so she simply won't hear the offer being made over the din of her own droning.
Maybe The Queen can legally send some heavy-booted people over to physically drag her out of parliament?
AFAIK, the 1922 Committee
change the rules to allow her to be challenged. The issue –
just as with Trump – is that dealing with someone who breaks the informal consensus by breaking the
formal consensus (changing the rules, even if it is just "for a special case") is not necessarily easy or
sure to lead to the desired outcome (what if the special vote fails to oust May? Will the next leader be
challenged early, too?).
After all, if the 12-month grace period has been set aside once, it can surely be done again, and no
presumptive Tory PM is interested in being more restrained by the committee (for both noble and ignoble
reasons, I'm sure, though I suspect the ratio to be tilted in the latter direction).
But she's the Queen's prime minister. Doesn't matter if she's not leader of her party. Or does it?
There have been mixed rumours on HM's views on the EU, which I suppose shows her subtlety. But if she
is subtle, HM will find a way not to get involved.
I hadn't considered that! What if May is summoned by the chief whip and suspended, just like
Heseltine when he declared he was going to vote for the Lib Dems? Can she dismiss the chief whip
with a click of her fingers? L'etat, c'est moi.
I've no idea about the formal route for expulsion from the party, but it seems Widdecombe was
subjected to the rules when she declared for Whatever Nigel's Having.
It's important to remember (and too easily forgotten) that the challenge to May's position is as leader
of the Conservative party, not as Prime Minister. Of course historically the two have been coterminous, but
they don't absolutely have to be. Normally, what happens is that a PM's political missteps result in forced
resignation or a leadership challenge, and the winner of the ensuing competition becomes PM. Eden resigned
after Suez, Heath was forced out after losing the 1974 election etc. But both of these cases (and indeed
Thatcher in 1990) were rather like sacking the managing director of an unsuccessful company. The Tory Party
wanted to get back in power, or make sure it stayed there, and internal political and personal divisions
didn't matter that much. (The Tory Party was more Thatcherite in 1990 than it was in 1975 when she took
over: it was simply that the party didn't think it could win another election with her in charge.)
What we have now is different. Not only has May made a disastrous mess of Brexit, she has also had to manage
a bitterly divided party, full of people who hate each other and have completely irreconcilable political
views and agendas. Whilst there have been Cabinets before with warring cliques, and PMs struggling to manage
divided parties, I don't think there has ever been a situation like this, where the two are lethally
combined, and the incumbent PM is not capable of dealing with either. It's possible to imagine another
leader having done a better job in managing the politics and diplomacy of Brexit: it's hard to imagine
anyone doing it worse. But it is also hard to imagine anyone else having done a less bad job of keeping a
violently fractious party together.
Paradoxically, May's actual performance under both headings has had little impact on the strength of her
position. It seems to be acknowledged that she has been as a disaster as PM, but the problem is that getting
rid of her is not a solution. Indeed, it would probably make the situation worse, and destroy the Tory Party
completely, which is why she is still where she is. I don't think even those who want to get rid of her most
fervently believe that doing so would unite the party or make it more electable. It's all about personal and
political agendas. Far from resolving the crisis, her departure, which can't now long be delayed, will only
exacerbate it: the first time this has happened, I think, in modern British history.
Under all the normal rules of politics, May would have been gone months, if not years, ago. That's not in
dispute. But in the past there were heavyweight challengers already waiting to take over from the PM of the
day, and parties (especially the Tories) would rally round a new leader to stay in power or have a better
chance of taking it. It's an index of how completely the Tory Party has been destroyed by Thatcher and her
successors, that it's a talent-free zone made up of people who would happily destroy a party, a government
and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. The situation now resembles the last days of a weak and
discredited monarch, with no apparent successor and courtiers manoeuvring for advantage. Historically, that
usually led to a civil war of some kind, and I expect that,
, that's what we're in
I think your last two lines are highly significant. I've been trying to get my head around how it is
that Johnson has suddenly become the favourite to become PM, when he is supposedly almost universally
loathed within the party hierarchy and seemed to have blown what little chance he had last year. But it
is, as you say, more like the lethal jostling when a monarch is dying without a successor – half the
people around are trying to manoeuvre for the crown, the other half are trying to make sure they don't
lose their head if the 'wrong' person gets selected. It has nothing to do with regular democratic
Whatever else, it will make the next Tory party conference rather entertaining viewing now that GoT is
For forty years now the economic and political philosophy of Milton Friedman has dominated and guided
politics in the UK and the US. Reading some of his most famous quotes makes clear why it has all ended so
badly, failed so spectacularly. As long as enough of the old system held on to keep things working the
con continued. That's over now, even if the current crop of "talent-free people who would happily
destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. " don't realize it's
I'm afraid I have absolutely zero sympathy for May, Yves. Apart from the Windrush scandal, she has always
been absolutely horrific on civil liberties. And let's not forget she has approved the sales of arms to the
Saudis for their genocide in Yemen. As a believer in Scottish independence, however, if she enables a second
referendum in Scotland, that would be one accomplishment, though not an intended one for her!
As someone who shares her physical clumsiness, I used to feel quite sorry for her when she was on the
receiving end of so much abuse, she seemed to me to be admirable in the way she had made her way through
such a pit of vipers to get to the top. But I think the cumulative evidence now is that, quite simply,
she is a genuinely hateful person – she's been responsible for too many genuinely horrible policies, many
of which were promoted solely for her personal ambition. There are many, many more people deserving of
Suggestion: watch carefully what happens to May when she finally leaves office (as the surgeons say, all
bleeding stops eventually). Will May sink into a shabby retirement? Or will she be quietly feted by the big
banks, put on the boards of directors of various companies, end up a multi-millionaire etc., like Tony Blair
In other words: was May merely stupid, or was she a useful agent of chaos? Follow the money, and
eventually, we will know.
Now I'm all for changing one's mind when the facts change/emerge – as I did – from a BrExiter ( aka a
kick up the arse to the EU ( for Greece ) and the UK establishment ) to 2nd referendum/remain as the
complexities, particularly the N.I. / Eire border aspect, came into focus – but this continual changes in
positions by ALL sort of main-party politicians amazes me – when you compromise and STILL fail to deliver,
its truly hapless, inept.
As the Belfast Telegraph put it ( back in March at that ! ):
The repeated failure to make Brexit less of a shambles suggests that politicians on all sides share
that lack of conviction in their own judgment.
What's more terrifying still is that it increasingly looks as if they are right to think so little of
their own abilities.
The terrifying thing is this is only the first stage.
Paradoxically, as the mess unfolds, my regular conversations and emails with Brit family and friends, all
always politically engaged, this is mygen, nextgen, + nextgen+1 are less and less about it. They are all
just getting on with their daily lives. I'm perhaps more animated about this than they are ! Just yesterday,
all we talked about was our booking for a 4 day narrow-boat/canal boat trip and how excited the nextgen+1
are. So there is that, I suppose.
I completely agree and fervently hope that Brexit is the end of Thatcherism in the UK. We want to return
to government of the people, by the people, etc., and not this constant flow of concessions to merchants
that the moneymen in parliament enact to profit from. It has never yet been the case that electors in UK
vote for companies – that's just the Tories working their insidious evil through the Chambers of Commerce –
off with their heads. Back to Keynes and caring government.
When you hear the same cue words you know exactly where it comes from.
Peace as its goal through staged wars ( undeclared since WW11).
February 9, 1950 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent
Resolution 66 which begins:
"Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the
United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."
The resolution was first introduced in the Senate on September 13, 1949 by Senator Glen
Taylor (D-Idaho). Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) called it "a consummation devoutly to
be wished for" and said, "I understand your proposition is either change the United Nations,
or change or create, by a separate convention, a world order." Senator Taylor later
"We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable
them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves."
Me**** the problem with this draft of war plan is that if you are pointing fingers of a
" Presidential coup" at home and expect the Treasonous culprits to do time, you can't
purpose the same scheme in a foreign country without reprecusions.
And I think that is the Traitors in the White House plan to save their slimy asses....
Expose the undeclared coup through media ( weaponized as usual) and bring down Barrs
attempts to clean up our own swamp.
As commander in chief Trump has a n op problem.
Whoever inititated this because of ecconomic warefare ( bankers... How the web catches
you at every corner) both at home ( USA) and world.
War, undeclared, declared, either way and use universal peace as goal equals profits for
the war machine and depopulation for the world.
Win win situation for the original planers of one world govetnment.
You remember Dulles don't you ( Dulles airport).
New plan same as the old plan:
April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a
speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that "treaty laws can
override the Constitution." He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give
them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal
Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the
people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.
A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no
treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote."
This is an interesting but probably way too simplistic view. The USA as a neoliberal
superpower can't change its course. It now depends and it turn needs to support all the
neoliberal empire superstructure no matter what. Or vanish as en empire. Which is not in
Washington and MIC or Wall Street interests.
So "Empire Uber Alles" is the current policy which will remain in place. Even a slight
deviation triggers the reaction of the imperial caste (Mueller witch hunt is one example,
although I do not understand why it lasted so long, as Trump folded almost instantly and became
just Bush III with the same set of neocons driving the USA foreign policy )
The internal logic of neoliberal empire is globalization -- enforcing opening of internal
markets of other countries for the US multinationals and banks. So the conflict with the
"nationalist" (as as neocon slur them "autocratic") states, which does not want to became the USA
vassals ( like the Russia and China ) is not the anomaly, but the logical consequence of the USA
status and pretenses as imperial center. Putin tried to establish some kind of détente
several time. He failed: "Carnage needs to be destroyed" is the only possible attitude and it
naturally created strong defensive reaction which in turn strains the USA resources.
Meantime the standard of living of workers and middle class dropped. While most of the drop
is attributable to neoliberalism redistribution of wealth up, part of it is probably is
attributable to the imperial status of the USA.
The USA neoliberal elite after 1991 became completely detached from reality (aka infected
with imperil hubris) and we have what we have.
Those 700 billions that went to Pentagon speak for themselves.
And in turn create the caste of imperial servants that are strongly interested in maintaining
the status quo and quite capable to cut short any attempts to change it. The dominance of neocons
(who are essentially lobbyists of MIC) in the Department of State is a nice illustration of this
So the core reason of the USA current neocon foreign policy is demands and internal dynamics
of neoliberal globalization and MIC.
In other words, as Dani Rodik said "...today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in
"hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies,
regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models."
The American foreign policy Blob's latest worry is that Venezuela's radical leftist
reaching out to the Middle East for support against growing pressure from Washington.
Specifically, President Nicolás Maduro is reportedly trying to establish extensive
political and financial links with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally in Lebanon,
Hezbollah . The
latter has repeatedly condemned
U.S. policy towards Maduro , and already appears to have
shadowy economic ties to Caracas. There are indications that Maduro's regime may be
utilizing Hezbollah to launder funds from the illegal drug trade.
Washington's fear is that lurking behind an Assad-Hezbollah-Maduro alliance is America's
arch-nemesis, Iran, which has close relations with both Assad and Hezbollah. Tehran's apparent
objective would be to strengthen the Venezuelan regime, boost anti-U.S. sentiment in the
Western Hemisphere, and perhaps acquire some laundered money
from a joint Maduro-Hezbollah operation to ease the pain of U.S. economic sanctions
re-imposed following the Trump administration's repudiation of the nuclear deal.
Although Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah remain primarily concerned with developments in their
own region, the fear that they want to undermine Washington's power in its own backyard is not
unfounded. But U.S. leaders should ask themselves why such diverse factions would coalesce
behind that objective.
It is hardly the only example of this to emerge in recent years, and the principal cause
appears to be Washington's own excessively belligerent policies. That approach is driving
together regimes that have little in common except the need to resist U.S. pressure.
Washington's menacing posture undermines rather than enhances American security, and especially
in one case -- provoking an expanding entente between Russia and China -- it poses a grave
The current flirtation between Caracas and anti-American factions in the Middle East is not
the first time that American leaders have worried about collaboration among heterogeneous
adversaries. U.S. intelligence agencies and much of the foreign policy community warned for
years about cooperation between Iran
and North Korea over
both nuclear and ballistic missiletechnology
. During the Cold War, a succession of U.S. administrations expressed frustration and anger at
the de facto alliance between the totalitarian Soviet Union and democratic India. Yet the
underlying cause for that association was not hard to fathom. Both countries opposed U.S.
global primacy. India was especially uneasy about Washington's knee-jerk diplomatic and military support for
Pakistan , despite that country's history of dictatorial rule and aggression.
Alienating India was a profoundly unwise policy. So, too, has been Washington's longstanding
obsession with weakening and isolating Iran and North Korea. Those two countries have almost
nothing in common, ideologically, politically, geographically, or economically. One is a weird
East Asian regime based on dynastic Stalinism, while the other is a reactionary Middle East
Muslim theocracy. Without the incentive that unrelenting U.S. hostility provides, there is
little reason to believe that Tehran and Pyongyang would be allies. But Washington's vehemently
anti-nuclear policy towards both regimes, and the brutal economic sanctions that followed, have
helped cement a de facto alliance between two very strange bedfellows.
Iranian and North Korean leaders have apparently reached the logical conclusion that the
best way to discourage U.S. leaders from considering forcible regime change towards either of
their countries was to cooperate in strengthening their respective nuclear and missile
regime change wars , which ousted Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gaddafi -- and
the unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Syria's Assad -- reinforced such fears.
The most worrisome and potentially deadly case in which abrasive U.S. behavior has driven
together two unlikely allies is the deepening relationship between Russia and China.
"freedom of navigation" patrols in the South China Sea have antagonized Beijing, which has
extensive territorial claims in and around that body of water. Chinese protests have grown in
both number and intensity. Bilateral relations have also deteriorated because of Beijing's
increasingly aggressive posture toward Taiwan and
Washington's growing support for the island's de facto independence. The ongoing trade war
between the United States and China has only added to the animosity. Chinese leaders see
American policy as evidence of Washington's determination to continue
its status of primacy in East Asia, and they seek ways to undermine it.
Close cooperation between Russia and China is all the more remarkable given the extent of
their bitterly competing interests in Central Asia and elsewhere. A mutual fear of and anger
toward the United States, however, seems to have overshadowed such potential quarrels -- at
least for now.
There even appears to be a "grand collusion" of multiple U.S. adversaries forming. Both
Russia and China are increasing their economic links with
Venezuela , and Russia's military involvement with the Maduro regime is also on the rise.
