Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Anti-globalization movement and US-china trade war

News Neoliberalism Recommended Links Blowback against neoliberal globalization TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit revisited: Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as antidote to Neoliberalism Corporatism
Anti-globalization movement Trump foreign policy platform Globalization of Financial Flows National Security State National Socialism and Military Keysianism Media-Military-Industrial Complex American Exceptionalism
The Great Transformation Neoliberalism as secular religion, "idolatry of money" Techno-fundamentalism Over-consumption of Luxury Goods as Market Failure Neocons as USA neo-fascists Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime Neoclassical Pseudo Theories and Crooked and Bought Economists as Fifth Column of Financial Oligarchy
Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Friedman --founder of Chicago school of deification of market Neoliberalism Bookshelf Ethno-lingustic Nationalism Greenspan humor Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on crisis of  neoliberalism Etc

From Wikipedia:

Many critics of trade liberalization, such as Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Susan George, and Naomi Klein, see the Washington Consensus as a way to open the labor market of underdeveloped economies to exploitation by companies from more developed economies. The prescribed reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers allow the free movement of goods across borders according to market forces, but labor is not permitted to move freely due to the requirements of a visa or a work permit. This creates an economic climate where goods are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped economies and then exported to rich First World economies for sale at what the critics argue are huge markups, with the balance of the markup said to accrue to large multinational corporations. The criticism is that workers in the Third World economy nevertheless remain poor, as any pay raises they may have received over what they made before trade liberalization are said to be offset by inflation, whereas workers in the First World country become unemployed, while the wealthy owners of the multinational grow even more wealthy.

Anti-globalization critics further claim that First World countries impose what the critics describe as the consensus's neoliberal policies on economically vulnerable countries through organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and by political pressure and bribery. They argue that the Washington Consensus has not, in fact, led to any great economic boom in Latin America, but rather to severe economic crises and the accumulation of crippling external debts that render the target country beholden to the First World.

Many of the policy prescriptions (e.g., the privatization of state industries, tax reform, and deregulation) are criticized as mechanisms for ensuring the development of a small, wealthy, indigenous elite in the Third World who will rise to political power and also have a vested interest in maintaining the local status quo of labor exploitation.

Some specific factual premises of the critique as phrased above (especially on the macroeconomic side) are not accepted by defenders, or indeed all critics, of the Washington Consensus. To take a few examples,[29] inflation in many developing countries is now at its lowest levels for many decades (low single figures for very much of Latin America). Workers in factories created by foreign investment are found typically to receive higher wages and better working conditions than are standard in their own countries' domestically-owned workplaces. Economic growth in much of Latin America in the last few years has been at historically high rates, and debt levels, relative to the size of these economies, are on average significantly lower than they were several years ago.

Despite these macroeconomic advances, poverty and inequality remain at high levels in Latin America. About one of every three people - 165 million in total- still live on less than $2 a day. Roughly a third of the population has no access to electricity or basic sanitation, and an estimated 10 million children suffer from malnutrition. These problems are not, however, new: Latin America was the most economically unequal region in the world in 1950, and has continued to be so ever since, during periods both of state-directed import-substitution and (subsequently) of market-oriented liberalization.[30]

Some socialist political leaders in Latin America are vocal and well-known critics of the Washington Consensus, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Cuban ex-President Fidel Castro, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. In Argentina, too, the recent Peronist party government of Néstor Kirchner undertook policy measures which represented a repudiation of at least some Consensus policies (see Continuing Controversy below). However, with the exception of Castro, these leaders have maintained and expanded some successful policies commonly associated with the Washington Consensus, such as macroeconomic stability and property rights protection.

Others on the Latin American left take a different approach. Governments led by the Socialist Party of Chile, by Alan García in Peru, by Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, and by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, have in practice maintained a high degree of continuity with the economic policies described under the Washington Consensus (debt-paying, protection to foreign investment, financial reforms, etc.). But governments of this type have simultaneously sought to supplement these policies by measures directly targeted at improving productivity and helping the poor, such as education reforms and subsidies to poor families conditioned on their children staying in school.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Apr 16, 2019] China Confronts Japan Over Huawei 5G Ban During High Level Talks

Notable quotes:
"... From an Australian perspective I would trust the US a whole lot less than China and trust Japan a whole lot more than China, just the way it is. ..."
Apr 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

China Confronts Japan Over Huawei 5G Ban During High Level Talks

by Tyler Durden Tue, 04/16/2019 - 19:45 10 SHARES

According to a new exclusive in Nikkei Asian Review Huawei Technologies' planned 5G roll out is a source of tension between China and Japan. Amid a general backdrop of otherwise improving relations, Japan late last year banned integration of the fifth-generation wireless technology over telecommunications security concerns, in a move that mirrored US action.

But on Sunday during high level economic talks in Beijing, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi urged Japan not to single out Huawei: "Why is the Japanese government excluding Huawei?" he said. The Nikkei report painted a picture of a long and contentious meeting in which "sparks were flying" over Tokyo's intent to wall itself off from Huawei 5G business.

Nikkei cites that Huawei was invoked repeatedly by Chinese representatives at the meeting, which ran nearly four hours. "The Chinese side was interested mainly in Huawei issues," a source cited in the report said.

In the meeting Japan's foreign minister Taro Kono claimed that Tokyo "does not have any specific Chinese company in mind" with regard to the ban.

However, the Chinese side was reportedly unconvinced -- this after ZTE equipment was also banned by the Japanese policy, outlined last December, ostensibly to avoid hacks and intelligence leaks.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, right, and Japanese counterpart Taro Kono in Beijing on April 15, via Getty Images/Nikkei

Nikkei summarized the extent of Japan's ban on Huawei's 5G in the following :

Tokyo's directive followed in December, banning government purchases of communications circuits, devices, servers and six other types of equipment should they pose a security risk .

Japan also aims to protect telecommunications equipment in 14 areas of infrastructure, including finance and air travel, against cyberattacks and other threats.

Huawei Technologies is touting its 5G "revolution" at the same time many western countries are shining a spotlight on Chinese espionage and stealing of trade secrets.

In 2017 Huawei launched its new smartphone product in Japan, its "NOVA" phone. Image source: Nikkei

The fear is that the cutting edge network technology will act as a backdoor for cyber spying by Beijing .

Meanwhile Huawei representatives have recently touted that the company has signed 40 commercial 5G network contracts and shipped 100,000 base stations globally, to facilitate its super-fast networks.

Australia and New Zealand have also alongside the US and Japan banned the technology from being sold in their territory. And other so-called "Five Eyes" intelligence sharing countries the UK and Canada are reportedly strongly considering a blanket ban.


YesWeKahn , 50 minutes ago link

IF US government can spy using google, twitter, and ATT, why can't someone else spy using its own application or device?

rtb61 , 57 minutes ago link

Of course Japan banned Huawei because the Japanese are fully capable of manufacturing their own gear, why would they not want to have greater controls of the supply of essential elements into essential infrastructure. It would be insane to do anything else.

Nothing to do with China, Japan is in a position to block all foreign manufactured electronics from entering into their essential infrastructure, as a matter of national security is it sensible to do this, the sane decision.

The response from Japan to China should be really straightforward, "It is essential infrastructure and as a matter of national security we require that it be locally sourced as much as possible", any negative response to that from any other country including China, should be met with Baka and walking away or a little more politely, "I would expect the government of China to do the same, legislate for all Chinese essential infrastructure to be sourced from China when ever possible, why would you not do this and why would you not expect us to do this".

From an Australian perspective I would trust the US a whole lot less than China and trust Japan a whole lot more than China, just the way it is.

Subject to economic arrangements going forward, I would want all electronics in Australian essential infrastructure to be manufactured in Australia or in the case of a tight economic treaty with Japan, sourced from Japan.

The government of China is just pushing an old world war two barrow, to pressure Japan

nadir1991 , 1 hour ago link

Japan don't need a spyware. USSA controls every fabric of their society. You don't spy on your slaves

philipat , 28 minutes ago link

So here we go again. There is NO evidence of any backdoors in Huawei technology. What we do know is that Huawei has consistently refused to cooperate with NSA over its backdoors and that US equipment (when it eventually becomes available) will be more expensive and for sure full of backdoors. The latest generation of Huawei smart phones is exceptionally good BTW at a fraction of the cost of an iPhone.

[Apr 16, 2019] Putin, Xi, Assad, Maduro vs. the American Hegemon

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 mouse trap.
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."
Apr 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The American foreign policy Blob's latest worry is that Venezuela's radical leftist government is 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.

Advertisement

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 danger.

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 missile technology . 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 programs. Washington's 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.

Nicaragua: Washington's Other Hemispheric Nemesis Washington's Incoherent Policy Towards Dictators

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. Washington's "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.

Russia's grievances against the United States are even more pronounced. The expansion of NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, Washington's repeated trampling of Russian interests in the Balkans and the Middle East, the imposition of economic sanctions in response to the Crimea incident, the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, U.S. arms sales to Ukraine , and other provocations have led to a new cold war . Russia has moved to increase diplomatic, economic, and even military cooperation with China. Beijing and Moscow appear to be coordinating policies on an array of issues, complicating Washington's options .