Last month, Moscow dispatched two nuclear-capable bombers to Caracas
along with approximately 100 military personnel. The latter contingent's mission was to
repair and refurbish Venezuela's air defense system in light of Washington's menacing rhetoric.
That move drew a
sharp response from President Trump.
Moscow's policy toward the Assad government, Tehran, and Hezbollah has also become more
active and supportive. Indeed, Russia's military intervention in Syria, beginning in 2015, was
crucial factor in tilting the war in favor of Assad's forces, which have now regained
control over most of Syria. Washington is thus witnessing Russia getting behind two of its
major adversaries: Venezuela and an Iran-led coalition in the Middle East.
This is a classic example of
balancing behavior on the part of countries worried about a stronger power that pursues
aggression. Historically, weaker competitors face a choice when confronting such a power:
bandwagon or attempt to balance against that would-be hegemon. Some very weak nations may
have little choice but to cower and accept dependent status, but most midsize powers (and even
some small ones) will choose the path of defiance. As part of that balancing strategy, they
tend to seek any allies that might prove useful, regardless of differences. When the perceived
threat is great enough, such factors are ignored or submerged. The United States and Britain
did so when they formed the Grand Alliance with the totalitarian Soviet Union in World War II
to defeat Nazi Germany. Indeed, the American revolutionaries made common cause with two
reactionary autocracies, France and Spain, to win independence from Britain.
The current U.S. policy has produced an array of unpleasant results, and cries out for
reassessment. Washington has created needless grief for itself. It entails considerable
ineptitude to foster collaboration between Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of adding
Assad's secular government and Maduro's quasi-communist regime to the mix. Even worse are the
policy blunders that have driven Russia to support such motley clients and forge ever-closer
economic and military links with a natural rival like China. It is extremely unwise for any
country, even a superpower, to multiply the number of its adversaries needlessly and drive them
together into a common front. Yet that is the blunder the United States is busily
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 800 articles. His latest book
is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (2019).
"I never thought I'd be saying this, but if the Soviet Union still existed, the United States
would not dare to do what it is doing now" – said to me by an anti-Communist Romanian
who had fled Romania when it was still Communist ruled. We were attending a demonstration
against the Clinton air war which was the final death blow to Yugoslavia.
The emergence of a powerful anti-American world coalition is a good thing; US world
hegemony has been good neither for the US nor for the world. The main danger is that the US,
seeing its power slip away, will resort to all out war, even nuclear war. I pray that the US
rulers are at least sane even if they are quite evil and over-bearing.
Current US foreign policy, set by the White House and Commander-in-Chief, reflects the beliefs
of the Deplorables who put Trump into office: sadly, most of these dupes believe the myth of
American Exceptionalism [copyright Sarah Palin]. The nexus of confusing social media and
reality TV with genuine reality, and 1950s Hollywood jingoism, has them waiting for a crisis
[possibly a gay Star Wars/Kardashian-type monster] that can only be saved before the final
commercial by their 'Hero'.
Let's see here.
It's gotten to the point where the great United States is ruled by Trump and the strangest of
people, like freak Bolton and Pompeo and the Presidents son in law?
Are the voters nuts? The lousy choices of war mongers Hillary and Trump?
Look at the foreign leaders in the pictures.
Then look at the nasty hate filled, historically ignorant bums I named above.
They, the leaders of those four nations threaten no one and no other nation, but clown Trump
and his advisers do every day.
Take away any power from Trump and his advisers, yeah, wishful thinking, I know, and read a
book by Noam Chomsky or an article or three by Bernie Sanders and maybe you will see what a
circus the white house is, of this nation. Ironically, America has never been LESS great. What
a damn crying shame, know what I mean?
There is a diverse coalition of weaker countries opposing the U.S. because
A. Each have been the target of regime change and figure they they better pool their resources
and help each other when they can 'the axis of resistance'.
B. The wolves are waiting at the wood's edge just waiting to humiliate the United States, the
last flickering light of all that is good.
Well since we are a nation of narcissists we believe B because we cannot fathom that other
countries act in their own interests.
This slur "authoritarian state" is now peddled by neocons as synonym for the "countries we do not like"
This neocons in not very inventive... We already saw this line from Robert Kagan, who
actually is a better writer. This neocon/neolib pressitute can't even use proper terms such as
"neoliberalism" and "Washington consensus"
And slide to far-right nationalism and neo-fascism is direct result of neoliberalism
dominance for the last 40 years (since Carter) and sliding of the standard of living of workers
and the middle class.
"... Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world. ..."
As international rivalry intensifies, the core strategic task for the U.S.-led democratic
community is to contain the geopolitical influence and political disruption caused by
authoritarian great powers, namely China and Russia. Yet that task is made all the harder
because illiberalism -- and sympathy for those illiberal powers -- is simultaneously surging
among key actors on the political right. If the U.S. and its allies are to succeed in the great
global rivalry of the 21st century, the right must confront the threat of illiberalism within
its ranks -- just as the left did during a previous twilight struggle in the 20th century.
... ... ...
This time, the threat is not expansionist communism, but a combination of autocracy and
geopolitical revisionism. China has been moving toward a dystopian future of high-tech
authoritarianism, as it pushes for greater power and influence overseas. Putin's Russia has
consolidated an illiberal oligarchy, while using information warfare, political meddling and
other tools to subvert liberal democracies in Europe, the U.S. and beyond.
Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western
values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world.
... ... ...
It is not for nothing that the political scientist Marc Plattner has
written that the gravest threat to liberal democracy today is “that it will end up
being abandoned by substantial segments of the right.” And even in the U.S., there are
alarming signs that conservative commitment to the norms of liberal democracy is under
Communism was not a threat, but actually benefited the world in many ways.
It was communism that put pressure on capitalism to provide labor a fair share of wealth and
income. As soon as Soviet communism collapsed, capitalism returned to its avaricious roots,
resulting in stagnant wages for the working class. And the pauperization of the working class
in recent decades is the cause for the current revolt against liberal capitalism.
So it was the competition from communism that was helping capitalism to stay healthy. Without
it capitalism has degenerated into a Dickensian dystopia. We should therefore welcome any
alternative socio-economic models to liberal capitalism.
Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, who has long been a leading conservative
intellectual, warns that this disillusion with liberal democracy “is clearly present
among American conservatives, and not just among the ‘alt-right.’
Honest and real conservatives are far and fewer in today's MAGA/tea party infested GOP.
Forget career politicians like Ted Cruz or McConnell, even the previously decent conservative
think tanks/pundits like from NR or Erik Erickson or others have all given up on any
principles and just bow at the altar of Trump now.
The biggest need is to resist holy warriors like Hal Brands who want to destroy the world
if it resists their version of revealed truth. They are the biggest threat to the human
future. The United States has to learn to live in a world that it cannot control. The
American goal should be to work towards a constructive human future not some kind of holy war
to impose American control on the rest of the world. The United States is the biggest
military spender. In recent history, It has been the world's global aggressor.
It has an
history of wars that have made little difference whether America won or lost them. Perhaps
the United States could succeed with some kind of genocide that wiped out all of the parts of
the world that refuse to accept American supremacy. But, short of that kind of disgrace, the
United States is not going to succeed in achieving any meaningful goal through war. As long
as America does not destroy the world, the future is going to be determined by economic
competition and the destinies that the people of different parts of the world choose for
I might suggest that liberals themselves are destroying their freedoms with illogical
YOU can't do that, say that, act like that, think like that...no no no...we must act and
be correct, nice, polite, all forgiving and never critical.
The freedoms that so many of us marched for, fought for, voted for, sang about (thank gawd
the music still lives), got bloody for, even died for, are slipping away quicker than you can
say me, me, me...it's all about me.
Maybe...small maybe...our youth can once again awaken America and the world's conscience.
Maybe? Maybe not!
"... Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair. ..."
"... Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have called "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers" in the language of trade economists and lawyers. ..."
Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to
foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot
accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair.
CAMBRIDGE – The world economy desperately needs a plan for "peaceful coexistence" between the United States and China. Both sides
need to accept the other's right to develop under its own terms. The US must not try to reshape the Chinese economy in its image
of a capitalist market economy, and China must recognize America's concerns regarding employment and technology leakages, and accept
the occasional limits on access to US markets implied by these concerns.
The term "peaceful coexistence" evokes the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev understood
that the communist doctrine of eternal conflict between socialist and capitalist systems had outlived its usefulness. The US and
other Western countries would not be ripe for communist revolutions anytime soon, and they were unlikely to dislodge the Communist
regimes in the Soviet bloc. Communist and capitalist regimes had to live side by side.
Peaceful coexistence during the Cold War may not have looked pretty; there was plenty of friction, with each side sponsoring its
own set of proxies in a battle for global influence. But it was successful in preventing direct military conflict between two superpowers
armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons. Similarly, peaceful economic coexistence between the US and China is the only way
to prevent costly trade wars between the world's two economic giants
Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have
called "hyper-globalism," under
which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies
or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without
such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers"
in the language of trade economists and lawyers.
Thus, the main US complaint against China is that Chinese industrial policies make it difficult for US companies to do business
there. Credit subsidies keep state companies afloat and allow them to overproduce. Intellectual property rules make it easier for
copyrights and patents to be overridden and new technologies to be copied by competitors. Technology-transfer requirements force
foreign investors into joint ventures with domestic firms. Restrictive regulations prevent US financial firms from serving Chinese
customers. President Donald Trump is apparently ready to carry out his threat of slapping additional punitive tariffs on $200 billion
of Chinese exports if China does not yield to US demands in these areas.
For its part, China has little patience for arguments that its exports have been responsible for significant whiplash in US labor
markets or that some of its firms are stealing technological secrets. It would like the US to remain open to Chinese exports and
investment. Yet China's own opening to world trade was carefully managed and sequenced, to avoid adverse impacts on employment and
Peaceful coexistence would require that US and China allow each other greater policy space, with international economic integration
yielding priority to domestic economic and social objectives in both countries (as well as in others). China would have a free hand
to conduct its industrial policies and financial regulations, in order to build a market economy with distinctive Chinese characteristics.
The US would be free to protect its labor markets from
social dumping and to exercise greater oversight over Chinese investments that threaten technological or national security objectives.
The objection that such an approach would open the floodgates of protectionism, bringing world trade to a halt, is based on a
misunderstanding of what drives open trade policies. As the principle of comparative advantage indicates, countries trade because
it is in their own interest. When they undertake policies that restrict trade, it is either because they reap compensating benefits
elsewhere or because of domestic political failures (for example, an inability to compensate the losers).
In the first instance, freer trade is not warranted because it would leave society worse off. In the second case, freer trade
may be warranted, but only to the extent that the political failure is addressed (and compensation is provided). International agreements
and trade partners cannot reliably discriminate between these two cases. And even if they could, it is not clear they can provide
the adequate remedy (enable compensation, to continue the example) or avoid additional political problems (capture by other special
interests such as big banks or multinational firms).
Consider China in this light. Many analysts believe that China's industrial policies have played a key role in its transformation
into an economic powerhouse. If so, it would be neither in China's interests, nor in the interest of the world economy, to curb such
practices. Alternatively, it could be that these policies are economically harmful on balance, as others have argued. Even in that
case, however, the bulk of the costs are borne by the Chinese themselves. Either way, it makes little sense to empower trade negotiators
– and the special interests lurking behind them – to resolve fundamental questions of economic policy on which there is little agreement
even among economists.
Those who worry about the slippery slope of protectionism should take heart from the experience under the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade prior to the establishment of the World Trade Organization. Under the GATT regime, countries had much greater freedom
to pursue their own economic strategies. Trade rules were both weaker and less encompassing. Yet world trade expanded (relative to
global output) at a more rapid clip in the three and a half decades after World War II than it has under the post-1990 hyper-globalist
regime. Similarly, one can make a convincing case that, thanks to its unorthodox growth policies, China today is a larger market
for foreign exporters and investors than if it had stuck to WTO-compliant policies.
Finally, some may say that these considerations are irrelevant, because China has acceded to the WTO and must play by its rules.
But China's entry into the WTO was predicated on the idea that it had become a Western-style market economy, or would become one
soon. This has not happened, and there is no good reason to expect that it will (or should). A mistake cannot be fixed by compounding
A global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy – China – is a regime in urgent need of repair.
"... "The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said. ..."
"... "The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted. ..."
"... "They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues," he said. ..."
"... "In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states." ..."
"... Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence. ..."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared today that the Western, liberal model of society is dying, and a new world order
is taking its place.
Lavrov made the comments at his annual meeting with students and professors at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, reported
Russian state news agency TASS.
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this
is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
According to him, global development is guided "by processes aimed at boosting multipolarity and what we call a polycentric world
"Clearly, multipolarity and the emergence of new centers of power in every way requires efforts to maintain global stability
and search for a balance of interests and compromises, so diplomacy should play a leading role here," Lavrov went on to say.
"Particularly because there are a lot of issues that require generally acceptable solutions."
These include regional conflicts, international terrorism, food security and environmental protection. This is why we believe
that only diplomacy can help make agreements and reach sustainable decisions that will be accepted by all.
"The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted.
"They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic
and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues,"
"In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't
hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states."
When I was a kid, the Soviet Union was the enemy. Now Russia (with an economy, population, military and world influence the
fraction of the United States) seems to be one of the few places in the world that makes any bit of sense and ACTUALLY cares a
little bit about its culture and people.
Fluff The Cat
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is
what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all.Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
A Judaic-Masonic world order is the end goal. It entails the complete loss of sovereignty for all Western nations and the slow
genocide of white Christians via miscegnation and displacement by third-worlders.
I can't think of a man more American than Putin.
Sell the bases, come home, stop bothering others and trying to run world affairs.
Then we can spend a nice nice century or so rebuilding our infrastructure and trimming our out-of-control federal government.
The clue is right there in the name - the united STATES of America. A state is a sovereign country with its own laws - except
for those powers enumerated in the Constitution which the federal government should have.
That's the whole point - competition in government. You don't like the state you're in - you're guaranteed the choice of 49
others, along with all your possessions.
Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence.
Western global dominance, US took over from the British Empire with the assistance of the banksters class. It's all there in
the history books, you just need to spend time
consider me gone
As much as I hate to say it, this was Winston Churchill's idea. Even as the war was just starting, he was a major advocate
for the West controlling the globe after WWII.
But I'll bet he had no idea that the West would abandon traditional Western values in the process. He wouldn't watch TV and
predicted it would turn society into unthinking idiots. He nailed that one anyhow.
"...many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said.