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 a 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 committing.

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).



Higdon Kirt April 14, 2019 at 9:15 pm

"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.

Whine Merchant , , April 14, 2019 at 9:16 pm
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'.
Fayez Abedaziz , , April 15, 2019 at 12:10 am
Hello,
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.
The difference?
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?
Christian J Chuba , , April 15, 2019 at 7:20 am
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'.
or
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.

[Apr 16, 2019] Trump's Immigration Choice Kushner or Coulter

Notable quotes:
"... Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders. ..."
Apr 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

President Donald Trump was elected on a platform of America policing its own borders, not the world. His reelection may depend on how well he has fulfilled those campaign promises, which distinguished him from the bipartisan political class he so eloquently described as the swamp.

So far, the results are not encouraging. While Trump campaigned against regime change in the Middle East, his administration has been coy about whether the authorization of military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks covers toppling the government of Iran mere days after labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, the situation at the border is deteriorating, with the number of illegal crossings approaching the bad old days of the early to mid-2000s. More of these immigrants are likely staying in the country as the composition of new migrant inflows increasingly shifts from single men to families with children .

Single men can be more easily detained and quickly removed from the United States. Families with children and unaccompanied minors face a different set of rules -- and, as the White House learned last year, create a different set of political problems .

One key difference remains, however: on foreign policy, Trump is receiving advice almost exclusively from officials whose instincts run counter to the "America First" agenda from the 2016 campaign. On immigration and border security, there is more of a split . That's why there's so much at stake in Trump's recent immigration shake-up.

The ouster of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her deputy Claire Grady has been widely reported as an example of senior advisor Stephen Miller consolidating control of his immigration portfolio. But it may not be Miller time just yet. The moves come after Jared Kushner, the senior advisor who is also Trump's son-in-law, has been pushing a plan to increase legal immigration .

Trump has praised Miller as "excellent," "wonderful," and "brilliant," but clarified that he alone runs the show on immigration. (It's possible that some of the sourcing for stories putting Miller's fingerprints all over the Nielsen sacking actually came from his own enemies inside the White House.) Trump described Kushner's unannounced immigration ideas as "very exciting, very important." The president recently called for increased immigration himself, ad-libbing this line in his last State of the Union address: "I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come legally."

Yet a bill Trump endorsed at the White House last year would eventually cut legal immigration in half. Freshman Senator Josh Hawley joined Trump-aligned Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue to reintroduce this bill in an apparent attempt to thwart Kushner's coming push to expand immigration. On the stump, Trump has railed against "chain migration" and picking immigrants by "lottery" rather than a "merit-based system." But like a lot of Republicans, he tends to focus on legality versus illegality, rather than the number and composition of immigrants entering the country overall.

There was a point last year when a sufficient number of Democrats -- mostly red-state senators up for reelection that November, like Hawley's since-vanquished opponent Claire McCaskill -- might have voted to fund Trump's border wall in exchange for the reinstatement of Barack Obama's amnesty for young illegal immigrants who arrived in the country as minors. The White House, on advice often attributed to Miller, floated a different compromise. Amnesty would be provided for an even larger number of young undocumented immigrants in exchange for the legal immigration reforms in the Cotton-Perdue RAISE Act and border security measures including wall funding.

Immigration Puts Trump's Legacy at Risk Blame Congress for Trump's Immigration Power Grab

Politically, trading the wall for Dreamers would have given Trump a high-profile border victory at the cost of a much smaller amnesty than the Gang of Eight plan. The failure to take that deal, assuming Democrats would have actually accepted it, will always be regarded as a mistake . On the merits, however, there were strong reasons to offset the amnesty with immigration cuts elsewhere while adopting reforms that would make it less likely we would be debating yet another legalization program for undocumented minors a few years later.

In one of the many examples of how this president has unsettled our politics, David Frum, author of the Never Trump screed Trumpocracy , endorsed precisely this policy mix in an important cover story for The Atlantic. Frum's piece appeared at roughly the same time that Ann Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust , was excoriating Trump for failing to keep his immigration promises and filling his administration with people who constantly undermine them.

Frum, regardless of my other disagreements with him , has stuck to his skepticism of uninterrupted mass immigration despite his profound alienation from the Trump-era GOP. Coulter, ridiculed for her pro-Trump polemics during the campaign, has actually done far more to hold the president accountable than most denizens of MAGA-land (she was also more prescient about the election than most of those sneering at her). It was Frum, in a prior Atlantic piece, who credited Coulter, in a previous book, with opening Trump's eyes to the force of the immigration issue.

Trump and Coulter are now estranged over precisely this issue. The White House palace intrigue matters. Does Francis Cissna stay or go? Does Kris Kobach have a chance at DHS? Will Julie Kirchner join Miller or does Ken Cuccinelli come aboard ? But another question is even more important.

If given the chance for a wall and an amnesty do-over, is the average Trump voter closer to Kushner or Coulter?

W. James Antle III is editor of . 6 Responses to Trump's Immigration Choice: Kushner or Coulter?



newsflash April 14, 2019 at 8:46 pm

Trump -- ""I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come legally.""

I don't. I don't want that. I voted for you because I thought you were against it too, you ^^^^ing ripoff artist. Now I'm going to help get you the ^^^^ out of the White House.

Higdon Kirt , , April 14, 2019 at 8:59 pm
For the average voter, even the average Trump supporter, immigration is not as big an issue as many imagine. Among Trump supporters I know, gun rights, support of Israel, dislike of Hillary and the PC state in general all are more important than immigration. Kushner, being family, will beat Coulter on the immigration issue and it will make no difference to Trump's support level. As long as we have prosperity and just the right amount of tension at home and abroad in 2020, Trump will probably beat whatever array of Demo and third party candidate he has to deal with.
Bullwinkle J. Moose , , April 14, 2019 at 9:21 pm
Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders.

America First, or Israel First???

sb , , April 15, 2019 at 12:35 am
Coulter. Hands down. And I have always been a 'lefty'.

Immigration shapes a nation more than any other driver (education, health, defense, etc), short of outright conquest by another nation.

Allow liberals their unconstrained 'open borders' importation of 'multi-cultural diversity', and you get colonised fast. Especially when migrants breed faster than locals. Look at Europe. Or Canada.

Lottery and chain migration must be canned, and retrospectively (ie deport past chain migrants) – they never had a claim to migrate in the first place. And institute random audits (with deportation) for fraudulent migration claims. With rising jail terms the more times they try to re-enter illegally.

You have to have spine to defend your nation. Trump may do. Coulter does. Kushner works for liberal capitalism, which wants a colonized US, flooded by cheap migrant labor.

Sam , , April 15, 2019 at 2:26 am
WELL OF COURSE IT'S GONNA BE MISTAH KUSHNAH
pax , , April 15, 2019 at 4:58 am
Kushner. Save Bibi calling Donald.

[Apr 15, 2019] Neoliberal globalization is under sieve, countries that refuse to unconditionally open markts to transnationals and be vassal of Washington are now labeled as authoritarian

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.
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Apr 15, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Liberalism Is Under Siege. Conservatives Can Save It. - Bloomberg By Hal Brands

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 strain.

Hal Brands at Hal.Brands@jhu.edu

or sign up with Disqus or pick a name
Disqus is a discussion network

Read full terms and conditions


Che Guevara10 hours ago ,

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.

EmilyEnso Che Guevara7 hours ago ,

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

Thats a great point Che.
I have never ever looked at it from that angle.
Interesting.

EeeYepBlowing Whistles EmilyEnso7 hours ago ,

The odd thing is that both communism and capitalism are both controlled from the same evil hidden hand!!!

George Evans Che Guevara8 hours ago ,

the success of the Chinese efforts may just be the spur needed...

brad_sk13 hours ago ,

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.

Sebastian Cremmington brad_sk29 minutes ago ,

No they haven’t, Trump decided to put McConnell in charge so of course the #neverTrumpers like the McConnell presidency...which consists of appointing Republican judges at record pace and little else.

johnny sunshine brad_sk4 hours ago ,

Or they've become the right wing of the Democratic party.

dnjake12 hours ago ,

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 themselves.

dav123411 hours ago ,

The author needs a reality check. Much of what he says is in his imagination.

emno33 hours ago ,

I had wondered if it was noticed the Liberalism was dying. The world has turned hard right, with all the anger, nationalism, do-as-I-say, and social intolerance. I don't even the children of today.

Camus534 hours ago ,

I might suggest that liberals themselves are destroying their freedoms with illogical illiberal liberalism.

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.

Huh?

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!

Mark Miller9 hours ago ,

"Just as the Cold War left broke with communism"

Wha? It seems our LIttle Cultural Revolution is just warming up. Wait till AOC et al are all growed up.

"This is a moment when the “free world” needs to be strong and united."

Is this the same "free" world that jails grandmothers over contested historical views? That has reneged on free speech?