I, for one, would show up early and highly motivated to march against, and to destroy, these treasonous, malevolent, collectivist
The Globalists within the United States government are traitors--traitors, by definition. They have declared war on our republic.
Russia works because they have a ruthless tyrant who happens to be incredibly competent. That same system with a weak ruler
will collapse entirely in a matter of months. I like Putin, but he needs to groom an ironfisted successor pronto.
As for the chows - they need to print half a trillion a month to stay afloat and that's your model?
The west is only fucked because the sleeping masses refuse to acknowledge that Marxists have undermined our institutions...
It would take only a few years to scrub these subversive ***** from our society if we had the balls to do it
yadda yadda yadda.. marxists, subversives, commies, all the catch phrases of ye old Joe McCarthy. Russia works because Russians
have a history of enduring adversity. Unlike Americans.
It is eventually end of era of western imperialism, era that lasted 900 years. Game is over
"... Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance. ..."
"... Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.) ..."
"... Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings. ..."
"... There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined. ..."
"... It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives ..."
"... As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. " ..."
"... Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation. ..."
"... Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better. ..."
"... We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more" ..."
"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a
speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress
at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned
Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged
on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions
of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again.
They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back
on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close
the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given
Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico
a " one-year warning
" before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish
a twenty-five percent
tariff on cars
entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened
before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985,
Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak
into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs
that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view,
but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department
of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone,
6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally,
about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year,
more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the
22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who
will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers
and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a
bill allowing the DHS
secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it
would issue an additional
30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations.
Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor's degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping,
and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies
in the face of Trump's promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled
people to pursue career options in the U.S.," he said in a
tweet in January.
Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board
of his National Council for the American Worker
(which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has
expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders
in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a
plan to grant
citizenship to more "low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers" (so, just about everyone). Kushner's
plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed.
Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump's inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump
has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs
employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation, is a middle-of-the-road
law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the "
catch-and-release " policy, whereby
illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach
or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an "
immigration czar "),
but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump's failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent
interview , "It's not like we're powerless and it's not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually
solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting." Solving the border crisis would simply demand "leadership in the executive branch
willing to act decisively." Kobach recently outlined an intelligent
three-point plan that Trump could implement:
Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was
published by the Department of Homeland
Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing
that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting
children as get-out-of-jail free cards. Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one
place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing
the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns
thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which
FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition,
a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not
seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few
weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised.
The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly. Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending
home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico
typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in
remittances , raking in
more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two
things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a "safe third country agreement" similar to our agreement
with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so
applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in
$5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening
to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn't hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely
that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn't cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment
of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in
curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions
of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives . At the same time, he wants to
maintain the illusion that he cares about his base.
As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish.
The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon.
Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics:
threatening to close the border, offering protections to "Dreamers" in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening
to end the "anchor baby" phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries,
claiming that he will appoint an "immigration czar" (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary),
and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to
Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in
reality it will end up being more than
$20 million . The construction
of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu
claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump
and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel's large arsenal of chemical
and biological weapons has escaped mention.) Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the
passing of a
bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional
$550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the
Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump's Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated
by Israel. Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed
to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most
credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess
game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them
all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel
Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program
is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard,
I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing
up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes
me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even
admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue
to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How
do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides
itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving
their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all
You are definitely onto something here.
Still, I feel it's not that deep and complicated. It could be that they simply don't believe that the danger is closing in.
Boils down to wrong judgment. People who haven't had the need to think hard about serious things tend to develop that weakness.
I guess that boils down to "good times make weak men."
Hard times are coming and they'll make hard men.
The catch is simple: will be enough of them in time ?
Switching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's
campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC
has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the
first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination
will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided
by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support
candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have
a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more
on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
Since the 1971 floating of the US dollar onto the global markets, and 1973 creation of the
Petro dollar, the world has experienced a consistent collapse of productive manufacturing jobs,
infrastructure investment, long term planning on the one hand and a simultaneous increase of
de-regulation, short term speculation, financial services, and low wage retail jobs. During
this post 1971 process of decline, debt slavery became a norm both in developed countries and
developing sector nations alike, while outsourcing caused the castration of national
sovereignty and an ever greater reliance on "cheap labor" and "cheap resources" from abroad. It
was even called the
"controlled disintegration" policy of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1978 as he
was preparing to raise interest rates to levels that made it impossible for a majority of small
and medium agro-industrial enterprises to compete against corporate monoliths. The most
concrete model of this collapse was unveiled to the world in 1996 by the late American
economist Lyndon LaRouche known as the Triple Curve Collapse Function.
Some have called this collapse "a failure of globalization". Executive Intelligence Review's
Dennis Small has
repeatedly stated over many years that this is characterization is false. Globalization
should rather be seen as a complete success- in that when looked at from a top down
perspective, it becomes increasingly clear that the architects of this policy achieved exactly
what they set out to do. That intention was to impose an artificial closed/zero-sum game
paradigm upon a species whose distinguishing characteristic is its creative reason and capacity
constantly grow and self-perfect both on the surface of the earth and beyond. A primary figure
in the oligarchy's tool box of sociopathic agents who shaped this program for depopulation and
zero sum thinking over the years is a Canadian-born operative by the name of Maurice Strong.
Although having died in 2015, Strong's life and legacy are worth revisiting as it provides the
modern reader a powerful, albeit ugly insight into the methods and actions of the British-Deep
State agenda that so mis-shaped world history through the latter half of the 20 th
While this exercise will have value for all truth seekers, this story should carry
additional weight for Canadians currently witnessing
their own government collapsing under the weight of the contradictions built into a system
which Strong led in shaping (i.e.: the need for nuclear and industrial productive potential
embodied by SNC Lavalin and the obedience to a "green" post-industrial paradigm antagonistic to
such productive capacity).
Journalist Elaine Dewar's groundbreaking 1994 book "Cloak of Green" which every
truth-seeker should read, dealt rigorously with Strong's role as a recruit of Rockefeller
assets in the 1950s, an oil baron, vice president of Power Corporation by 30, Liberal Party
controller, Privy Councilor, and founder of Canada's neo-colonial external aid policy towards
Africa which tied Africa into IMF debt slaves, we will focus here on the role Strong has played
since 1968 in subverting the anti-entropic potential of both his native Canada and the world at
large. It was through this post-1968 role that Strong performed his most valued work for the
genocidal agenda of his British masters who seek to reduce the world population to a "carrying capacity"
of less than a billion .
RIO and Global Governance
In 1992, Maurice Strong had been assigned to head the second Earth Summit (the first having
been the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment also chaired by Strong). The Rio
Summit had established a new era in the consolidation of NGOs and corporations under the
genocidal green agenda of controlled starvation masquerading behind the dogma of
"sustainability'. This doctrine was formalized with Agenda 21 and the Earth
Charter , which Strong co-authored with his collaborated Jim Macneil during the 1990s. At
the opening of the Rio Summit, Strong announced that industrialized countries had "developed
and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced
our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and
convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and
suburban housing- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to
environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of
international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the
new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the
reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is
simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states,
however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."
Two years earlier, Strong gave an interview
wherein he described a "fiction book" he was fantasizing about writing which he described in
the following manner:
" What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the
Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich
countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they
do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So,
in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that
When this statement is held up parallel to this man's peculiar life, we quickly come to see
that the barrier between reality and fiction is more than a little blurry.
The Destruction of Nuclear Power
It is vital to examine Strong's role in crippling Canada's potential to make use of nuclear
power, one of the greatest beacons of hope mankind has ever had to break out of the current
"fixed" boundaries to humanity's development. Indeed, the controlled use of the atom, along
with the necessary discovery of new universal principles associated with this endeavor, have
always represented one of the greatest strategic threats to the oligarchic system, which
depends on a closed system of fixed resources in order to both manage current populations and
justify global governance under "objective" frameworks of logic. Fission and fusion processes
exist on a level far beyond those fixed parameters that assume the earth's "carrying capacity"
is no greater than the 2 billion souls envisioned by today's London-centered oligarchy. If
mankind were to recognize his unique creative potential to continuously transcend his
limitations by discovering and creating new resources, no empire could long exist. With Canada
as the second nation to have civilian nuclear power, and a frontier science culture in physics
and chemistry, the need to destroy this potential in the mind of the British Deep State of
Canada was great indeed.
To get a better sense of the anti-nuclear role Strong has played in Canadian science policy,
we must actually go back once again to Strong's reign at the Department of External Aid in
Humanity's trend towards utilizing ever more dense forms of fire was always driven by a
commitment to scientific and technological progress. The realization that this process drives
the increase of human potential population density (both in quantity and quality of life) was
recognized at the turn of the 20th century and serves as the foundation for American economist
Lyndon LaRouche's method of economic forecasting. The graph above features American per capita
access to energy and the post-1975 sabotage of the expected transition to nuclear fission and
Technological Apartheid for Africa
A key reason that Strong had been brought into Canada's Civil Service to head up the
External Aid office in 1966 was to sabotage the international efforts leading scientists and
statesmen had achieved in making Canada an exporter of its original CANDU reactors. Since 1955,
leading patriots within Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) and the National Research Council such
as C.D. Howe and his collaborator C.W. Mackenzie, ensured that the export of advanced nuclear
technology was made available to developing countries such as India and Pakistan. In Canada
this policy was advanced vigorously by Prime
Minister John Diefenbaker, who also saw atomic power as the key to world peace.
The banners under which this advanced technology transfer occurred were both the Columbo Plan and President
Atoms for Peace . This progressive approach to international development defined "external
aid" not around IMF conditionalities, or simply money for its own sake, but rather as the
transfer of the most advanced science and technology to poor countries with the explicit
intention that all nations would attain true sovereignty. This is the model that China has
adopted today under the
Belt and Road Initiative.
When Strong got to work in External Aid, and later formed the Canadian International
Development Agency, Canada's relationship to "LDCs" (lesser developed countries) became reduced
to advancing "appropriate technologies" under the framework of monetarism and a perverse form
of systems analysis. After JFK's assassination, a parallel operation was conducted in America's
USAid. No technology or advanced infrastructure policy necessary for the independence of former
colonies were permitted under this precursor to what later became known as "sustainability" and
"zero growth". Under Strong's influence, Canada's role became perverted into inducing LDCs to
become obedient to IMF/World Bank "conditionalities" and the reforms of their bureaucracies
demanded by the OECD in order to receive money. Both in Canada and in developing countries,
Strong was among the key agents who oversaw the implementation of the OECD's strategy of
"closed systems analysis" for national policy management.
Petrol and Pandas
In his role as President of Petro Canada (1976-78), Strong endorsed the national call to create a nuclear moratorium for
Canada which had been carried out by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in
1977. This document not only demanded an immediate halt to the continuation of all reactors
then under construction, but also made the sophistical argument that more jobs could be created
if "ecologically friendly" energy sources and conservation methods were developed instead of
nuclear and fossil fuels. Strange desires coming from an oil executive, but not so strange
considering Strong's 1978-1981 role as Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an
organization founded by the British and Dutch monarchies as a Royal Dutch Shell initiative in
1963. Strong was Vice President during the same interval that WWF co-founder Prince Philip was
In 1971, while still heading up the External Aid Department, Strong was a founding member of
the 1001 Club, which was an elite international organization created by Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands created to finance the emerging green agenda for world governance. The 1001 Club
worked in tandem with Prince Bernhard's other secretive club known as the "Bilderberg Group"
which he founded in 1954. In this position, Strong helped to recruit 80 Canadian "initiates" to
this elite society otherwise known as "Strong's Kindergarten", the most prominent being Lord
Conrad Black, Barrick Gold's Peter Munk (1927-2018) and Permindex's late Sir Louis Mortimer
Bloomfield (1906-1984). As documented elsewhere, the latter was discovered to be at the heart
of the plot to
assassinate President John F. Kennedy by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Strong Decapitates Ontario Nuclear Energy
By 1992, Strong had completed his role heading the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil and had
returned to his native land to attempt to finalize the dismantling of Canada's nuclear program
in his new assignment as President of Ontario Hydro, a position he held from 1992 to 1995 under
the formal invitation of Bob Rae, then-NDP Premier of Ontario and brother of Power Corp.'s John
Rae. Bob Rae later served as the leader of the Liberal Party from 2011-2013 in preparation for
Justin Trudeau's appointment to become the party's new figurehead in April of 2013.
Strong was brought in to this position at the time that Ontario had the most ambitious
nuclear program in North America and was proving to be a thorn in the side of the zero-growth
agenda demanded by the British Empire. The completion of the massive Darlington system in
Ontario had demonstrated what successful long-term science planning could accomplish, although
the utility found itself running far over budget. The budgetary problems (which occurred during
a deep recession in 1992) were used by Strong to "restructure" the provincial energy
The "remedies" chosen by Strong to solve Ontario Hydro's financial woes involved immediately
canceling all new planned nuclear energy development, firing 8 of the 14 directors, and
downsizing the utility by laying off 14 000 employees, many of whom were the most specialized
and experienced nuclear technicians in Canada.
Before leaving his post in 1995 with the fall of Bob Rae's government, Strong ensured that
his work would continue with his replacement Jim MacNeill who headed Ontario Hydro from 1994 to
1997. MacNeill was co-architect of both the Earth Charter and the genocidal Agenda 21 during
the Rio Summit and a long time Deep State agent. Under MacNeill, Strong's mandate to
unnecessarily shut down eight reactors for refurbishment and one permanently was effected in
1997, while Ontario Hydro itself was broken up into three separate entities. With the
irreparable loss of specialized manpower and skills Strong and MacNeill left Ontario Hydro and
AECL mortally wounded for years to come.
Surprising all observers, AECL and the Ontario utilities were able to remobilize their
remaining forces to pull together the successful refurbishment of all reactors– the last
of which came back online in October 2012. While Canada's moratorium on nuclear power
continued, with SNC Lavelin's 2011 takeover, an approach for cooperation on international
nuclear construction in
partnership with China began in July 2014, much to Strong's chagrin.
Strong's Failed Attempt to Infiltrate China
For much of the 21 st century, Strong's talents were put to use in an attempt to
subvert the aspirations of Asian development, and of a Eurasian alliance formed around the
driving economic grand design of the emerging Belt and Road Initiative. Strong was deployed to
Beijing University where he acted as Honorary Professor and Chairman of its Environmental
Foundation and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Research on Security and
Sustainability for Northwest Asia.
In the face of the meltdown of the Trans-Atlantic economy, the Chinese have successfully
resisted the Green New Deal agenda that demanded the submission of their national sovereignty
to the "New World Order" of zero-growth and depopulation. In spite of this pressure, a powerful
tradition of Confucianism and its commitment to progress has demonstrated its powerful
influence in the various branches of the Chinese establishment who see China's only hope for
survival located in its strategic partnership with Russia and long term mega projects to lift
its people out of poverty and into the 22nd Century. This was made fully clear when China
rejected the "special relationship" with Canada in December 2017 .
Speaking of the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative which had combined with the
Eurasian Economic Union and BRICS, President Xi Jinping stated in 2017: "We should foster a
new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation; and we should forge
partnerships of dialogue with no confrontation and of friendship rather than alliance. All
countries should respect each other's sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity, each
other's development paths and social systems, and each other's core interests and major
concerns In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we will not resort to outdated geopolitical
maneuvering. What we hope to achieve is a new model of win-win cooperation. We have no
intention to form a small group detrimental to stability, what we hope to create is a big
family of harmonious co-existence."
The Belt and
Road Initiative has arisen as a true opposition to the bipolar insanity of western right
wing militarism/monetarism on the one side and left wing depopulation under "
Green New Deals " on the other. Trillions of dollars of credit in great infrastructure
projects across Eurasia, Africa and Latin America have resulted in the greatest burst of
cultural optimism, productivity and if the population and leadership of the west act with the
proper passion and wisdom, there is a very good opportunity to rid humanity of the legacy of
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
"... I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset. Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have a functioning society in the modern, technological world? ..."
"... From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations -- particularly the US. ..."
The European multinational is following a trend started by Boeing, which
recently opened a new completion plant in China. On the face of it, the decision by the two
companies (which dominate the civilian aviation market) makes sense: build where your biggest
customer lives, especially as China does not yet have a fully homegrown civil aviation industry
ready to compete globally. The benefits are many, including the goodwill and esteem of the
country that would be buying these planes. In the long term, however, that might prove to be a
costly miscalculation. Based on its recent history ( here and
here ), it
won't take long for China to catch up and largely displace both companies domestically in
Beijing's home aviation market, as well as seizing a large chunk of the corporate duopoly's
global market share. Airbus and Boeing could therefore be making short-term decisions with
negative long-term consequences for their future profitability.
Given China's formidable economic advancement, none of this should come as a surprise to
either Airbus or Boeing. Nor should it shock Western governments. The problem is that everybody
has historically been guided by the naïve assumption that simply admitting China to
organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) would induce Beijing to, in
the words of Philip Pan , "eventually bend to what were considered the established rules of
modernization: Prosperity would fuel popular demands for political freedom and bring China into
the fold of democratic nations. Or the Chinese economy would falter under the weight of
authoritarian rule and bureaucratic rot." China has unquestionably modernized, but its
politically illiberal, dirigiste polity has, if anything, massively
moved in the opposite direction, strengthened by that very modernization process that has done
anything but falter. Furthermore, the country has many aims and goals that are antithetical to
the long-term prosperity of Western companies and economies (as the European Union is
beginning to recognize ).
Boeing and Airbus might simply become the latest Western sacrificial lambs. Beijing has
explicitly targeted wide-bodied aircrafts as one of its 10 new priority sectors for import
substitution in its " Made in China
2025 " document, so whatever short-term gains Airbus and Boeing receive in terms of
securing additional orders from China could well be undermined longer-term. The resultant
technology transfers and lower labor costs will almost certainly give Beijing a quantum leap
toward competing directly and ultimately displacing both companies. Given the merger with
McDonnell Douglas, Boeing will continue its march toward effectively becoming a branch of the
U.S. Department of Defense, as its civilian market share crashes, but Airbus doesn't really
have the luxury of a military alternative, given the relative paucity of European defense
As if Boeing needed any further problems, the 737 fiasco represents the latest in a series
of setbacks for the company. Boeing's 737 global recall, coming on the heels of the initial
launch problems of the 787 Dreamliner some six years ago (where the " demoduralization " of
production meant that Boeing "could not fully account for stress transmission and loading at
the system level," as Gary Pisano and Willy Shih write ), together
illustrate the dangers of spreading manufacturing too far across the globe: Engineers,
notes CUNY fellow Jon Rynn , "need
to 'kick the tires' of the new production processes they design. So while a market may be
global, production and the growth of production take place most efficiently" in relatively
close geographic quarters.
American companies such as Boeing consistently underestimate the value of closely
integrating R&D and manufacturing, while underplaying the risks of separating them (
recent events have demonstrated again to the company's cost ). By deciding to expand its
A330 production in China, Airbus looks poised to repeat Boeing's error, a potential
miscalculation that most European Union companies have hitherto largely avoided, because the EU
has prioritized domestic manufacturing/discouraged offshoring more than its U.S. counterparts
(in regard to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs attributable to China, the American
Economic Review paper by Justin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott specifically notes that there
was "no similar reaction in the European Union, where policy did not change").
Beijing itself has historically balanced its purchases from both major civil aviation
manufacturers to ensure that it does not rely too heavily on one aircraft supplier, which means
that Airbus will likely benefit from the void created by the 737 recall. All the more reason
why the European conglomerate should be wary of following the pied piper-like expansion into
China. (The 737 recall also complicates resolution of the U.S.-China trade conflict, which had
appeared closer to resolution in light of Beijing's proposal to buy an additional $1.2tn in
U.S. exports over six years. Boeing aircraft purchases featured heavily on Beijing's shopping
But the longer-term challenges relate to China's economic development path and its
corresponding move up the high-tech curve, which have largely been characterized by
mercantilist policies of protection and heavy government subsidy. In this regard, the Chinese
state has followed a national development strategy first outlined in the
mid-19th century by the German economist Friedrich List , who argued that the national
government should play a crucial role in promoting, guiding, and regulating the process of
national economic advancement.
Protectionism, List argued, should play a role here as well during the country's "catch up"
phase of technological development. List wrote the analysis against a historic backdrop where
Germany was beginning to challenge the dominant economic power of its time, the United Kingdom.
So the defenders of Beijing might well point to his work to show that there is nothing new
about using the state as a principal instrument to accelerate economic development and
However, List was analyzing two capitalist economies operating within the context of a
19th-century gold standard global financial system, which invariably circumscribed the scope of
state involvement (the finite availability of gold reserves limiting fiscal policy options). By
contrast, today the global economy operates under a fiat currency system, and what therefore
distinguishes China's economic domestic development from its 19th century predecessors is the
sheer scale of fiscal resources it can deploy in the furtherance of its economic (and military)
objectives. Some of these objectives might not be so benign to the West
Which points to another consideration for the West: for all of its supposed embrace of
capitalism, China is still primarily a state-dominated economy, which eschews the disciplines
of a free market economy. This means it has the capacity (and ideological predisposition) to
use the national fiscal policy as a loss leader, absorbing losses well beyond what would be
tolerated in an economy dominated by private enterprise (private companies, of course, can go
bust). Beijing underwrites its designated national champions by relying on a combination of
subsidies (some disguised, as they flow through state-backed investment funds and the financial
sectors) and "Buy China" preferences to develop Chinese products, even though these policies
are contrary to the rules of WTO membership, which China eagerly joined in 2001. As the
economist Brad Setser argues
, "various parts of the Chinese state compete, absorb losses, and then
consolidat[e] around the successful firms. Other countries [might] worry about the
[scale of the cumulative] losses," notes Setser, but not the Chinese government, which simply
socializes the losses at the national level, and writes them off.
In this regard, Boeing and Airbus would do well to consider China's experience in the solar
industry. Designating this as another strategic sector for growth in the 1990s, Chinese solar
companies, with the explicit backstop of the state, ultimately raised enough funding via debt
to build sufficient solar capacity for the world three times over. The overinvestment
ultimately killed the cash flows of major Western competitors and knocked them out of the
business, leaving the market free for China to dominate. Commenting on the trend, Scientific
that "between 2008 and 2013, China's fledgling solar-electric panel industry dropped world
prices by 80 percent, a stunning achievement in a fiercely competitive high-tech market. China
had leapfrogged from nursing a tiny, rural-oriented solar program in the 1990s to become the
globe's leader in what may soon be the world's largest renewable energy source."
Here was a classic case of state-guided/supported commercial companies receiving benefits
that went far beyond anything in, say, Korea or Taiwan, or even Japan in the earlier part of
their development. Now this trend is manifesting itself across the entire spectrum of the
Chinese guided economy, including agricultural equipment, industrial machinery,
telecommunications, AI, computer chips, and civil aviation. In another disturbing parallel that
Boeing and Airbus would do well to consider, "[t]he timeline of China's rise began in the late
1990s when Germany, overwhelmed by the domestic response to a government incentive program to
promote rooftop solar panels, provided the capital, technology and experts to lure China into
making solar panels to meet the German demand," according
to Scientific American . Much like the German solar companies, which shipped valuable
manufacturing and technological expertise to China, to sustain demand, Boeing and Airbus could
well be signing their economic death warrants by agreeing to offshore increasing amounts of
production in China to sustain their global market shares (aided and abetted by their more
market-oriented governments, which frown on the idea of national industrial policy).
The same thing is happening in wind power in China, which is expected to see offshore wind
capacity grow from 2 gigawatts last year to 31 gigawatts in the next decade. China's expansion
here has already forced Siemens and Gamesa to merge to cope with the rising competitive
challenge. As far as aviation itself goes, Setser
makes the point that "China may cut into the United States' future exports by building its
own competitor to the 737 and also cut into Europe's future exports if Airbus decides to build
the A330 in China and China buys
'Made in China' Rolls-Royce engines for the C929 and the A330." Even if this allows the
duopoly to maintain its dominance in global civil aviation, it is hard to see how shifting
manufacturing production of aircraft components to China to get orders constitutes a "win" for
the U.S. or European workers who are already being displaced. And Boeing's
weak-kneed response to the 737 crisis will likely exacerbate the company's problems going
The bottom line is that both Western governments and Western corporations have persistently
underestimated the power of China's economic development model, and the corresponding economic
threat that it poses to the West's own affluence. The usual criticism leveled against the
Chinese growth model is that a country that subsidizes its industries ends up with inefficient
industries, because heavily protected local firms are shielded from global competition,
ultimately leaving the country that resorts to protectionism with inferior products. The idea
of national champions, built up via state dirigisme, according to classic liberal economic
doctrine, ultimately ensures that economic efficiency and commercial considerations get
squeezed out. Rent-seeking and corruption become institutionalized, goes the argument, so these
national champions ultimately will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. That was
certainly the assumption of Milton Friedman, who called the
Chinese Communist Party's state-driven strategy "an open invitation to corruption and
inefficiency." By contrast, according to Defense and the National Interest , the governing
assumptions of capitalist economies is that "[t]he discipline of the 'marketplace,'" not the
state, is better suited to choose winners and knock out losers "who cannot offer the prices or
quality or features of their competitors."
China represents the ultimate repudiation of these seemingly ironclad economic laws. The
country's success has come across a slew of industries: clean tech, notably wind and solar
power, internet companies (despite overwhelming censorship, China has corporate behemoths, such
as Alibaba, or Baidu, which rival Google in scale and scope), and more recently, in the
telecommunications sector (where Huawei has clearly benefited from "Buy China" preferences
created by the state via its state-owned telecommunications enterprises and now is considered
to be the global leader in 5G telephony). In practice, therefore, there is no reason why the
same model cannot work with regard to civil aviation even as Airbus and Boeing eagerly provide
the rope with which they may hang their respective companies in the future.
Designating this as another strategic sector for growth in the 1990s, Chinese solar
companies, with the explicit backstop of the state, ultimately raised enough funding via
debt to build sufficient solar capacity for the world three times over.
I'm confused. Why should it matter that they raised funding via debt? It kinda reads like
Auerback feels this should shock us, or make us think China is "cheating" or somesuch. But
iirc there's a nice book by Mazzucato that proves something that Chomsky's been saying since
forever about the US (federal) govt. Now to be sure, the US govt tends to mainly simply give
away money, rather than extending loans, but..
Fiat economies have solidly proved that debt is just noise. Unless politicians use it as a
cudgel to kill good fiscal governance. I am confused about the use of the term "socializing
losses" here because what really seems to be happening is China is creating social value.
When our corporations are coddled and their externalized costs and losses are socialized we,
the tax payers, are the ones who suffer the austerity in order to keep the dollar "strong"
and etc. I'll never forgive this country for allowing our corporations to murder American
labor in the 80s and hot-foot it off to China to make their profit. Now that was definitely
socializing losses – in fact it was socializing losses in advance. I don't think we
will ever recover from that little episode of free marketeering. China might be scary because
they are so very powerful, pragmatic and adaptable. But they are no more "illiberal" than we
are. It's time to set some standards.
Just to point out that Airbus has had an assembly plant in Tianjin in China since 2010. I
recall reading a few years ago that Airbus found costs were so high because of a shortage of
the right workers it would actually have been cheaper to make them in France. Airbus also
assemble aircraft in the US for precisely the same reason – to get a manufacturing
'foothold' in important markets to prevent mercantilist retaliation.
But as the article says, many a manufacturer has found to their cost that the Chinese
simply don't play fair, they will extract every bit of information they can from those plants
and use it for their new Comac aircraft (which so far are not very impressive, nobody wants
to buy them).
You may consider that chinese don't play fair, it also migth be considered that Airbus
strategy is just another way of economic colonization and to prevent the surge of new
competitors maintaining the duopoly. Is it fair?
Given the recent drift of political geostrategy leaded by the US in which anything is
"fair" to defend particular interests, my opinion is that China interest on developing their
own airplane industry is not only fair but very reasonable. One wonders when the US will put
in place another arbitrary ban.
I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset.
Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have
a functioning society in the modern, technological world?
The argument that globalization has not failed is tested by growing social tensions and
inequality around the world. A return to mercantilism, or a version thereof seems logical.
Thriving internal markets linked to strong alliances seem to offer a path into the future
that is workable. Peaceful nations trading among themselves. Over time, resource issues can
be worked out peacefully. The competition will be over functioning economies, not world
domination. But to get there, nations have to have both security and technical ability.
Should the Chinese or the Russians be trusted to bring about a positive transformation in
world society? Time will tell. I would hope so.
From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity
for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations --
particularly the US.