Thanks to a truly ethnomasochistic immigration policy, I assure you that this will not happen. The West will be lucky if squeaks through this period without a civil war.

[Apr 15, 2019] Peaceful Coexistence 2.0 by Dani Rodrik

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Apr 15, 2019 | www.project-syndicate.org

Peaceful Coexistence 2.0 Apr 10, 2019 Dani Rodrik

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 technological progress.

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 it.

A global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy – China – is a regime in urgent need of repair.

[Apr 13, 2019] Russia Warns New World Order Being Formed

Notable quotes:
"... "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. ..."
Apr 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

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 said.

According to him, global development is guided "by processes aimed at boosting multipolarity and what we call a polycentric world order."

"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," 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."

Perry Colace

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 said.

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.

lnardozi

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.

notfeelinthebern

Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence.

johnnycanuck

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.

The Alliance

"...many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said.

Skeptical?

I, for one, would show up early and highly motivated to march against, and to destroy, these treasonous, malevolent, collectivist Globalists.

The Globalists within the United States government are traitors--traitors, by definition. They have declared war on our republic.

CDN_Rebel

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

johnnycanuck

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.

Moribundus

It is eventually end of era of western imperialism, era that lasted 900 years. Game is over

[Apr 12, 2019] Trump s Betrayal of White America by Alex Graham

Notable quotes:
"... 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" ..."
Apr 08, 2019 | www.unz.com
"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, 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.)

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 11 to 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 territory.

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.


aandrews , says: April 10, 2019 at 3:17 am GMT

Kushner, Inc. Book Review Part I: The Rise of The Kushner Crime Family

Kushner, Inc. Book Review Part II: The Fall of The Kushner Crime Family

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 BookTV .

Thinker , says: April 10, 2019 at 4:16 am GMT
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.

jbwilson24 , says: April 10, 2019 at 4:51 am GMT
@Thinker " We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more"

Afraid not, there's plenty of reason to believe that the Roosevelt family and Lyndon Johnson were Jewish.

Your major point stands, though. He's basically a shabbesgoy.

peterAUS , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:05 am GMT
@Dr. Robert Morgan

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 mankind.

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 ?

Real Buddy Ray , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:18 am GMT
@Thomm https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trumps-proposal-for-legal-immigration/499061/
JNDillard , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:20 am GMT
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

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/09/packed-primary-may-let-superdelegates-screw-progressives-again/

[Apr 08, 2019] Why has the West destroyed its own Industrial Base

Apr 08, 2019 | theduran.com

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 century.

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."

In a 1992 essay entitled From Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation , published by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Strong wrote:

"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 about?"

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 1966.

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 fusion

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 Dwight Eisenhower's 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 its President.

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 utility.

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 Maurice Strong.


BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. His works have been published in Executive Intelligence Review, Global Research, Global Times, The Duran, Nexus Magazine, Los Angeles Review of Books, Veterans Today and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book "The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road " and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot. org ). He can be reached at [email protected]

[Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US 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

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Mar 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian , Mar 30, 2019 7:51:28 PM | link

Here is an insightful read on Trump's (s)election and Russiagate that I think is not OT

Taibbi: On Russiagate and Our Refusal to Face Why Trump Won

The take away quote

" 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 sense

[Mar 29, 2019] Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues

If if 2016 there were some hope not we know that Trump folded. Completely. He actually is not a President. he is a marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... Bankers & Trump: Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey. ..."
"... " former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do. ..."
"... "Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian) Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues. ..."
"... And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China. ..."
Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Cry Shop November 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Bankers & Trump: Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey.

ewmayer November 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

"The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things. They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway, and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it was all too easy to believe one's own hype.

" former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do.

Brad November 23, 2016 at 6:33 pm

"Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian) Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.

"The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.

And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China.

[Mar 25, 2019] Why is Donald Trump blaming son-in-law Jared Kushner for not being able to secure wall funding?

Notable quotes:
"... Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides. ..."
"... Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't. ..."
"... The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss. ..."
"... Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man. ..."
"... They both got what they deserved. ..."
Mar 25, 2019 | www.quora.com

David W. Rudlin Answered Jan 29 · Author has 1.8k answers and 8m answer views

Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides.

Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't.

It appears that Kushner talked to a few junior Dems, who were too wet behind the ears to tell the president's son in law that he needed to change his meds. He read their silence as meaning they were prepared to commit mutiny and, putting all his chips on that bet, stopped talking to both Pelosi (where the real power lies) and Schumer.

Then he told everyone he'd cracked it.

The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss.

As others have said below, Trump always finds someone to blame for his mistakes. But in this case there were very good reasons for pointing the finger at Kushner.

Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man.

They both got what they deserved.

[Mar 23, 2019] Airbus and Boeing Are Signing Economic Suicide Pacts With China naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Mar 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Marshall Auerback, a market analyst and commentator.Produced by Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media Institute

Airbus is considering whether or not to shift the assembly process of its latest generation of A330 planes to China as part of a bid to increase its market share in the world's fastest-growing civil aviation market .

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 expenditures.

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 ( as 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 list.)

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 innovation.

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 longer-term.

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 American highlighted 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 forward.

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.

foppe , March 23, 2019 at 4:16 am

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..

Susan the other` , March 23, 2019 at 11:08 am

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.

eg , March 23, 2019 at 11:27 am

Regarding your confusion, I infer that the implication is that we had better start using debt the same way China does.

Marshall Auerback , March 23, 2019 at 3:33 pm

Not trying to scare anybody. Just indicating that it was largely funded via debt as opposed to equity. You're reading WAY too much into this.

PlutoniumKun , March 23, 2019 at 5:24 am

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).

Jay Gallivan , March 23, 2019 at 8:00 am

" the Chinese simply don't play fair "

An American and European elites do?

Ignacio , March 23, 2019 at 8:38 am

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.

Fairness is gone with the wind

Norb , March 23, 2019 at 9:44 am

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 this.

JBird4049 , March 23, 2019 at 1:07 pm

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.

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.

Norb , March 23, 2019 at 3:46 pm

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 future.

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.

Yikes , March 23, 2019 at 12:49 pm

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.

JBird4049 , March 23, 2019 at 4:19 pm

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.

Oh , March 23, 2019 at 3:22 pm

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.

Dirk77 , March 23, 2019 at 7:52 am

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.

John Wright , March 23, 2019 at 11:30 am

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 product line.

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."

He stayed the additional two weeks.

JBird4049 , March 23, 2019 at 4:32 pm

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?

drumlin woodchuckles , March 23, 2019 at 5:50 pm

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.

Young , March 23, 2019 at 6:35 pm

I had to do it twice. I trained my Indian replacement for my world-leader high-tech employer.
Ten years later, trained my Chinese replacement for my other world-leader employer.

human , March 23, 2019 at 8:15 am

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.

Hmmm

Peter , March 23, 2019 at 9:05 am

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.

Ptb , March 23, 2019 at 9:56 am

"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.

shinola , March 23, 2019 at 11:01 am

"Airbus and Boeing could therefore be making short-term decisions with negative long-term consequences for their future profitability."

So what? – that seems to be SOP for exec's these days. By the time the SHTF, IBGYBG.

drumlin woodchuckles , March 23, 2019 at 5:54 pm

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 about it.

Keith newman , March 23, 2019 at 11:07 am

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.

vomkammer , March 23, 2019 at 11:15 am

There is an alternative reading.

Airbus has plant in Tianjin since 2010. The information that China managed to extract from it did not make the COMAC C919 a competitive aircraft.

So, Airbus and Boeing may think now that the risks of setting a plant in China are less than expected.

Civil aviation is a particular industry. There is a lot of know-how in the design offices and in the supply chains. This know-how cannot be copied from a manufacturing plant.

cbu , March 23, 2019 at 1:48 pm

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.

Pookah Harvey , March 23, 2019 at 11:42 am

"Airbus and Boeing could therefore be making short-term decisions with negative long-term consequences".
Isn't that the neoliberal business model?

georgieboy , March 23, 2019 at 12:37 pm

BIngo!

It is also the publicly-held stock company model, whereby management and boards compute risk/reward far out enough to match their personal enrichment deadlines, no more.

Oh , March 23, 2019 at 3:27 pm

Neoliberals concentrate on the next quarter's earnings; these companies are pr0bably eyeing the cheaper labor in the plants in China. I can see that as their main incentive.

Steven , March 23, 2019 at 11:53 am

Combine the insights of this post with MMT and you have a winner. With a few qualifications:
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.

Eclair , March 23, 2019 at 12:00 pm

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 masculinity.'

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 closed.

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.

Oh , March 23, 2019 at 3:33 pm

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.

Steven Greenberg , March 23, 2019 at 12:39 pm

China is still primarily a state-dominated economy, which eschews the disciplines of a free market economy.

This is the most hilarious quote I think I have ever seen on Naked Capitalism.

If your competitor's strategy is having them eat your lunch, rather than criticize that strategy, maybe you might consider learning a thing or two from it.

Oh , March 23, 2019 at 3:35 pm

What free market economy? Where?