If a functioning world government is not possible, than the next best thing would be
functioning national governments that set standards and economic policy that benefited the
majority of citizens, not just the elite. It seems the truly intelligent, and wise ones see
If a functioning world government is not possible, than the next best thing would be
functioning national governments that set standards and economic policy that benefited the
majority of citizens, not just the elite. It seems the truly intelligent, and wise ones see
This is what we had under the Bretton Woods system from appoximately 1945 to 1973.
Moderate free trade with each country setting its own goals, policies, and standards, yet
being connected economically to other countries. An intermediate level between full
mercantilist protectionism and completely open free trade and unrestricted currency flows. It
was replaced by neoliberalism's goal of open borders with unrestricted free trade, currency
flows, and labor.
Yes, but a return seems inevitable. If not, serfdom and peasantry brought back due to
excessive crapification of production and rent seeking by a global oligarchy is in our
Native populations would gladly buy less advanced goods and services if produced locally
and offered secured jobs and livelihoods. Made in China, Made in USA, Made in Russia- makes
perfect sense. Supplying the world through monopolistic corporations is only feasible if not
weaponized. But that is the path not taken.
If you ask a neoliberal what the end game would look like, and they are forced to answer,
most people would be horrified by the answer.
Brexit is a good analogy. The transition could be a managed affair with less pain to go
around, or a crash out.
In the end, saner heads will prevail if only for growing grass roots efforts to create a
fairer economy and necessity.
US forced UK to break and give up jet turbine, Radar, and many other technologies.
Philips, Dutch under Nazi occupation, had all it's patents abrogated and USA assets seized
and never returned. WW 2 made USA a world power not just from being isolated from war but
because USA stole everything and everyone of any value.
Blame the United States for many things, but realize that technology like radar and jet
turbines were extremely important during the Second World War.
During a major war everything is open to theft, or even just being given away, by everyone
as merely surviving becomes more important than any other concern by the various states.
There are also the large businesses that often, very illegally and even treasonously,
continue to do business with their country's enemies. Those businesses just get nasty words
usually and keep their profits (of course).
Examples of both are the Polish and French work on the German Enigma encryption system
given to the British, the Soviet theft and reverse engineering of American technology, IBM's
leasing and maintaining its punchcard machines (census records used in Holocaust) Ford's
manufacturing and maintaining its vehicles and Standard Oil's running its refineries in, and
shipping when possible oil, into Europe for the Nazis, the Nazis stold from everyone
(technology in armored vehicles, artillery, radar, radio) likewise the Japanese who also got
technology from the Nazis. And everyone stold from the Germans.
The only reason the United States got to take full use of what it got was because it's
universities, businesses, and factories were all intact afterwards.
Nobody wants to buy them now but in a few years they will just like cars from S. Korea
were looked upon as inferior to Japanese ones but now they they're deemed to be just as good
and better value for the money.
When I worked there, it seemed that Boeing was always on the cutting edge of bad corporate
ideas. So it's baffling to me that it's taken them so long to have their guts carved out by
China. I mean, the peer pressure at the corporate country club I infer is rather intense. But
I appreciate it as my pension from them is now in a seaparate autonomous account. That is no
guarantee it will be truly insulated but it helps.
I have worked in the electronics industry in Northern California for many years and
watched the outsourcing of manufacturing and some design overseas.
I believe that many in the industry have realized that moving manufacturing and design
overseas has helped to create some very worthy competitors.
Some years ago, I was told of a company that wanted a low end product for an existing
The company negotiated with a Chinese company and rebranded one of their inexpensive
products, but only after the Chinese company was told of design changes/improvements.
As I was told, the USA company realized they had helped bring a competitor up the learning
curve and would not do it again.
I remember reading that the telecom companies also went into China with assembly plants
and found they did not see the revenue they projected because they "trained new competition"
that opened their own facilities.
Probably there will be considerable lower-level resistance inside Boeing to moving
assembly/design to China, but the "big picture" executives will rule the day.
People will get with the program, as one technician who was being laid off about 20 years
ago related to me. "They told me I could leave that day, or get more pay by training my
overseas replacement for two weeks."
People will get with the program, as one technician who was being laid off about 20
years ago related to me. "They told me I could leave that day, or get more pay by training
my overseas replacement for two weeks."
This has been happening in the United States since the 80s. I am surprised we have
workers, knowledge, or equipment left to be stolen, sold, given away, or thrown away for our
Blessed Elites' God Mamon.
I expect the Chinese to be fools as, for a very old civilization, they are surprisingly
parochial and shortsighted, but seeing my fellow Americans throwing everyone else, including
most Americans, into the compost pile because "greed, for lack of a better word, is good"
makes me want to drink.
Once you impoverish and enrage the population of a nation as large as the United States
what does anyone expect to happen? To everyone else?
This was made possible by keeping the decision secret from the targeted technician(s)
until the last moment before implementation. If the company had told these technicians
several years ahead of time that " in several years time we will give you the choice of
leaving immediately or working for two weeks to train the overseas replacement we will
replace you with" . . . . that the technician(s) in question would have saved up two weeks
worth of living expenses so as to be able to surprise the company with their own last-second
refusal to train the replacement for two weeks pay when the time came.
Which is why the company never told these technicians about this "train your replacement"
plan several years in advance. I sincerely hope this technician was able to withhold certain
key information from his trainee. Even better would be if he had been able to give his new
trainee certain subtle dis-information and dis-training would which lead to downstream decay
in the foreign replacements' performance sometime after the replacement was made. Hopefully
to the detriment of the company which pulled that stunt.
Auerback's entirely right on this. But I disagree completely: Boeing and Airbus
should sign suicide pacts. The capitalists are selling China the rope to hang them
with – and please, China, do hang them! While you're at it, keep developing the green
tech the species needs to survive.
"Considering" a move overseas sounds like an indirect way of asking for more special
treatment in the two companies' respective home markets. Which they will probably need
– the market for airliners might be overextended even without the Boeing fiasco.
It is not "Boeing" and "Airbus" as such which are making these decisions. It is actual
human executive persons inside offices in buildings called "Boeing" and "Airbus" who are
making these decisions.
In the current Forced Free Trade environment, if those executives making those decisions
will make more personal money with in order to retire richer with by relocating the bussiness
to China, they will relocate the bussiness to China. If it goes extinct after they have taken
their personal money and run; it is no longer their problem to care about. So they won't care
My main take-away from Marshall's post is that China is harnessing the power of fiat money
to develop its economy. Why shouldn't all countries do that? It seems to me ideological
blinders are preventing it except perhaps in military expenditures in the U.S. All caveats
regarding human rights, inequality, corruption, environment, etc., apply of course.
Same thing with the conventional auto industry, however, it's a totally different story
with high speed rail, ship-building, and telecommunications, for which China has caught up.
China's electric vehicle industry also seems promising. I think Comac's ARJ21 and C919 are
good enough to be competitive on China's domestic market.
Combine the insights of this post with MMT and you have a winner. With a few
1. success (wealth creation?) should be measured by the ability of the nation, with perhaps a
few of its closets friends, to support and defend itself – NOT by how fast the number
of zeros in the financial portfolios of its citizens grows;
2. nor should it be measured by how (temporarily?) cheaply Western consumers can continue the
consumption of the cars, televisions, etc that powers the growth of those portfolios.
Auerbac's choice of the future for the Western airline industry as a potential object of
concern is, however, interesting. It suggests he hasn't been reading Naked Capitalism's
warnings about that industry's planet-killing potential.
I'm catching up on NC post reading this morning and had just finished the post from
earlier this week, "Work of the Past " before I read this one. Autour's study of the widening
wage gap increases between workers with low and high education levels, which, as commenters
there pointed out, were seen as almost natural phenomena, no agency involved, segues nicely
into this post. And, resulted in my thinking about the rise of so-called 'toxic
When I moved to Long Beach, California in the '80's, I lived just a few miles from the
then-thriving McDonnell-Douglas assembly plant. Driving by, you could see the end product
planes, still an unpainted dull metallic gray, sitting in a row on the tarmac. Crews would
then paint on the distinctive livery of the purchasing airline and the new plane, in glowing
color, would be rolled out. The CEO of the airline would arrive, have his tie cut off (don't
ask!) and take delivery of the new plane in a ceremony that involved the proud workers.
For a short time, I worked there, hiring training pilots. The esprit-de-corps in
the plant was infectious. People were immensely proud to be working there and had a vested
interest in each plane as it rolled off the assembly line. (There was a growing concern with
workers going out for Friday lunch and never coming back; or returning and then falling
asleep inside the wings or engine cowlings, but that was at the end, when workers knew the
company was contracting.)
I was there when the company sold plants in San Diego and older guys with years of
experience came up to Long Beach to work as temporary contractors. Then the LB plant
All those employees, mainly white males, who had good jobs, worked hard, crafting a
product they were proud of, that flew all over the world (spewing carbon dioxide, but that's
another tale), owned a nice little house, took family vacations, cut adrift.
Our nation's lack of an industrial policy not only strips workers of their jobs, their
sources of income and their pensions, but takes away their dignity, their reason for getting
up in the morning. It strips away the bonds they have forged with their co-workers and
smashes the pride they had in their product. It emasculates them. And, what is left becomes
poisoned and toxic, turns to hate and despair.
We do have an industrial policy – go to war for the oil companies to name one
objective. Our government concludes pacts to force other countries to buy our grain, pharma,
planes, medical equipment etc. etc.
Unfortunately, this plicy do not translate into manufacturing in this countries because these
companies chase cheap labor elsewhere around the world.
One assumes that the CEOs of these companies making these decisions actually care about
the future of the company, the future of their country. They don't. They care about getting
rich. They live in a different world than the rest of us. End of story.
China is doing what Japan did with automobiles and consumer electronics after WW2.
Toyota was once warehouse with a dormitory, and the workers found out if they were going to
work today by looking out the window to see if there was smoke coming from the warehouse
And I am glad it happened, my 1995 Toyota Tacoma is better and cheaper than anything made in
USA. Also true for my 2004 Mazda3.
The contributors to this blog seem to have no regard for USA consumers.
Yes my local clothing store closed down long ago, but they never had my size pants anyway.
Walmart does, Costco does, and for far less $.
Do you really think that Boeing deserves our support? Do you really think they have acted
I think Boeing is just another oligarch, like VW, that will do anything to increase
"Yes my local clothing store closed down long ago, but they never had my size pants
anyway. Walmart does, Costco does, and for far less $."
You must be both not so old and not so tall. I'm both. Nike used to make XL t-shirts that
fit me, but now its XXLs are too small. I have one Nike t-shirt from at least thirty years
ago and it fits perfectly, so my body isn't what changed.
And if you don't realize that Walmart quality is far below what one would have found in US
clothing stores thirty years ago, there's nothing more to say.
Walmart and Amazon sell the same socks, t shirts, and pants.
And so does Hanes if you order direct online.
I don't think any of them are made in USA.
I used to buy fine cotton t shirts made in L.A (CA)
They are no longer in business because they cost $20, and Hanes now sells for $5 online.
Walmart quality varies, so do their prices.
I know what I want, and am glad to buy it for less anywhere that sells it.
Most of the CEOs don't care about the worker that works for them.
They largely see them as something to exploit so that they can get their big stock options
bonus. Boeing is no different, nor is Airbus.
From the CEO's point of view, they outsource, they transfer technology, and for a few
years, the profits will be good. Then when the full extent of the failure becomes apparent,
they will be gone anyways, having cashed in on their stock options and a new CEO will be
there to take the fall.
It's the MBA culture run amok and it has been responsible for a large amount of the damage
done to the middle classes of the Western world. They are creating future competitors and
destroying their own communities.
A while back, Eamonn Fingleton noted this problem – only for Japan.
The Chinese have long wanted to develop their own domestic aerospace industry. An example
of one area that China needs to master is the jet turbine blade manufacturing. It's an
extremely difficult part of making a competent aircraft, as higher inlet temperatures mean
more efficient aircraft.
The difference is that China takes a more long term view of what is in the best interest
of their nation, however flawed and corrupt the CCP may be. The US ruling oligarchs are a
naked kleptocracy that milk their population.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends upon the definition of "modernized." China will
always be the preeminent communist country, but Deng and others realized that China could
earn big bucks by playing a capitalist game, as long as Chinese businessmen do not interfere
with the government.
Airbus and Boeing are merely the latest suckers to believe that China will ever change.
Der Spiegel noted years ago that Chinese engineers were videotaped in the middle of the night
taking measurements of Germany's Transrapid train. Today China has the best technology from
all major train manufacturers, with short-sighted entities such as the state of California
seriously considering buying Chinese trains (before the new governor canceled the project, of
The aircraft horse has already left the barn. China's C919 is a 737 clone which will allow
China to stop buying smaller airliners, with many countries naively buying it to save money.
Obtaining Airbus and Boeing technology will allow China to do the same for larger
If you want a real laugh, read the articles written by libertarians about how Americans
will always be more productive than Chinese, so allowing China into the WTO and giving it
PNTR will not hurt us in the long run.
The basic problem in the West is that the neo-liberal ideology has merged with human greed
to form an economic/political system that is divorced from reality. At least the Party in
China has Russia as an example and must deal with the real world to stay in power less they
lose their mandate to rule. America has its exceptionalism. China has its chauvinism. My
opinion is that the iPhone sales cratered there for one reason; Trump's trade war. Boeing's
boneheaded decision to add a fatally flawed fly-by-wire system to the 737 Max without telling
anyone and with no training deserves prison time for Chicago executives for manslaughter.
They won't go to jail and the last manufacturing American led industry will die away.
Mid-America is a colony to global oligarchs and their bi-coastal lackeys. The only way to
turn our fate around is to restore democracy and government by and for the people.
"... Why Brexit gained a majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the British nation to please the City of London pirates. ..."
"... To an outsider it seemed that the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU. ..."
"... One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60 years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia. ..."
Theresa May has said she "sincerely hopes" the UK will leave the EU with a deal and she
is still "working on" ensuring Parliament's agreement.
Arriving in Brussels, she said that she had "personal regret" over her request to
delay Brexit, but said it will allow time for MPs to make a "final choice".
At the EU summit the PM spoke to the other 27 leaders to try to get their backing for
a delay beyond 29 March.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said Mrs May spoke to EU leaders for 90
minutes and was asked several times what her contingency plans were if she lost the third
"meaningful vote" on her deal in Parliament.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that if MPs vote down Mrs May's EU
withdrawal agreement next week, the UK will leave without a deal.
May asked the EU to move the hard coded March 29 Brexit date to June 30. She may be
given May 23, the day of EU elections, as a compromise but only if her deal passes the
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be
catastrophic for Britain's economy.