Glen , March 23, 2019 at 3:04 pm

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 has taken a different course with regard to it's CEOs:
https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-white-collar-criminals-death-sentence-2013-7

Inode_buddha , March 23, 2019 at 4:22 pm

"Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain. "

Attr. Napoleon Bonaparte

(the Rothschilds and Medicis were infamous for funding both sides of European conflicts)

mauisurfer , March 23, 2019 at 3:14 pm

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 chimney.
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 responsibly?
I think Boeing is just another oligarch, like VW, that will do anything to increase profits.

thesaucymugwump , March 23, 2019 at 4:25 pm

"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.

mauisurfer , March 23, 2019 at 5:36 pm

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.

mauisurfer , March 23, 2019 at 5:56 pm

I am older than you are
born well before ww2
and i am 6.3 tall

Altandmain , March 23, 2019 at 4:00 pm

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.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/boeing-goes-to-pieces/

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.

thesaucymugwump , March 23, 2019 at 4:15 pm

"China has unquestionably modernized"

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 course).

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 airliners.

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.

VietnamVet , March 23, 2019 at 7:39 pm

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.

[Mar 21, 2019] How Theresa May Botched Brexit

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Mar 21, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

The BBC writes :

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 British parliament.

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.

Yves Smith, who you should all read, opens her Brexit sit rep today with this:

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 no-deal Brexit":

[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 of her:

"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 unexplained:

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 back?

Given that she is the Prime Minister how would that work out?

Emily , Mar 21, 2019 3:20:07 PM | link

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 done.
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.

Altai , Mar 21, 2019 3:28:16 PM | link

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 neutral.

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 too.

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.

JohninMK , Mar 21, 2019 3:28:37 PM | link
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.

Deschutes , Mar 21, 2019 3:30:11 PM | link
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 :-)

Josh , Mar 21, 2019 3:32:58 PM | link
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 months.

karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 3:33:02 PM | link
Corbyn tweeted this just minutes ago . Unfortunately, it's just an update and doesn't add much to the conversation.
Russ , Mar 21, 2019 3:34:51 PM | link
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.

ken , Mar 21, 2019 3:38:21 PM | link
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 category.

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!

karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 3:44:32 PM | link
Just finished reading the thread for the tweet linked @7 and it's full of animosity and ultra hatred aimed at Corbyn showing how well the propagandists did their job.

George Galloway's most recent on this topic :

"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 #BrexitShambles"

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.

Piotr Berman , Mar 21, 2019 3:50:19 PM | link
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.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , Mar 21, 2019 3:53:58 PM | link

Britain in recent years has offered the most vivid example of genuinely disastrous government.

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.

David Goodrich , Mar 21, 2019 3:58:58 PM | link
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 vote again.

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 futures.

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.

David Goodrich

JohninMK , Mar 21, 2019 3:59:19 PM | link
Altai @ 3

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 Autumn.

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 be out.

We will also be able to re-connect with suppliers in the Commonwealth. Be good to get New Zealand butter again.

vk , Mar 21, 2019 4:01:57 PM | link
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 goals.

karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 4:17:35 PM | link
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.

Deltaeus , Mar 21, 2019 4:30:13 PM | link
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.

SteveK9 , Mar 21, 2019 4:44:19 PM | link
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.

TEP , Mar 21, 2019 5:02:58 PM | link
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.

Ort , Mar 21, 2019 5:13:54 PM | link
@ Deltaeus | Mar 21, 2019 4:30:13 PM | 17

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 accompli .

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 ?"

ThePaper , Mar 21, 2019 5:14:52 PM | link
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.
Zachary Smith , Mar 21, 2019 5:19:08 PM | link
"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.

jared , Mar 21, 2019 5:32:56 PM | link
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?
Ger , Mar 21, 2019 5:33:01 PM | link
Seems quaint to believe the Brits ran an empire ... on the other hand, the Brit 1% highly favor the status quo. That is a majority in western countries.
karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 5:49:38 PM | link
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.

Mobius 01 , Mar 21, 2019 5:59:39 PM | link
Deltaeus,

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 keep simple.

[Mar 21, 2019] Look who's ready to fight Trump's trade war now

Mar 09, 2019 | socialistworker.org

Is Donald Trump starting to look like a softie on the trade conflict with China compared to sections of the U.S. business and political elite? Dorian Bon explains the background.

WHEN DONALD Trump launched his trade war on China last spring, he had to drag the U.S. political and business establishment along with him.

Most elected 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 grown 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.

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet during the 2018 G20 Summit in Buenos Aires
Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet during the 2018 G20 Summit in Buenos Aires

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.

Trump's advisers 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 China.

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.

Josh Bolten, president of the Business Roundtable -- an association of the U.S.'s largest companies, collectively worth $8 trillion and employing 15 million workers -- put it this way during a recent interview with Washington trade experts Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch on their podcast The Trade Guys :

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 the imagination.

That isn't to underplay the serious disagreements over strategy between the Trump administration and most of the U.S. business world.

Many corporate leaders are concerned about the fact that Trump is simultaneously in tense trade negotiations with the European Union and brandishing 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.


THE REVERBERATIONS of the U.S.-China trade war have been felt across the corporate world, perhaps nowhere more starkly than in telecommunications.

As geopolitical 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.

Many analysts 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 since 2012 , 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.

The justification 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.

Meanwhile, Trump 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. Wanzhou's extradition hearing began this week and could drag on for months.

Wanzhou's arrest 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.

While both 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," Robbins said in February . Huawei competitors Ericsson and Nokia -- multinational companies based in Sweden and Finland, respectively -- have claimed that they're ready to supply Europe's 5G infrastructures in the event of a Huawei ban, indicating they may have some sympathy with Trump's efforts.


AS OF now, the Trump administration's campaign to block Huawei from the world's markets has had mixed results. Both British and German intelligence agencies are leaning toward accepting Huawei as a legitimate business partner, as is the French Senate .

In the Czech Republic, a 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 in Italy and Canada .

Australia's Foreign Minister Marise Payne, staking out the most extreme anti-Huawei position, has fully 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, rejected the idea of a blanket ban .

Crucially, Narendra Modi's right-wing government in India has so far opposed the idea of banning Huawei .

Despite ongoing 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 weighing raising tariffs and restrictions on Indian products is certainly not helping to convince Modi to further antagonize Beijing.

However unsuccessful 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 a 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 with Xi.

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 cease 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 another likely recession .

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 important.

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.

[Mar 20, 2019] Trump Sticks To Sanctions - U.S., North Korea Summit Fails - Updated

Incompetent, cowboy style foreign policy is the hallmark of Trump administration. they can only bully, they can't hold a constructive negotiations. As one commenter observed "American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what we say or die."
His appointment of Bolton and Pompeo means that Trump is a neocon in foreign policy and/or does not control foreign policy of his administration. .
Notable quotes:
"... This is just a hunch but I have a feeling it was undermined by Bolton and Pompeo from the start. ..."
"... Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want to strangle the host for not asking any follow up question as in, 'like what?' What has the U.S. given up. ..."
"... Why does the USA keep economic sanctions on DPRK? This article helps to explain it: Despite himself Trump admits the superiority of China's socialist economy to capitalism ..."
"... Jong-un Kim has an advantage his predecessor didn't: he has China. He doesn't need to invent nothing: he already has the long-term solution next door. ..."
"... My guess is the USA and South Korea know if the sanctions are lifted, North Korea will become a mini-powerhouse under China's sphere of influence. They have to create a situation equal to Libya's, where they can invade the North militarily and quickly occupy its territory, thus using its population as cheap labor force for the American multinationals and South Korean chaebols. ..."
"... The US military/foreign policy establishment wants North Korea to disarm so that it can give them a Carthaginian peace. Until then, they are content to do their cushy jobs and rake in the money from South Korean businessmen. ..."
"... An excellent article from Tom Engelhardt on Consortium News, in which he attempts to explain how the USA had the world at its feet, and squandered the chance to do good and instead went on a series of further Imperial military adventures: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/21/the-neocons-have-their-caesar/ ..."
"... American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what we say or die. ..."
"... summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief in Korean ..."
"... No surprise that the US is always 'all or nothing'. It thinks it is 'uber alles'. ..."
"... IMO, the key was laid bare by Trump: "Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that." [My Emphasis] ..."
"... as you and many others have noted, the US argument seems to be "give up your nukes so we can Libya you into oblivion". if venezuela had nukes would they be putting up with the incessant stupidity of the "blob"? they'd still have sanctions but i doubt the dumb twats running the surrounding countries would be as eager to aid and abet US hijinks. ..."
"... And it seems Trump lied about the impasse that led to Kim walking out, proving that Kim's initial assessment of Trump as dotard was 100% correct. ..."
"... When did Bolton's coups and intimidations ever work? He is, in essence, a megalomanic mustache. ..."
"... I think that Trump represents a pivot from containment of China/Russia to one of "Quick, pull what pieces of empire we can defend/control together." ..."
"... I think that the West is delusional to think they can defeat any alternative that doesn't have profit as its God. That said, that monotheistic myth of "better than others" runs deep as evidenced by some of the opinions expressed in this venue ..."
"... Any nation which still trust any promise coming from the USA and its European, Australian and Canadian poddles deserves to be colonized and destroyed. ..."
Mar 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

twhstmmwmafilwwwww , Feb 28, 2019 8:13:44 AM | link

This is just a hunch but I have a feeling it was undermined by Bolton and Pompeo from the start. They know the DPRK wasn't gonna give up its nuclear deterrent unilaterally, so the next best thing behind a the dream of a Libya situation is to once again have an aggressive relationship with the North to be able to continue to justify all sorts of "defense" maneuvering around China now that foreign policy has now officially pivoted away from terrorism and towards China(+Russia).

Similar to AEGIS Ashore in Eastern Europe in order to "defend" Europe from "Iran".

Christian Chuba , Feb 28, 2019 8:22:32 AM | link

We've given up everything, they have given up nothing

Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want to strangle the host for not asking any follow up question as in, 'like what?' What has the U.S. given up.

We talked to them giving them legitimacy, OMG, as if we have some kind of glorious halo that is worth a billions of $ or even more. This makes me want to puke when I heare this.

The N. Koreans have stopped ALL nuclear and ballistic missile testing. We the U.S. have put in place even more draconian sanctions under Trump than were in place before. We raised the ante. We have more room to give then the N. Koreans do.

steven t johnson , Feb 28, 2019 8:28:11 AM | link
Believing Trump is or ever was open to breaking with US imperialism is Trumpery. He wants to sweat the subordinates, wants them to spend more on the military, buy more US weapons, do more fighting. But to make things look good he will say anything, and renege.

Some people think Trump etc. are trying to detach the north from a Chinese alliance. There are two problems here. First, there's no sane reason to think the Chinese aren't engaged in economic warfare against the north. Not wanting to squeeze hard enough to cause a total collapse is not supporting the north. Second, if that's what Trump wanted, he'd actually try offering the north concessions.

The issue in the background is whether Trump will let the south out of the US orbit. It's an easy question to answer: He won't. Empires don't give up their territory until they're made to. The Soviet withdrawal from central Europe is not an exception, as the USSR was not an empire. (Yes, everyone who says "Soviet empire" and means it is a shithead.)

Ts'yew Taw-Loh , Feb 28, 2019 8:30:46 AM | link
Formally, the Korean War was between Chosôn on the one side and The United nations and Hangok (Daehan)on the other. The UN security council is the ones to have instituted tthe sanction regime and thus in practice committed a crime against Humanity by inflictin starvation the people of the North. In practice it was a US & their allie's war against the entire population of Korea. Formally, peace must be signed by Chosôn and the UN and sanctions lifted by the latter. In Practice, the US must be made to abide with agreements.
vk , Feb 28, 2019 8:48:36 AM | link
Why does the USA keep economic sanctions on DPRK? This article helps to explain it: Despite himself Trump admits the superiority of China's socialist economy to capitalism

Jong-un Kim has an advantage his predecessor didn't: he has China. He doesn't need to invent nothing: he already has the long-term solution next door.

My guess is the USA and South Korea know if the sanctions are lifted, North Korea will become a mini-powerhouse under China's sphere of influence. They have to create a situation equal to Libya's, where they can invade the North militarily and quickly occupy its territory, thus using its population as cheap labor force for the American multinationals and South Korean chaebols.

David Wooten , Feb 28, 2019 8:58:41 AM | link
The US military/foreign policy establishment wants North Korea to disarm so that it can give them a Carthaginian peace. Until then, they are content to do their cushy jobs and rake in the money from South Korean businessmen.

Moon would probably like to unite the two Koreas and kick US out. But then, the US mil/fp would sanction him and all Korea.

donkeytale , Feb 28, 2019 9:07:21 AM | link
This was yet another photo op on the road to nowhere with our reality show presidency. As Conway Twitty sang, "it's only make believe." The path to "normalisation" with NK winds through SK.
Ant , Feb 28, 2019 9:09:01 AM | link

An excellent article from Tom Engelhardt on Consortium News, in which he attempts to explain how the USA had the world at its feet, and squandered the chance to do good and instead went on a series of further Imperial military adventures: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/21/the-neocons-have-their-caesar/

American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what we say or die.

Time to grow up, it's not the 1990's. You're just another country, and we're not so frightened any more.

b , Feb 28, 2019 9:34:31 AM | link
This is quite possible ...
Kevin Gray @DrKevinGray Former SK unification minister Chong Se-hyun suggests that summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief in Korean
snake , Feb 28, 2019 10:06:12 AM | link
@8

We've given up everything, they have given up nothing. Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want .. follow up question {answered} as in, 'like what?' What has the U.S.[ A given up. [please note that unless you are a member of the 527 persons that make up the USA, you the " WE does not include you. Americans get to elect by a vary strained highly polarized (Republican vs Democrat) process, 525 persons under Article I, but not the two persons who are the CEOs that govern the USA ?

Americans cannot elected the CEOs that make all of the decisions. The CEOs of the USA are elected by persons who many or may not be Americans, have a look PLEASE!

... ... ...

The N. Koreans have stopped ALL nuclear and ballistic missile testing. We the U.S. have put in place even more draconian sanctions under Trump than were in place before. We raised the ante. We have more room to give then the N. Koreans do.<= once again I remind you that the " WE d/n include you..

Posted by: Christian Chuba | Feb 28, 2019 8:22:32 AM | 5

Jason , Feb 28, 2019 10:54:18 AM | link
So we give up nothing, not even a temporary ease in sanctions and they give up their nuclear weapons program in whole, what a deal.

Its obvious that even if Trump went there with the intention of making a realistic two sided deal the permanent war state would just scuttle it anyway by refusing to follow the plan or staging some new provocation like some war games or bomber fly over.

DPRK has to see that after Iran complied with the inspections regime and abandoned its civilian nuclear program the goal post was moved to not even being allowed to have ballistic missiles.

What I don't understand is how long before South Korea demands we respect its sovereignty in it's own military affairs and asks us to remove a sizable chunk of our war machine so a lasting peace can be made. Can South Korea not forge its own tit-for-tat peace plan with the North that makes sense to both sides and tell the US not to interfere, sabotage or ask it to leave? It seems the opportunity is ripe to exclude the empty suit Trump and his group of Neo-con madmen and forge ahead with opening up trade and mutual thawing of feeling in Koreas, but is there political will to do so in South Korea?

AriusArmenian , Feb 28, 2019 11:02:39 AM | link
No surprise that the US is always 'all or nothing'. It thinks it is 'uber alles'.
Jackrabbit , Feb 28, 2019 11:06:39 AM | link
fairleft @16

The link @12 is another form of apology for Trump. Essentially, an insanity defense:

All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. You can feel so much of this in Trump's confused and confusing attempts to both end American wars and ratchet them up . . .

[So] ... think of this piece as an obituary of sorts ... not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who ... was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear [but of a nation] . . . whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon.

It's not Trump's fault - it's the neocons! They constructed a system that allowed for the election of this "loopy" President and are using him for their own ends.

Sure, the neocons deserve much blame but the Deep State and their US President compatriots (Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump) are also guilty just as the driver of the getaway car is just as guilty as the bank robbers.

karlof1 , Feb 28, 2019 12:17:31 PM | link

IMO, the key was laid bare by Trump: "Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that." [My Emphasis]

Wouldn't or couldn't? Using "couldn't" tells me that possibility was zero to begin with and Bolton's appearance had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that the impasse was pre-determined. Kim knew it would happen; I was 99% sure it would happen; and of course Trump knew. And that's where it will likely remain until 2021, although there's a slight possibility that the UNSC sanctions will be modified and lessened.

Escobar's recap of recent events seems rather bland, although between the lines I think he's saying that solving Kashmir is more important than solving Afghanistan, an important point overlooked too long.

So, Koreans are left to their own devices and will continue their unification drive, while the quadrangular relations between China, Russia, and the two Koreas will grow tighter; all of which serve to increase pressure on Abe and Japan to drop the Empire's line.

BM , Feb 28, 2019 12:24:57 PM | link
It would be easy to be put off by the failure of the summit under the Americans' blatent treachery, but it is probably better that way.

Consider what would happen if the US and NK were to have a "fantastically successful" summit with agreements signed - what are the chances that the US would subsequently honour their commitments? NILL. What would be the effect on NK if NK does not honour it's commitments? Devastating at best.

Because of the US' well-established behaviour patterns, it is hard to imagine how NK could benefit from signing an agreement with the US - any concrete agreement - the US will ignore it's commitments, while forcing NK to abide by its commitments.

Therefore a situation in which the US clearly shows itself to be the treacherous partner while the NK side is beyond reproach is the perfect outcome for NK, allowing her to establish a good reputation in world public opinion and - hopefully - together with SK find their own way to achieve peaceful reunification without the US.

Peaceful reunification with US blessing was never on the cards and never will be.