May's withdrawal agreement was already voted down twice. If it comes to a third vote in
parliament it is very likely to fail again.
We've been more pessimistic than most commentators about the likelihood of the UK
escaping the default of a no-deal Brexit. We may not have been pessimistic enough.
There is still the possibility that May takes a 180 degree turn, but that would be the
end of her career and likely also the end of the Conservative Party:
Now there is a popular push for an Article 50 revocation, with a petition already at over
400,000 signatures as of this hour. But as we'll discuss, May would have to do a complete
reversal to revoke Article 50, which is within her power, not just a Prime Minister, but
also implementing the motion by Parliament rejecting a no-deal Brexit.
Article 50 is the part of the British withdrawal law that governs the Brexit process. If
May revokes it, there is little chance that another Brexit attempt will ever be made. The
majority that voted to leave the EU will have been betrayed.
An analysis by the BBC Europe editor says that the "Leaders want to avoid
[W]hile EU leaders have ruled out re-opening the Brexit withdrawal agreement and the
"backstop" text, you can bet they'll discuss a longer Brexit delay at their summit today.
This is, in my view, a misjudgment.
Yes, under normal circumstances and with a competent and trustworthy negotiation partner
on the British side, ways would be found to fudge the issue and to avoid a Brexit in all
but its name. That is why I predicted long ago that Brexit was not gonna happen
But May has really done everything to affront the other side of the table. She did not
stick to commitments she had given, delivered papers too late to properly discuss them, and
came to emergency summits called on her behalf without anything new to offer.
Matthew Parris, a conservative political commentator in London who originally favored
May, now remarks
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid. I have heard that from almost
everyone who has dealt with her," Parris says. He said he had never expected this much
hatred, "and that is not a word I use lightly."
The leaders of other EU countries also have had it with here. The voters on the
continent do not care about Britain. There will be no punishment for Merkel or Macron for
letting Britain crash out.
The EU will survive without the United Kingdom. With a no-deal Brexit the United Kingdom
is likely to fall apart. Within a few years North Ireland would join the Irish Republic,
peacefully one hopes, and Scotland would vote to leave.
A bit of hope may still rest in this one line in the BBC report which it leaves
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
Is there a EU deal being made with the opposition leader and behind Theresa May's
Given that she is the Prime Minister how would that work out?
B I think it should be
understood that the British people voted to Leave.
We want out.
We want our sovereignty back.
Our democracy back
The right to govern ourselves again - a 800 year tradition..
Article 50 was always a trap.
It should have been done by the repealing of the 1972 act which took us in.
As Gerard Batten - a brilliant strategist who actually masterminded the UKIP campaign to
get a referendum and win - has written in length on how it could and should have been
We British voted to leave.
Not get stitched up in a May deal which means we never can.
Leave means leave.
Whatever the cost - a no deal is fine with most of us.
Whatever it takes we expect to leave on March 29th as promised by the British Prime
Minister 108 times in the House of Commons.
Leave March 29th or
I have MY yellow vest waiting.
b is being very unfair to May, as is everyone in the MSM. I don't know why some non-Brits
are taking this so personally. (I'm not from the UK myself)
May undertook efforts to enforce the vote and leave EU. EU proceeds to offer deals which
are essentially meaningless and mean the UK is defacto still in the EU. In general EU
officials carry themselves appallingly in public comments despite May being quite
Eventually May reaches some kind of deal and puts it before parliament. Despite being as
unobjectionable as possible to those who'd rather not leave the EU, whilst still being a
deal which allows the UK to leave the EU in forms other than name only, parliament continue
to vote down any and all deals and generally act in petty ways to disrupt May's government.
Parliament then proceeds to autistically screech about a no-deal Brexit despite they,
themselves deliberately voting down every deal May brought them and trying to oust her in
no-confidence votes in order to generate exactly the 'chaos', they constantly wail about.
Now the speaker is acting in the most insanely ways to damage the legitimacy of parliament
Dealing with internal schisms relating to Europe has brought down more determined Tory
leaders than May. I'm not sure why she is specially being given the blame. I find it hard
to see any of her actions as being problematic. She seems to genuinely have got on with
trying to enforce Brexit. *Larry David shrug*
Reality is this was about freedom of movement and I think most other European countries
other than Ireland don't understand why this is an issue because they had a tiny fraction
of the intra-EU immigration that Britain and Ireland have been going through the last 10
years. (Because every EU country but them and Denmark put in place a 5 year moratorium on
recognising the new states freedom of movement, leaving the UK and Ireland to receive the
full whack, transforming their labour economies massively) It's truly staggering in number
and dwarfed other forms of immigration during that period. It was also characterised by
it's highly unskilled nature.
Corbyn, for his part, does understand the issue and has
spoken out about the burden of so much unskilled labour from the EU in the past.
Emily, you are on the money there.
We the great unwashed are not happy with our representatives in Parliament who seem to
think that this is a normal Law where they were elected to vote on their conscience. It is
not, there are voting to implement a clear instruction to action Brexit.
When we voted there was no discussion of staying half in like May's deal, we wanted out
regardless of any chaos as forecast in Project Fear at the time.
A problem we have is that the entire MSM is behind May's deal. There is no, no
discussion on the benefits of a clean break.
If we clean Brexit then those countries with their nose in the EU trough will have to
agree between themselves who gets what share of the cuts as the £1B a month cashflow
that the UK gives them stops, starting immediately. That they don't seem to have started
those discussions yet leads me to believe that they have no intention of allowing a clean
break. We should expect that there will be some kind of last minute offer by the EU.
It would take a lot more courage than has been showed to date by them for MPs, whose
votes are public, to go against the Brexit Referendum and kill Brexit. Bluntly, many of
them, of all Parties, would be signing their own job resignations.
Good god, this Brexit soap opera never ends, does it? It just keeps dragging on,
endlessly....another vote...another extension...another meeting with Brussels heads, etc.
And it's so fucking confusing! First they have the referendum to do the total
Brexit–and it passes! But instead of doing what the voter's voted for, the PMs and
MPs keep fucking about, trying to undo the vote results....soft Brexit w/cheese....med soft
Brexit with trade bennies....no hard Brexit pleeze.
Holy fuck, the entire thing is
quintessentially British! No humans on the planet surface quibble, nit-pick and natter on
like the Brits. They are the hands-down masters of hen-peckery. Nobody comes close. This
whole Brexit fiasco is a fine example of their character. Don't get me wrong I really like
the Brits in general for their gregariousness and tendency to party and drink excessively.
But back to Brexit: they should do the hard Brexit. Seriously. Just get the fuck out of the
EU. It's what the majority of Brits want.
They don't want the refugees.. they obviously
don't want to be a team player and follow all the EU requirements and laws. So bite the
bullet and get OUT. Life goes on, give it a go with no EU association. And so what if N.
Ireland goes with Ireland? It should anyways!
They took it from them way back when. If
Scotland leaves, good for them. And Wales too! We're witnessing the incredible shrinking
UK, and it is indeed a most satisfying spectacle :-)
It is inconceivable now that there would be an extension, that there would be a revoking by
May of article 50, or simply that there would not be a no deal crash-out.
I draw a comparison between Ukraine's folly delusion that they can join the EU and ditch
Russia and live well, with the UK's folly that they can leave the EU and have other
options. It reminds me of the quip we used to hear as we visited the UK from Europe:
"There's fog over the Channel. The Continent is isolated."
The UK has to deal with Europe. A WTO deal is also a deal, be it a very bad one which will
set in motion lots of tariff-tit-for-tat punishing. Europe is just the bigger entity; it
does not need the UK. The UK has the EU as its main trading partner - but not only that;
all of its trade pacts with other countries have been through the EU. Not only do they have
to, in the end, negotiate a deal with the EU from scratch; they have to do so also with all
the other countries.
It's folly; most of it is based on psychology of loss of sovereignty and pure racism.
Ukraine has to deal with Russia. It chose not to, to exacerbate relations; it is now
suffering the consequences. The UK's fate is likely not as abject as Ukraine's was and is;
however it will likely also fall apart. Will London's financial centre identity also fall
apart? Not likely - but it will become even more of a money-laundering hole than it was to
date. Look for less values, not more; less transparency, more bribery, as the London trade
crowd tries to preserve their life quality.
Look for even more of death knell absurdities by MI6 - the chemical sagas in Syria and
Skripal are but a way to somehow squeeze some kind of foreign policy NATO lead position out
for the UK while in actual fact their leverage into the EU has dissipated. I applaud the
demise of the British aristocracy; it will be for Corbyn to rebuild the country and likely
to do so with much more of a mandate after this debacle has been spinning the trough for
Globalization, fake interdependency really just abject dependency, food insecurity,
abdication of sovereignty, double standards for who is and isn't allowed to run corporate
welfare states and set up barriers and dump, yup, globalization's got it all.
As every British faction is demonstrating with their dithering and equivocations, their
attitude toward the EU is: Can't live with it, can't live without it.
(Well, the fake "left" are just can't-live-without-it, since they abdicated what was
supposed to be their anti-globalization role from day one of the Brexit saga.)
Brexit sure has made a lot of people who talk a good game show their cards. I was
cheering it on from day one, because the EU needs to be broken up completely and here's a
start. The break-up of the UK also would be a fine thing.
Poor Britannia,,, From world power to Globalist Serfs. Yes the sun never set on the Empire.
Now the only sun they see is what the EU allows. Their demographics so messed up they'll be
a 3rd world country soon if not already. The stiff upper lip Brit is now limp,,, in every
No I'm not laughing,,, My country, the US of A, has the same destination dialed in, just
a slightly different route. We're porpoising like the 737 MAX without the safety option,
soon we'll all be citizens of the World Corpgov. Joy!
"Here's something we can all agree on. British 'Democracy' is not fit for purpose. The
party system the method of election the relationship between people the legislature and the
executive is all now dysfunctional. Something has to give something has to change
From my perspective, George is correct. And as commentators reflect here, at bottom is a
longstanding Class War that's been in existence as long as the British state.
Eurocrats probably have scant needs to be super nice to EU. Politically, various countries
have some wishes, so as long as they follow that their lower parts remain fully clothed.
Practically, Brits are hard to please, preoccupied with winning some points against each
other. And realistically, can anything really bad happen to them? In the worst case, surely
US military will ferry some humanitarian help, perhaps dumping it at Irish border.
Britain in recent years has offered the most vivid example of genuinely disastrous
First, David Cameron, likely the most incompetent Prime Minister in British history,
offers a vote to the public about remaining in the EU.
It was something he didn't need to do at all, and it came after forty years of being
part of EU. And, in such a huge and complex matter, not well-understood by the general
public, it makes little sense to hold a vote, especially coming at a time of considerable
public agitation over refugees and migration, a highly emotional topic where cool-headed
facts did not at all feature. If for some reason you insisted on a vote, it should only
have been held after, say, a one-year period of public education and discussion and debate.
It is a hugely consequential decision.
Leading up to the vote, he ran around flapping his arms and pretending to play
statesman, telling people he'd sure stay in the EU with the adjustments in terms he had
obtained from Brussels.
Then we have Theresa May spend a few years trying to sort out terms with the EU, making
quite a spectacle of herself on several occasions, as having cabinet ministers quit and
having votes against the government's position, as well as forming an alliance from hell to
stay in power.
Yet, the bottom line, as they say, remains clear: Britain will suffer in leaving the EU,
no matter under what set of terms.
And the EU itself, one of the world's largest economies, has been given a serious wound
at a time of other menacing economic and social problems, and that in a world with many
signs of weakness and instability.
May insists, bull-headedly, on going ahead with Brexit, yet so easily she could just
declare that she, as Prime Minister, now sees how much damage this is doing and will not
proceed, in the national interest. She could easily also hold a second vote, something
polls suggest would go the other way from the original vote.
But no, damn the torpedoes, we're going full-steam ahead.
Rational government? I think not. And it is just one portion of what we see in a number
of Western countries and around a number of important issues.
Oh well, maybe people can console themselves with, "At least it's not quite the vicious
lunatic government we see in the United States, rampaging through every country where it
finds anything it dislikes, threatening everyone with sanctions or sabotage or war, and, of
course, threatening the world's very stability."
Does anyone believe the world is going to survive this period and maintain its economic
and political and social health? I certainly don't.
This entire mess, start to finish, is a botched attempt to hold the Tory party together.
The welfare of the British people no longer has any importance whatsoever to the Tories.
There are 55 million British subjects ( By law we are not citizens of our country but
subjects of the British Monarch ) of working age and 17.4 million voted to leave. That's
not a majority. And the Brexiteers insist having been allowed to vote once we can never
Austerity is punishing the innocent for economic crimes committed by a small elite and
millions who voted to leave did so to strike back at them. We, as a people, are dimly aware
in an unfocused way that we have been swindled and cheated by a smug elite for decades.
How ironic then that it is an unprincipled lazy oaf like Boris Johnson (A man fired twice
for lying to his boss) and a weaponised banker like Rees-Mogg who are deciding our
My country is breaking up.
Whats left will be a small, weak, disliked and untrusted remnant. Wide open to exploitation
by other powers, State and non State.
I think you are being too kind to May. The 255 page deal she presented to the Cabinet
last August I think, has barely changed since then. What has happened is the 16 or so
really nasty clauses in it have become hidden under the Irish Question. It looked for a
while as we were being swept towards agreeing the May deal if only the EU would agree a
form of words on the Irish backstop, ignoring the other issues. Then Bercow stopped that by
saying that Parliament couldn't keep voting on the same measure until it passed, a
favourite EU tactic (you will vote until you vote the right way).
I suspect that the EU may indeed change the backstop words and it will pass, but there
are increasing reasons why they won't.
Yesterday in Dutch elections a populist party did very well indeed, this does not bode
well for the established order in the EU elections on the 23rd May.
The EU really needs the
period of chaos that will start after a clean Brexit to scare the European electorates into
voting conservatively, forcefully making the point that if this was happening to a country
the size of the UK, God help them if they wanted to do the same.
b, I disagree with your comment "A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos
for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy". The plan to go zero
tariff/keep EU regulations in place will negate a good proportion of the issues and may
force the EU to do the same, at least until the new Commission is in place until the
My reasoning on this is with zero tariff there will be no halt to EU trucks coming
into the UK to deliver product and produce. The problem will be when those trucks, plus
Irish trucks and UK trucks head back or to the EU. If they put up barriers there will be
huge outbound queues towards Dover. This will cause huge economic outcries across the EU
putting big pressure on politicians to sort it.
We need to remember that EU agricultural producers had a dry run of this five years ago
when Russia shut their borders overnight to EU produce with lorries with perishables on
board with nowhere to go. That cost billions of Euros and I doubt the Dutch and Spaniards
in particular want that to happen again.
Incidentally, zero tariff will have little financial effect on the UK as the revenue from
external tariffs goes straight to the EU funds, not the countries.
Once a decision is made and we are not going to gift our ace , £39B, away the UK
gets to be in a much stronger position, especially as this time we might have a decent
negotiating team in place as they will not be trying to 'remain but not remain' as we will
We will also be able to re-connect with suppliers in the Commonwealth. Be good to get
New Zealand butter again.
Theresa May is a remainer and I still think she's playing 4D chess (with the objective of
imploding Brexit from within while making it look like an accident). Was the Conservative
Party so unified around Brexit, she wouldn't be PM: it would be Leadsom, Johnson or many
other brexiter bigwigs already in position of power in the Party.
The EU would survive without the UK, but that would be a huge downgrade and a definitive
strategic defeat. When the EU was created in the 1990s, expectations were big: it was
expected to supplant the USSR as the USA's rival, with realistic chances of surpassing the
Americans in the near future.
When the Euro was created in 2000, many pundits believed it
would supplant the US Dollar as the world standard fiat currency. The hype was huge.
That ended. After the creation of the EZ, the economies of the EU began to diverge
instead of converge: the poorer members begun to be poorer; the richer, richer. After 2008,
the EU's economy essentially went full Japan and stagnated. It is only a matter of time
before it begins to recede.
If the UK exits, the EU will devolve into a mere Carolingian project, with much humbler
In his tweets, Corbyn says he's laid out Labour's alternative plan which is described in
the short vid at the link above. Elsewhere I saw a figure citing 63% of Britons voted for
Brexit, which is consistent with what Craig Murray's said about the voting share between
Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland--all of whom cast majorities for Remain.
Corbyn's in a pickle since he's trying to abide the will of Britain's voting public
despite knowing Remain is better for the overall British interest. Why Brexit gained a
majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the
British nation to please the City of London pirates.
May appears to favor the hard fall out
of spite for the opposing constituency, which many see as her channeling Thatcher's ghost.
And the only reason May's government remains is through the Blairite 5th column's treason.
IMO, Corbyn's terms are probably acceptable to the EU; but the EU doesn't want to see him
in charge of England as his domestic plan goes against EU neoliberalism.
The ball's back in Parliament's court, so we'll need to await events there.
I have one honest question about Brexit. Why is the following quote true?
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be
catastrophic for Britain's economy.
I have been trying for months to understand the mechanism by which this catastrophe will
occur, and I cannot find an explanation anywhere. I find only people asserting that it will
be so. They may be right, but its not clear to me why.
From a naive point of view, consider that other countries trade with the EU and don't
suffer from a catastrophe. So why can't the UK?
NZ trades with the EU and as far as I can tell they're not living in "utter chaos".
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
I am not a Brit. I was interested to read Emily's comment. To an outsider it seemed that
the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is
working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not
want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a
bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU.
Leaving the EU and relying on WTO rules for trade would be messy, but mostly because no
plans have been made, even with 2 years to carry them out. How is a private company in the
UK going to make provision for the future, when they have no idea what that future would
be? To end up in a state where the only remaining option is a complete break, with no
planning is criminal incompetence. (Aside: May's ridiculous Skripal fiasco was a pretty
good demonstration to the outside World of her low ability.)
One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was
possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60
years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if
they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia.
I'm surprised there's no mention of the 22nd May as the date of the extension deadline ...
really? ... the day before the EU elections? Clearly designed as a cynical safeguard
against a flood of euroskeptics entering the EU political scene.
Here's hoping it backfires horrendously on the EU.
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
It's one of those self-inflating, self-confirming propositions; if there's a critical
mass of Chicken Littles chirping with hysterical terror, the chaos becomes a fait
Alternatively, one may ask if the dread post-Brexit "utter chaos" is distinguishable
from the abiding, and escalating, utter chaos of the UK's government.
It's interesting that all parties are unable to cope with Brexit becoming a Gordian
Knot, insist that cutting it is simply too catastrophic, and so instead devise approaches
to simply make it go away-- either by infinitely kicking it down the road, or officially
declaring that it was a misadventure that never should've happened in the first place.
I'll turn 64 next month, but since I'll never be a Sensible Adult I'm offended by the
tendency of Sensible Adults to impatiently and bumptiously wave off the legitimacy of the
referendum; I presume they expect that if Brexit is formally nullified by further
chicanery, the childlike pro-Brexit idiots weary of being ridden over by the EU Trojan
Horse will simply accept that it was a fool's choice in the first place.
Meanwhile, the UK government consistently defers to the EU to dictate the terms
and conditions for withdrawal. It appears to be unclear on the concept of unilaterally
pulling itself out from under Brussels' talons.
So now we see a spectacle that combines "Groundhog Day" with "Oliver Twist in Hell": the
odious zombie-PM May peripatetically crawling to Brussels with her begging bowl, asking,
"Please, sirs, may I have less ?"
Such deluded analysis. If the EU tried to play on internal divisions to destroy a nuclear
armed power it would just bring defeat and absolute destruction on itself (ie the
German-French oligarchy) just like in the 20th century. The EU isn't a cohesive entity
outside the German-French oligarchy. France could be out of the German choke hold any day.
Italy is close to moving out of the EU control. The ex-Socialists states in the East will
take any German money, or trade deal that benefits them, but would as soon turn on Germany
on a geo-strategic level. London, with US help, will take on any attempt at German
continental empire building like anytime in the last centuries. Germany allying with Russia
or China against the Atlantic Powers would just make it even easier to split Europe and
bring its doom.
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid.
Quite an indictment! From the very beginning I've had no idea at all about what's going
on in the UK. I hope the ordinary people there survive whatever it is that's happening, and
the fallout doesn't spread to other countries.
I May manages to pull-off a hard Brexit it will be much to her credit.
Any company not making preparations deserves the outcome.
EU is an black hole of non sovereignty.
If Ireland and Scotland an Wales should wish to seperate from England, why is that a
problem for England?
George Galloway in the video I was barred from posting said the "Brexit Crash" is nothing
more than Remain Media propaganda/hyperbole. Indeed, remaining within EU prohibits
any UK government from nationalizing anything, such as renationalizing British Rail, or
from favoring any national industry over those located offshore. Why? Because the EU's a
Neoliberal project that's aimed at eliminating such socialistic attributes from ALL
European economies, and is why Benn and UK Labour opposed entering the EU from the
beginning. Galloway also talks about how Brexit created a schism within the Tories as
traditional British nationalists have also always opposed entering the EU.
Indeed, Brexit allows the current campaign by Corbyn's Labour to move forward unhindered
by EU rules and is very much to England's benefit. A Yandex search using Galloway Brexit
chaos brings up the video I mention into top place. It's only ten minutes long and very
much worth the time spent.
Leaving the EU doesn't have to be catastrophic for the UK, but leaving without a deal
necessarily would be. If the UK really does crash out with no deal next week, it instantly
becomes a third country that has no trade deals with the EU at all. Other countries that
trade with the EU do so within a framework of pre-existing agreements. The US and Japan
each have between 20 and 50 such trade agreements with the EU, for example (I can't be
bothered to look up the exact numbers). New Zealand is not in utter chaos because it has
had trade agreements with the EU since the very beginning, and so on.
No deal means no deal. It means roll-on/roll-off ferry traffic between UK and EU ports
grinds to a halt because every single lorry that could previously drive straight off the
ferry and onto the roads now has to be carefully inspected. The ports simply have no
capacity to do this because there is supposed to be freedom of movement and no inspections.
EU ports would become totally gridlocked within hours, and new ferries would be unable to
load or unload. The UK would have to stop exports to the EU completely to keep the ports
clear for incoming traffic (which could still go through uninspected because the UK could
waive its usual import checks to deal with the emergency).
This would continue, with massive economic damage, until new trade deals were agreed,
which could take months or even years. That is just one small example that I've tried to
WHEN DONALD Trump
trade war on China
last spring, he had to drag the U.S. political and business establishment along with him.
officials in both parties and a large majority of corporate execs cringed at the thought of a protracted trade war that
would disturb the ordinary flow of profits and investments between the world's two largest economies.
Now, as Trump and
his team seek a negotiated settlement with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump finds himself in the opposite position --
facing bipartisan pressures not to back down or compromise in any U.S.-China trade deal.
Even Trump's own
trade negotiator Bob Lighthizer -- who helped bend Japanese auto companies to the will of the Reagan administration in the
mid-1980s -- has
frustrated with the president
, wanting him to take a harder line on Chinese telecom giant Huawei and keep the threat of
further tariff increases on the table.
The context for this
strange turnabout is the new common sense across the political spectrum: the idea that China poses a threat to U.S. jobs,
security and technological dominance.
fully expect the eventual Democratic nominee in 2020 to try to outflank him to the right on China and the defense of U.S.
manufacturing. And the political competition over anti-Chinese toughness could very well throw a wrench into the continuing
bilateral negotiations with China.
Even big American
capital -- which, outside of the steel industry, has been almost universally opposed to Trump's tariffs -- is warming to the
administration's more aggressive stance toward China.
Most U.S. CEOs are
still hostile to the use of tariffs as an economic weapon, especially against their North American and European trading
partners. But they also have serious concerns about the rapid development of Chinese high-tech manufacturing, the transfer
-- by contract and by coercion -- of U.S. technologies to Chinese firms, and investment restrictions for U.S. companies in
Somewhat to their
surprise, Corporate America sees Trump forcing Xi's hand on these issues more effectively than Barack Obama or George W.
Bush before him.
president of the Business Roundtable -- an association of the U.S.'s largest companies, collectively worth $8 trillion and
employing 15 million workers --
it this way
during a recent interview with Washington trade experts Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch on their podcast
The CEOs of the
Business Roundtable have found themselves in agreement...with the Trump administration on most of the objectives of the
very aggressive posture that the administration has taken with respect to China.
As both of you
also know, that is an evolution...of the business community's position. The Roundtable doesn't speak for the whole
business community, but I think there has been an evolution throughout the business community on this. And that is that
the posture of waiting for democratic, market-oriented capitalism gravity to have its effect on the Chinese has proven
not to be a viable approach.
Bolten went on to
lament the defeat of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- a major Obama-era economic agreement that Trump opposed on the
campaign trail and terminated once he took office -- as a missed opportunity to contain China's rise and secure crucial
markets where U.S. and Chinese companies are in direct competition.
Bolten and most of
the U.S. ruling class see -- somewhat in contrast to Trump -- the strengthening of a multilateral alliance of Western and
pro-Western countries as the best strategy to counter the threat of a growing Chinese rival.
But Bolten is
unambiguous and Trump-sounding about the goal of the strategy. "All of our interests are actually consistent with each
other in confronting the threat that an economically hegemonic China poses for the entire world," he explained.
HEARING A leading
representative of the American corporate elite talk about the threat of Chinese economic hegemony on "the entire world" is
alarming to say the least -- and demonstrates that Trump doesn't have a monopoly on anti-China discourse by any stretch of
That isn't to
underplay the serious disagreements over strategy between the Trump administration and most of the U.S. business world.
leaders are concerned about the fact that Trump is simultaneously in tense trade negotiations with the European Union and
the threat of tariffs on car imports
(primarily impacting Germany and Japan), a move which virtually every single
American auto-company angrily opposes.
And they appear to
be signing on only half-heartedly to Trump's renegotiated NAFTA, now dubbed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement -- which
contains some attractive updates on digital trade (mostly lifted from the TPP, ironically enough), but is broadly seen as a
step backwards for corporate profits and preferable only to a collapse of NAFTA altogether.
These raise question
for U.S. corporate rulers: If Trump is so concerned with the Chinese threat, why doesn't he focus his fire in that
direction, instead of toward allies?
This will be the
line of attack against Trump from much of the political and corporate establishment, including those who are Democrats or
support them, moving forward into the new election cycle.
To Trump and his
team, however, trade disputes and negotiations with Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and China are all so many
elements of a larger plan to keep as much of global industry as possible within the continental U.S.
For the largest
American companies -- which have positioned themselves at the technological peak of a globalized network of supply chains,
markets and investments -- Trump's economic nationalism poses an opportunity to challenge China, but new problems in
relation to the rest of the world.
The biggest CEOs and
industry lobbies are still figuring out a response.
of the U.S.-China trade war have been felt across the corporate world, perhaps nowhere more starkly than in
tensions between the U.S. and China have deepened, telecom companies and state governments have been preparing for the
highly anticipated rollout of 5G cellular networks. 5G, or fifth generation, technology is expected to speed up data flows
(and increase data volumes) across cell phone and other digital communication systems.
predict the degree of change brought on by 5G will be similar to that of the 3G and 4G evolutions, which underpinned the
smartphone boom. This time around, however, most eyes are trained on what the new networks will mean for digitized and
computerized manufacturing, commerce and transportation more broadly.
For the leadership
of both main U.S. political parties, the excitement around 5G has been muted by hostility toward the world's largest
telecom equipment supplier (and second largest cell phone seller), the Chinese corporation Huawei.
With $7.55 billion
in profits in 2017 and the most cost-competitive telecom equipment in the world, Huawei has been widely predicted to be one
of the main beneficiaries of the 5G expansion.
But Congress has
been on an offensive against the company
, and the Trump administration has escalated the attacks.
Trump has gone on a
global campaign with broad bipartisan support to persuade allied states to ban Huawei entirely from their domestic markets.
He has also planned to issue an executive order to bar the company from the U.S. economy as well, though he seems to have
now turned this threat into a bargaining chip in his dealmaking with Xi and China.
for bans is that Huawei could use its access to the cellular networks it builds overseas to spy on foreign governments. The
extraordinary hypocrisy of this claim coming from the main surveillance power in world history has not been lost on most
people following the debate.
instructed the Canadian government to arrest and extradite Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, daughter of
Huawei founder and President Ren Zhengfei, during a routine visit to Vancouver. The charges against Wanzhou stemmed from
alleged violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
began this week and could drag on for months.
could also be used as a bargaining chip by Trump, though most of Trump's staff is reticent to bring a separate legal
proceeding into a trade agreement for fear of discrediting the courts.
PART OF what is so
striking about the case of Huawei and 5G is how it flatly contradicts the whole logic of the current neoliberal world order
of free markets and free trade.