Fortunately Kim Jong-Un has thus far been truly masterful in playing his cards, getting the geostrategic benefits at each throw, while the US only succeed in clearly establishing their treachery and progressively undermining their geostrategic hand.

With support from China and Russia, may the two Koreas eventually successfully achieve their own peaceful reunification without the US!

james , Feb 28, 2019 12:31:38 PM | link
thanks b... aside from liking what @26 psychohistorian said, i wonder who really benefits from these sanctions the usa is so quick to use as a tool against others impose or maintain? the usa appears to be built on this system of financial sanctions and can't function without it.. is it that the thought of north and south korea working together means the usa gets cut out of the action? is that a big part of it?? at some point it is going to happen anyway... same deal russia and the rest of europe and same deal iran and the rest of the world... it seems to me the usa is squandering all the promise they might have had at one time by catering to whoever profits from these financial sanction routines..

so yeah.. it is back to rome didn't fall in a day, and the usa's time is coming soon enough..

Red Ryder , Feb 28, 2019 12:35:04 PM | link
A large impediment to North Korea achieving a lifting of sanctions is the long list of UNSC resolutions establishing global unanimity for a sanctions regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_concerning_North_Korea

The US has managed to corral China and Russia to join these sanctions.

However, a case can be made that since no nuke testing has transpired, no missile tests have continued, and the threat to neighbors and the region is now flat-lined, North Korea should be acting, not with the US alone, but with all the UNSC and other nations, in a way that demonstrates it is walking from nuclear development and ICBM achievement.

We shall see if Russia and China can press this argument in order to pursue economic development as a reward for international inspection and IAEA control of the NK nuclear program.

What the US wants is to get Moon out of the picture and retain fanatical South Korean leadership that would be against North Korea development. Trump may see the potential in North Korea, but the MIC and Deep State absolutely do not want to have to leave South Korea as a base.

arby , Feb 28, 2019 12:52:37 PM | link
To the posters who think Russia should intervene everywhere... Just reading on Orlov's blog and he pointed to an article he wrote about Russia and Putin in 2014 from a Valdai meeting---Putin--

"5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos," and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory).

Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past."

the pair , Feb 28, 2019 1:21:18 PM | link
as you and many others have noted, the US argument seems to be "give up your nukes so we can Libya you into oblivion". if venezuela had nukes would they be putting up with the incessant stupidity of the "blob"? they'd still have sanctions but i doubt the dumb twats running the surrounding countries would be as eager to aid and abet US hijinks.

i know it's based in "realism" or "realpolitik" or whatever euphemism for "do what we say or be murdered" people prefer, but south korea not telling the west to kiss the tastiest part of its ass and siding with the dprk and china to settle things is just absurd. other than financial punishment, what are they afraid of? no more disgusting tainted beef? no more deliveries of WWIII-level military gear without permission? a drop in sex tourism among pasty white anglos?

at least this does away with all pretense of trump being a "peace president" in the slightest. that was always a fantasy of the MAGA/"we liek him cuz hes xtian lol" crowd to begin with but now even the suggestion of such is laughable.

b , Feb 28, 2019 1:23:41 PM | link
The North Korean Foreign Minister gave a press conference in Hanoi. I updated the piece above at its end with the reports of what he said.
worldblee , Feb 28, 2019 1:28:41 PM | link
The bi-partisan War Party wins again, the world loses.
the pair , Feb 28, 2019 1:29:15 PM | link
@#36

i despise trudeau and all, but this oddly timed "scandal" is based on nothing but one woman's testimony (as believable as she is) and the screeching of the scumbag conservatives along with their bootlickers in the media. global and CTV have always been conservative party infomercials but lately it's just ridiculous.

saying "a canadian politician did a corrupt thing" is like saying "we caught water being wet". odd how canada has a reputation as being "smarter" than the US yet its citizens have already forgotten the ten years of dripping, oily sleaze under harper and his coterie of fat doughy apes (the fattest and oiliest of which - jason kenney - has been oozing from the telly screen on a constant basis on said channels).

with his repulsive bootlicking on the huawei affair and venezuela, it's easy to want justin out yesterday . but any conservative taking his place will be harper 2.0 and therefore trump's maple mini-me.

apologies for off topicness.

james , Feb 28, 2019 1:52:15 PM | link
ot - @36 karlof1... next election is oct 2019... it probably doesn't matter as i doubt very much he gets elected in october.. it is kinda true what the pair is saying @40 too... we will get getting our version of trump, as we are one cycle behind the usa... some conservative jackass will be running canada towards the end of the year to make matters even worse.. canucks are not all that bright, lol..
S , Feb 28, 2019 2:04:06 PM | link
South Koreans, where are you? You should be camping 24/7 in front of the U.S. embassy, demanding the immediate removal of sanctions. The unification will never happen if you don't take a more active stance.

The international community wants it, North Koreans want it, it all comes down to you. Kick the American troops out, break up your chaebols, and start the unification process. Any sanctions the U.S might impose on you will be more than offset by cheap Russian pipeline gas, a rail link to Europe, and an economic boom due to integration with the North. What are you waiting for? You may never have another chance like this.

one off poster , Feb 28, 2019 4:04:14 PM | link
@38 b:
Thank you very much for the update, b. I am pleased that the DPRK called the press conference. It is a pity the video has been viewed only 1179 times.

Here is video footage of the DPRK news conference.

The 1st part is the prepared statement read out by foreign minister Ri Yong Ho with english translation following. The 2nd part of the interview consists of Q&A (sound quality v bad). It mainly reiterates the 1st part, but from 10:25 on, she says that (an) American Inspector(s) visited a factory called "Yun Soo" within the Yong Byon. She wanted to emphasise that that factory was put on the table for closure as well by DPRK.

Given that the sanctions the DPRK was seeking to be lifted were not US imposed sanctions, but UN sanctions, can the UN Sec Gen intervene (kind of like what happened in Yemen)?

It does make one wonder why POTUS said that DPRK was seeking the removal of ALL sanctions. Was he expecting something like this? It is so easy to refute that the fact it was said at all is intriguing.

PavewayIV , Feb 28, 2019 4:06:44 PM | link
Otto B@33 - I suppose I can't argue with your logic - especially if this was part of an 'Art of the Deal' seminar. I will simply point out that your premise completely ignores what US citizens think is in THEIR best interests.

Pulling out all of our forces from South Korea permanently and ending sanctions on North Korea would be more than enough for them to denuclearize (and probably unify with the South). THAT is in US citizens' best interests, period. Chickenhawks within the US government are the only ones demanding an eternal occupation of South Korea and an eternal standoff with North Korea. They sell this as a necessary price to pay for 'security', except we're damn tired of hearing about our psychopathic leaders' manufactured enemy and we don't need protection from it.

Same goes for Iran, despite their nuclear capabilities, or lack thereof. 'Protecting US interests' is not 'protecting the US'. No amount of marketing or propaganda is going to make Iran a credible threat to the US or its citizens EVER. We don't need protection from a manufactured enemy. Three million people (give or take a million) were slaughtered in Southeast Asia to protect us against the last manufactured enemy: those homicidal CHICOMs. I don't recall seeing any fresh, bloody human heads mounted on pikes in downtown Hanoi during the talks this weekend. How is that possible?

I don't need a better Iranian 'deal'. I need my psychopathic leaders to stop antagonizing the hell out of Iran and stop punishing the Iranian people. Israel's psychopathic obsession with destroying Iran or somehow containing its regional influence has NOTHING to do with the security of US citizens - despite the incessant narrative. Are you honestly expecting the little people in the US to believe the DC chickenhawks or the MSM again?

karlof1 , Feb 28, 2019 4:12:47 PM | link
RT editorial savages BigLie Media for the usual reasons--but--in choosing to highlight Susan Rice's NY Times op/ed in an attempt to discredit her, she actually suggests the very sort of incremental moves agreed to in the initial summit's Declaration:

"To move the needle, the United States and North Korea will need to agree on a series of incremental, reciprocal steps that would build mutual confidence as part of a road map to full denuclearization."

Oops!! All in all, the editorialist misrepresents Rice, which is what he accuses BigLie Media of doing--OUCH!

Rice's conclusion will surprise a few here:

"In Hanoi, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to achieve incremental progress toward denuclearization. Unfortunately, history suggests that Mr. Trump will be content with another colorful photo opportunity and more diplomatic shadow boxing that perpetuates the illusion of success, while running down the clock on a nearly intractable challenge."

And it seems Trump lied about the impasse that led to Kim walking out, proving that Kim's initial assessment of Trump as dotard was 100% correct.

Yeah, Right , Feb 28, 2019 4:35:58 PM | link
@27 Jose Garcia: "My question. What will South Korea do now?"

Well, they only have two choices:

Option 1: Continue to be the USA's loyal lapdog, in which case several million of them are doomed to die in the (increasingly inevitable) replay of the 1950-2 war.

Option 2: Hold secret talks with North Korea that lead to the surprise signing of a peace treaty that contains a clause that says "Both Koreas agree that no foreign forces shall be stationed on the Korean Peninsular". Then brace themselves to be sanctioned within an inch of their lives.