According to the
propaganda, under neoliberalism, any buyer should be allowed to make their purchases from any company that offers the best
products for the lowest prices. For many buyers, including national governments, that company is clearly Huawei.
Now, however, the
U.S. state is attempting to restrict the field and eliminate the Chinese option from the market. In other words, what we're
witnessing in this crucial sector of the global economy is an open attempt by the world's most powerful state to create
trade blocs in telecommunications that shut out one of China's most prominent companies.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress are rallying behind the attacks on Huawei, the response from the U.S. and European
information technology industries has been much more conflicted.
The main lobby for
telecom and technology companies in the U.S., the Information Technology Industry Council, has been clamoring for Trump to
strike a deal with Xi and drop the tariffs. Chuck Robbins, CEO of the largest American telecom equipment maker, Cisco
Systems, insists Trump's tariffs and sanctions are unnecessary.
"We don't need
anything else to beat these guys or to beat any of our competition in the marketplace,"
said in February
. Huawei competitors Ericsson and Nokia -- multinational companies based in Sweden and Finland,
respectively -- have claimed that
ready to supply Europe's 5G infrastructures
in the event of a Huawei ban, indicating they may have some sympathy with
AS OF now, the Trump
administration's campaign to block Huawei from the world's markets has had mixed results. Both
agencies are leaning toward accepting Huawei as a legitimate business partner, as is the
In the Czech
conflict has emerged
pitting President Miloš Zeman, who wants to strengthen ties with China, and the Czech
cybersecurity agency, which has labeled Huawei a threat to national security. Debates on the same topic are also underway
Minister Marise Payne, staking out the most extreme anti-Huawei position, has
embraced Trump's ban
and vowed to maintain it, even if Trump himself backs away from his current position. New
Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, on other the hand,
the idea of a blanket ban
China-India tensions, the offer of cheap telecommunications equipment to expand India's cellular infrastructure seems too
attractive for Modi and his business allies to decline. The fact that the Trump administration is simultaneously
raising tariffs and restrictions
on Indian products is certainly not helping to convince Modi to further antagonize
the Trump White House has been in forcing the hand of other states, the president and congressional leaders are well aware
of the economic leverage they have against key Chinese companies.
Last year, the Trump
administration brought China's second telecom corporation, ZTE, to the brink of collapse when he issued
temporary ban on trade
between the company and American suppliers. ZTE is totally dependent on U.S. imports of advanced
communications equipment and might have been destroyed if Trump had not chosen to lift the ban before entering negotiations
Similar bans by the
Trump administration have nearly brought down the Chinese state-owned chipmaking company Fujian Jinhua, which has announced
it will have to
production altogether in March
if it cannot buy more imports of crucial American equipment.
WITH ALL of these
variables at play, the next year in the U.S.-China economic relationship is impossible to predict.
The financial costs
of unraveling one of the largest state-to-state commercial relationships in modern history may prove too high for either
side to escalate the 2018-19 trade conflict any further, especially as the global economy passes the high point of the
business cycle and heads toward
The two heads of
state plan to meet at the end of March, possibly at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, to sign a trade agreement.
For Trump to sell
the deal to an increasingly hawkish Congress, he will have to demonstrate "progress" on the goals he articulated at the
outset of the trade war: more Chinese purchases of American products, stronger intellectual property safeguards for U.S.
corporations and less state subsidies for Chinese companies. It remains to be seen whether Trump will decide to incorporate
a compromise on Huawei into the deal.
Whatever the outcome
of this round of negotiations -- and it is still possible that they could fall apart -- what is unfolding today is
undoubtedly just the first act in a long and tempestuous drama.
China is clearly a
growing geopolitical rival to the U.S., and Chinese corporations are quickly developing the capacity to compete with their
U.S. counterparts on a global scale in the most advanced areas of high-tech manufacturing.
This means that many
more economic confrontations between the two states are inevitable. And as politicians on both sides of the aisle have made
abundantly clear, Trump will not be the last president to stoke tensions with China.
Then there is the
question of how the perspectives of the largest American businesses will change as this conflict develops.
Josh Bolten, the
Business Roundtable president, claims that the CEOs he represents have been through an "evolution" in their views that
brings them closer to Trump's "aggressive posture" toward China. Yet at the same time, there continues to be near-universal
opposition to tariffs and trade wars within these elite strata.
So what kind of
"aggressive posture" do these leading American capitalists hope to adopt? With more money and power concentrated in their
hands than any other ruling class in the world, the stance that these elites take toward U.S.-China relations will be very
If the American 1
Percent drifts any further toward the rising economic nationalism articulated by their political representatives in
Washington, future flare-ups between the two countries may be a great deal worse.
RT correspondent Eisa Ali reports on the latest Brexit drama in the UK Parliament. Then,
economist and founder of Democracy at Work Richard Wolff joins Rick Sanchez to discuss, arguing
that the Brexit debate constitutes "an endless struggle about what doesn't matter" and that
whether the British are "in" or "out" of Europe is an irrelevant distraction from the problems
really faced by the UK.
A couple of points he makes in passing surprised me:
1) "It's why they are using the non-issue of the Irish border ..." Is it really a non-issue,
and why? Surely it is a big issue, and intrinsically explosive? Maybe I am missing something
2) "The Labour party is squealing out of both sides of its mouth trying to get themselves
out of the corner they've painted themselves into. Because they can read the polls. And what
was a solid Labour lead in the winter has become a solid Tory lead in the Spring." Is it really
so that that huge Labour lead has been turned into - of all things - a Tory lead? Horror
of horrors. If true, the present day Brits are unfathomable. And what about the first part of
that citation - what about turning it around and expressing it in terms of the reality, which
is that the Labour Party consists of two wholly different, wholly contradictory, and wholly
ireconcilable parts, namely the socialist majority standing behind Corbyn and the lying fascist
corporatist right-wing 5th columnists whose sole objective is to sabotage the previous group in
every manner possible. Would perhaps a better statement be that the difference between these
two groups is being made more explicit than ever (which, I would have thought, would only
increase Corbyn's support not decrease it)? Or is that just my wishful thinking and the UK
masses are being successfully hoodwinked by the propaganda of the 2nd group as spouted by the
Comments on those two issues anyone, from those closer to the action? (Comments from Bevin
would be especially gratefully read!)
Posted by: BM | Mar 16, 2019 9:58:53 AM |
172 ... ... ...
The other most ridiculous thing, probably moreso when you think about this Monty
Pythonesque British escapade into hillarity is the fact such grand sweeping measures are
allowed on a simple majority vote of the populace, thus ensuring approximately half the
population will detest the result no matter what.
Say what you will about the US of A-holes, and I admit nearly all of what you say is true
(except of course for the oft repeated mis-trope that Trump = US in all his venal stupidity.
No, he only represents roughly 35%...and true that is egregious enough...) at least in the US
such grand sweeping measures able to be put to a vote to the nation as a whole (iow, amending
the Constitution) either require super majority of state legislatures or a super majourity of
Congress criminals to pass.
The fact an entire nation of blooming idiots in England are where they are today is insanely
larfably and udderly absurd. Also, infotaining.
And to think Theresa May is the headliner fronting this comedy act for the ages.
All this inspired of course by the equally ridiculous US president and his chief strategist
the completely nutz Bannon.
... ... ...
Posted by: donkeytale | Mar 16, 2019 10:49:56 AM |
173@ bevin | Mar 15, 2019 3:45:05 PM; Jen | Mar 15, 2019 3:49:59 PM; mourning dove |
Mar 15, 2019 3:59:32 PM
Posted by: ex-SA | Mar 16, 2019 9:18:03 AM | 171
A few half-baked thoughts on this: it seems to me both sides of this argument have some
merits. On the one side I am inclined to agree with ex-SA that the working classes in the
colonising countries have had by and large a pretty cushy life since after the 2nd World War
when compared to the disenfranchised of the colonised countries, both before and after
(ostensible but not really real) decolonisation.
The brutality of neoliberalism and austerity on working people in the rich nations (but
arguably even more so on those in poor nations!) does not in my view very seriously detract
from that argument.
One thing that does arguably somewhat detract from the above argument is that when viewed in
non-materialistic terms, those living in the so-called rich countries often have markedly
meaningless and miserable lives compared to many poor people living in materially poor
countries (extreme destitution obviously aside) - in other words they are miserably
Many people in Germany, for example, earn relatively high wages, most of which they spend on
very high housing costs (and energy costs etc) - often alone, and spend the rest of their
income on highly processed food from supermarkets that costs a multiple of what the simple
basic local foodstuffs that were eaten in former times would cost (and still could if you know
how to live more meaningfully); and meanwhile their life is spiritually frozen and devoid of
In contrast, often people living materially poor lives in undeveloped and in materialist
terms extremely poor countries, but living much closer to nature and with much warmer intra-
and inter-familial relations in extended families, and have a philosophy of life that is less
exclusively materialist and much more conducive to spiritual well-being. I would argue however
that this aspect is largely tangental to the issue of winners and losers of colonialism.
I agree with Bevin @ 131's point about the destitution of the British working classes prior
to the first world war, but what about post-1960's? I don't really see that the lifestyles of
the worst victims of austerity today are comparable to the lifestyles of the poor in the 18th
or 19th century? I think the lives of even the poorest of the poor (excluding probably the
homeless) in the West are massively subsidised by the spoils of the (ongoing) rape of the
The entire expectations of people in the West - including the poor - are based on
assumptions of entitlement to things which are critically dependent on the rape and theft of
the resources of the colonised countries. Look at the extraordinarily privileged living
standards of ordinary working people in Belgium today, as an extreme example!
It is always interesting to reflect that in former times the West was always viewed as the
poor part of the world, and the East as wealthy - and historically it is true that throughout
most of recorded history the East was extremely wealthy compared to the pauper West - the
current-day material wealth of the West relative to the East should be viewed as an
extraordinary anomaly! The first Westerners to visit the East marvelled at its phenomenal
wealth and envied it. That indeed was the primary cause of the Crusades - the paupers of the
West envied the riches of the East and drummed up pseudo-religious excuses to rape and pillage
whatever they could grab. It is not without reason that most of the economically poorest
countries in reacent times are precisely those countries with the most abundant valuable
"... Face it. Mass production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1 wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress ..."
"... Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich in minerals, timber, water, etc. ..."
"... With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc. ..."
"... The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant memory. ..."
"... Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero. ..."
War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition.
It all war, all the time and another point to remember is that there is always a war between
the .001% and the rest of us.
Another thing is that we proles, peasants and peons should give some serious thought to
having the "elite" fight their own battles, on their "own" (though mostly stolen) shekels for
once. Read More Agree: foolisholdman Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
governing elites have developed other means of warfare -- economic, technological, and
covert -- to achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is
already in close to full combat mode with respect to China.
Looked at this way, there are countless wars all the time as well as a huge gray area that
is debatable. I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing in both
directions. Even then, there are gray areas, but at least they are minimized
@Erebus In the distant past
there were at least 1000 PC Board manufacturers in the US .now there are only 2 or 3. Most US
PCB houses are actually a middleman with an iphone fronting for one of the many Chinese PCB
factories. You supply the Gerber Files and the payment, of course, and your finished PC
Boards come back by air the next day.
Now here is the kicker: our US PC Board supplier is
located in Illinois and owned by you guessed it Hindus. Half the staff are also Hindus. In
general, the Chinese PCBs are of higher quality than the Hindu .er US PCBs.
Face it. Mass
production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important
industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1
wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the
diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on
year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich
in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy
(induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is.
Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence
politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild
gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
China is only temporarily dependent on export of goods via their Eastern seaboard, but as
soon as belt and road opens up, she will pivot further toward Eurasia. If the U.S. factories
withdrew from China tomorrow, China already has our "knowledge" and will find markets in
Eurasia and raw materials in Africa, etc.
People need to stop whistling past the graveyard.
The atalantacist strategy has run its course, internal development of U.S. and linking up
with belt and road would be in America's best future interests. But, to do that requires
first acknowledging that money's true nature is law, and not private bank credit. Further,
the U.S. is being used as whore of Babylon, where her money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and
are international in character. The U.S is not sovereign. Deep state globalism does not
recognize national boundaries, or sovereignty.
@Alfa158 Alternatively, one
could examine a nations ability to rapidly expand their economy to meet wartime needs. In
this scenario, other factors such as access to raw materials come into play. In this
perspective, the equations would change dramatically.
That US elites that are split on who to go after first compromised by going after both Russia
and China at the same time is a definition of insanity. The US doesn't have a chance in hell
of subduing or defeating the Russia/China alliance. The US is already checkmated. The more it
goes after some big win the worse will be its defeat.
So the question (for me) is not which side will win, the question is the scenario of the
decline of the US Empire. Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU
will decide that staying a US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then
the virus of US insanity will turn inwards into itself.
The US has recently focused on South America by installing several fascist regimes and is
now trying to get Venezuela. But the US backed regimes are laying the groundwork for the next
wave of revolution soon to come. Wherever I look the US is its own worst enemy. The big
question is how much suffering before it ends.
sheete The author's definition makes the term a purely rhetorical one tantamount to an
angry child saying "this means war!" to another angry child, or "The War on Drugs" or "The
Battle of the Sexes" etc.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth the
time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
Klare discovers the US crusade against China – 8 years after the Obama/Hillary "pivot"
to East Asia sending 2/3 of the US Navy there and putting together the TPP to excluded China.
As usual he is right on top of things.
And he begins with this gem: " "The media and many politicians continue to focus on
U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016
American presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation." Huh? Does he mean the
$4700 in Google ads or the $50,000 in Facebook ads traced to some alleged Russian sources? A
Russiagater from the start.
I remember some years ago before the shale revolution Klare was warning us about "peak oil."
I think we were supposed to have run out of it by now.
Klare is a hack who cycles things that any conscious person reading the newspapers would have
known long ago.
P.s. He says that Apple is the number one cell phone. No longer. He should improve his
Google search skills or his set of assumptions which have turned him into a Russiagater.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere – from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
I don't think it's simple "Eastern" vs "Western" Europeans; my take is Protestants vs
Catholics vs Orthodox. In that order. The biggest difference is between Protestant and
Orthodox. Catholics are, sort of, in the middle.
Or, in practical terms, don't see much difference between Austrians and Slovenes.
That's for Europe.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth
the time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
I agree on all four points.
However, if you didn't want a debate, or at least a response, then why did you bother
bringing it up? (That's a rhetorical question, since I neither expect nor really care what
the response would be; now I'm asking myself why I bothered !!!)