They'll go hungry under Option 2, and it will be inevitable that they flip into the "Chinese orbit". But they'll still be alive, which is not nothin'.

They'll make a stab at Option 2, because under Option 1 they'll all end up dead.

Rob , Feb 28, 2019 5:03:57 PM | link
@fairleft (16)

When did Bolton's coups and intimidations ever work? He is, in essence, a megalomanic mustache.

TDeL , Feb 28, 2019 5:17:43 PM | link
@6

Actually there is one sane reason to think the Chinese aren't engaged in economic warfare against the north: a Shengyang rail link to Seoul via Pyongyang. This could be constructed in less than 3 years and will take some pressure off congestion in the Bohai Sea-Yellow Sea shipping lanes. And provide efficient transport of materials, goods & people in new & expanded markets. I'm sure there are others.

Thank you b for the timely update on the latest theatrical entertainment, Nobel Peace Prize episode

uncle tungsten , Feb 28, 2019 5:36:43 PM | link
fastfreddy # 44

Agreed ff but regarding the Trump timeline from afar he has deliberately and methodically filled the white house staff with more and more extreme people. Slowly boiling the frog comes to mind. We are supposed to be acclimatized to this huckster being surrounded by hawks whereas he and his entire family are predators more deadly than hawks.

S #42

Thank you, you nailed it. Perhaps the assembled mass of South Koreans in front of the US embassy could wear a vest symbolising healing or unity. Perhaps they could assemble around a UN flag demanding that it back off from being a USA puppet. I don't recall having seen a UN flag burned yet but it would be an appropriate symbol from South Korea, or Haiti, or Libya, or......

Thank you again b and all the comrade writers, it has been a great read.

Chas , Feb 28, 2019 5:50:42 PM | link
What I can't understand is why NK would give up its nuclear capability without requiring the empire to do the same. It isn't equitable for NK to give up its nukes for the mere promise of the empire to not place nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. The empire could still strike Nk from outside the peninsula. What's good for one country is good for the other.
karlof1 , Feb 28, 2019 5:59:53 PM | link
Yeah, Right @50--

For your Option #2 to fly, the existing treaty with Outlaw US Empire must be negated along with the entire arrangement with UN that's existed since 1950. Given Imperial intransigence combined with ever escalating political will within RoK, such a happening may occur before 2020 begins.

The most recent article on reunification I was able to find in English is 3 months old and provides grounds for optimism given the concept's positive direction. IMO, Moon and Kim need to continue down the path they've made for each other,, while the diplomatic action moves into the UNSC which is where most of the sanctions were born and the only venue where they can be rescinded.

Red Ryder , Feb 28, 2019 7:49:53 PM | link
@35, S,

I always check my comments in preview, often many times. The URL seemed to be fine. It works. However, I'll be more cognizant in the future with any long URLs.

Thanks.

Jen , Feb 28, 2019 8:29:00 PM | link
S @ 42:

For South Korea to do as you suggest, Japan must do exactly the same. The South Koreans are more afraid of what Japan would do if they (SK, that is) were to throw out the Americans, downsize their own military and start a reunification or a "one-state-two-systems" process, and Japan does not follow suit with demilitarisation.

Incidentally the current Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's grandfather Nobusuke Kishi served as Munitions Minister under PM Hideki Tojo in the early 1940s. Under his watch, thousands of Chinese and Koreans were employed as slave labour in factories and mines. Kishi also ran the puppet state Manchukuo during the 1930s as his personal technocratic industrial slave state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/east-asia-cant-escape-the-sins-of-the-father/article15987729/

Much later Kishi also got a turn as Japanese PM but his legacy as PM may have been to design a political system in which the Liberal Democratic Party (a conservative party in Japan) was always the main political party in government from 1955 to 1993.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2011/09/27/general/no-nos-for-noda-japans-top-10-most-useless-pms/#.XHiKklwzaUk

Needless to say, Abe hero-worships Kishi.

psychohistorian , Feb 28, 2019 9:29:16 PM | link
I want to add some more thought to those I shared with Jen. What about the Philippines? I think that at this time in history all of the outposts of empire are at risk.

I think that Trump represents a pivot from containment of China/Russia to one of "Quick, pull what pieces of empire we can defend/control together."

I think that the West is delusional to think they can defeat any alternative that doesn't have profit as its God. That said, that monotheistic myth of "better than others" runs deep as evidenced by some of the opinions expressed in this venue

Are we going to see the dominoes of empire fall? I damn well hope so!

Kiza , Feb 28, 2019 9:31:48 PM | link
Is it not funny how the boss Bolton shows up at negotiations and El Presidente falls into (his unrealistic) line? El Presidente de la republica bananera is just a low level employee of his own staff BullbyTon and Pompous Maximus.

Nobody asked this here yet, but how did we get to US negotiating against NK on behalf of UN Security Council ?

Who did China and Russia on the Security Council serve, did they get anything for their service to the republica bananera?

One can recognise how ruthless US is, but one also has to recognise how worthless China and Russia are. US ignores UN Resolutions it does not like and uses UN Resolutions it initiated as a head-club for achieving its goals whilst China and Russia go along. This is exactly why the things are as they are - the Selfish Human Condition.

Oh, we are all so happy when someone does not do like the majority of the worthless humanity does (Russia out of own interest in Syria). Otherwise, back to being the usual shitbags.

Yeah, Right , Feb 28, 2019 9:36:01 PM | link
@60 Karlof1 As ever, it is instructive to read the text of a treaty.

In this particular case the treaty between South Korea and the USA contains within it the answers to your concerns.

1) either party can end the treaty with 12 month notice.
2) the stationing of US troops is by mutual agreement I.e. if South Korea "No longer agrees" to US troops stationed on its soil then those troops have to leave.

Uncle Sam would have no grounds to refuse, as the treaty itself says that both signatories have to agree. And, no, the treaty doesn't have to be "renegotiated" to produce that outcome: the South Koreans need only say "we don't agree any more".

That's what the treaty says, so that's what the treaty means.

Sad Canuck , Feb 28, 2019 9:45:27 PM | link
@31 Red Ryder

Nothing will change until S Korea decides to be an independent country instead of a low vassal. Watching a foreign country negotiate peace in your own civil war without being at the table must be deeply humiliating to at least some S Koreans surely?

As for the sanctions, if the Koreas re-united as ROK and the DPRK disappeared as an entity, I assume the UN sanctions on extinct entity would be void.

Jen , Feb 28, 2019 10:54:54 PM | link
Psychohistorian @ 67:

It's significant that the current PM of Japan is a grandson of a politician with a very dark past, and moreover idolises his grandfather and believes the policies he followed were right.

"Formed in childhood, roots of Abe's conservatism go deep"
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.XHirsVwzaUk

You and I live in the year 2019 but the issue is whether Shinzo Abe does.

For that reason South Korea is unlikely to demilitarise and get rid of its US bases unless Japan commits to doing the same.

The two countries also continue to dispute the ownership of a set of islands called the Liancourt islands in the Sea of Japan, midway between the two nations.

Uncle $cam , Feb 28, 2019 11:12:52 PM | link
https://twitter.com/DrKevinGray/status/1101089899430793221?link_id=3&can_id=6b614a325626aa55ec3e7563bb5103b1&source=email-why-did-hanoi-summit-really-fail-interviews-available&email_referrer=email_502522&email_subject=why-did-hanoi-summit-really-fail-interviews-available

Former SK unification minister Chong Se-hyun suggests that summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief

Pft , Feb 28, 2019 11:14:31 PM | link
South Korea is a puppet government of the US. Its constitution was written by the US and its early leaders were those who worked with the Japanese during the occupation. Anyone against the government and continued occupation by foreign forces was labelled Commmunist and shot. Up until the late 80's South Korea was under martial law

While much of the population is aware of this being humiliated by foreign powers has been a way of life for over a century. Reunification is a pipe dream unless the North is under the Empires control and the US will not pull out even then because its conveniently located at Russia and Chinas borders

I can imagine Trump talking to Kim and asking him how he would like to live like him and the global elite. It worked with Gorbachev and Deng. Just need to adopt the neoliberal religion and loot the resources of your own people (bottom 95%) for eventual handover to the Empire (privatization or sending cash back to buy Treasuries and other investments).

My guess is Kim and NK elite live pretty well already, but who knows. In any event he knows he cant trust them.

karlof1 , Mar 1, 2019 12:12:52 AM | link
Yeah, Right @70--

Guess I need to find a way to create more time to do stuff as I know I'm skimming way too much.

PavewayIV , Mar 1, 2019 1:53:34 AM | link
Schmoe@55 -

[sigh...] Yes, you're right. I suppose I got kind of got carried away there. But I can't believe the polls '50% approval rating' for the Syrian retaliatory strike, at least in my little world.

Most people I encounter through the day, especially college kids and millennial debt slaves, don't care about Syria or Israel and never will. Zero expectations of their government and can't understand why some old people are concerned about distant wars.

They feel absolutely no responsibility for the actions of the US government any more than they feel responsible for the actions of their next door neighbors. Society is slowly devolving itself in toad freak show!

V , Mar 1, 2019 3:55:42 AM | link
Deschutes | Mar 1, 2019 2:55:06 AM | 81

I posted this over at TAE. It might resonate with some few. Any one who has held on to their sanity, surely sees the fantastical reality created by twisted people and their twisted ideals. If that accurate vision is the context from which the U.S. is framed; then its true health is obvious.

A sick society ruled by equally sick fascisti

Record numbers of U.S. citizens are leaving for distant places they view as an improvement. If in fact they find respite; it will likely not last, until and unless the U.S. is brought to ground.

uncle tungsten , Mar 1, 2019 4:16:58 AM | link
Chas # 58

May I suggest there is a small matter of war reparations owed by the USA that needs immediate resolution well prior to any yak yak about denuclear strategies. Ms Susan Rice's piece also blithely ignores that question. And so do all the yankees as they are fully liable for an unwarranted assault on Korea - both north and south - and reparations are immediately owed to the north.

Pay up yankees.

Will someone tell that to John Bolt-on. I would love see his mustache quiver.

Kiza , Mar 1, 2019 5:19:42 AM | link
One of these days I am going to write a piece on what the World would look like one month after the Second US Civil War starts.
Steve , Mar 1, 2019 6:03:28 AM | link
Any nation which still trust any promise coming from the USA and its European, Australian and Canadian poddles deserves to be colonized and destroyed.
Yeah, Right , Mar 1, 2019 6:49:19 AM | link
@77 Karlof1 "Guess I need to find a way to create more time to do stuff as I know I'm skimming way too much."

It's not difficult to dig out the source text, and most international treaties relating to Int'l Humanitarian Law are not exactly dense reads.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact is a mere three articles long, with the first two being single sentences. The Mutual Defense Treaty between the USA and South Korea consists of only six articles.

The NATO Charter is but fourteen articles long. The Hague Regulations are a comparatively hefty fifty-six articles, but even the UN Charter - an outlier if ever there was one - contains only 111 Articles.

The Geneva Conventions are much longer but, boy, do the Swiss like to talk.

But none are like slogging through some Hemingway or Melville. Simple prose, as unambiguous as possible while still satisfying all the negotiators.

In fact you can find all the treaties in one place: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp

A one-stop-shop for all things relating to treaties, highly recommended.

BM , Mar 1, 2019 7:13:57 AM | link
I've just read two articles that in one fell swoop can explain a large part of Trump's behaviour, together with policies to eliminate nuclear arms control, first strike policies, apocalyptic policies towards Iran and North Korea, policies towards Israel, policies aimed at blowing up the Middle East, willingness and eagerness to precipitate destruction and chaos on a global scale, precipitate policies towards Russia and China, support for Islamic jihadism, anti-environmentalism, and climate denial:

The key are the so-called "Rapture Christians" nuts - of whom there are 12 in Trump's cabinet [out of how many?]. I've never looked into this obscure sect of insane nutcases before, but people urgently need to understand this phenomenon - they are an obscure sect, but they hold the keys to political power in the US, and have determined the key political events of the last several decades!

These nutters are a million times more dangerous than Islamic jihadists - they have no fear of all-out nuclear war, global destruction, climate change, environmental devastation or all the things that wise people with foresight advise against - on the contrary they are eager to bring all these things on as soon as possible, because they associate these things with the return of Jesus, and ascent to heaven for all the sect's believers.

A key fact in understanding this phenomenon is that they deny evolution, and a scientific basis for reality in its entirety, and therefore are completely closed to rational argument.

Quote from the second article: 'In an April 2 Bible study, Drollinger focused on the "huge and dire error" of "radical environmentalism". He argues that humans are incapable of destroying the earth on their own, because it is up to God to "continually renew the face of the earth until He forms a new heaven and a new earth in the end times."'

They support Trump because they believe he is the "tool of God".

BM , Mar 1, 2019 7:28:23 AM | link
For that reason South Korea is unlikely to demilitarise and get rid of its US bases unless Japan commits to doing the same.
Posted by: Jen | Feb 28, 2019 10:54:54 PM | 74

That seems like a strange argument to me. The US is not in Korea to protect Korea from Japan, nor are they in Japan either to protect Japan from Korea nor to protect Korea from Japan. In both cases the true target is China.

If the two Korea's unite it will necessarily be under the military protection of Russia and China - there is no other possibility, because they need protection from the US. Both Koreas are obviously much safer under Russian and Chinese protection than under US "protection" - the latter being no more than mafia style "protection".

In this case Japan would clearly oppose such an arrangement - in allignment with the US - therefore the last thing [imperialist] Japan would want would be the pull-out of the US (what ordinary Japanese people might want is another matter - unfortunately they have no say).

Mig-21-Block 70-2022 , Mar 1, 2019 7:34:39 AM | link
N.K. should just ask Russia to buy 1000 warehoused MIGs 21 refurbished for year 2023 and thats it!
Kim should go for a No deal with the US.
Mig 21s just shot down brand new f-16s over in India.
Whole world world including Chinese airmen are laughing.
Well maybe except the starving Greeks threw 1 bill. eu out of the window for a new deal with Trumps Lokheed for f-16 modernizations.
b real , Mar 1, 2019 7:47:45 AM | link
manufactured controversy to get the top of the news cycle and take focus off the cohen testimony so it dies quickly
rattlemullet , Mar 1, 2019 8:05:02 AM | link
The trio of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton, quite frankly spells failure. The leader has zero capacity to learn and understand the motivation behind North Korea and their very exacting understanding of the English language. Every single word written has a clear and precise meaning tied into complete sentences. The fact that is written on paper and executed by both parties memorizes the document. Trump literally has not read the first agreement as executed. To place any faith in this trio of clowns to negotiate with the North Koreas is laughable. The basic fact is that North Koreans will never trust the US as we literally tried to bomb all their cities out of existence during the Korean intervention. Trump's trio does not understand the lasting impact that those actions burned into North Korean souls. Trump is completely out his league on the world stage he has made a fool of the US.
arby , Mar 1, 2019 8:22:57 AM | link
b real @ 90--

That was my thoughts as well. The real reason Trump handlers sent him to Viet Nam was to not be around for a damning testimony.

Scotch Bingeington , Mar 1, 2019 9:42:07 AM | link
Tom Luongo claims that Bolton's spoke in Trump's wheel was to add chemical & biological weapons to US demands ( Link ). There, just like that. Pretty clever actually. Bolton may be the king of scumbags, but he sure is resourceful. The picture they have in the article of Bolton watching over Trump is scary and probably very telling.
BM , Mar 1, 2019 10:20:07 AM | link
"Trudeau was detonated today by his former Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada's first Aboriginal A-G. She just testified in Parliament, in meticulous detail, how Trudeau and his staff tried to get her to drop criminal charges against a corrupt company that he liked."
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 28, 2019 1:15:41 PM | 36

I've just finished reading the article on the testimony in the National Post, linked in Karlof1's link:

Read the full text of Jody Wilson-Raybould's statement to the House of Commons justice committee
(That's the title of the article; actually it is not the full text it is important extracts, but generous extracts).

Wow! Everybody should read this! This lady is someone who deserves a lot of respect! This text is fascinating in how it details the arm-twisting that goes on in power - nothing that would surprise us that it happens, but here it is described in black and white by a former government witness - including even such titbits as:

"if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper."

Hey, James, you have some good Ministers over there in Canada, despite the more famous ones. Erm, well, one. Erm, well, had.

I am interested in some of the things she is declining to speak about (due to confidentiality of counsel issues), and am wondering if that might include the Huawei CFO issues, for which she was in a pertinent position. Any connections to the dates 11th February, and 19th February? (Actually I was travelling at that time so was out of the loop). Then there is the meeting with the PM on 17th September, requested 2 weeks earlier, which seems to have been intended primarily about something other than the SNC affair. The Huawei CFO was arrested in early December, I think, so that should be something else.

frances , Mar 1, 2019 12:19:47 PM | link
reply to Mig-21-Block 70-2022 89

"...Mig 21s just shot down brand new f-16s over in India.Whole world world including Chinese airmen are laughing.Well maybe except the starving Greeks threw 1 bill. eu out of the window for a new deal with Trumps Lokheed for f-16 modernizations."

Maybe laughing but maybe not, this fellow seems to feel they are evenly matched depending on their respective upgrades and concludes by saying it comes down to pilot expertise. BTW he considers Pak as having superior pilots.


frances , Mar 1, 2019 12:25:54 PM | link
reply to Scotch Bingeington 93
"....The picture they have in the article of Bolton watching over Trump is scary and probably very telling."

Yes, I am inclined to think Bolton was foisted upon him. I do think he chose Pompeo though.

Another very telling photo is that of Trump at Bush Sr.'s funeral, in the row behind him was Chaney, the look on Chaney's face as he stared at Trump's back was very interesting to me, he looked almost afraid.

karlof1 , Mar 1, 2019 2:14:11 PM | link
President Moon's confidence remains strong despite summit outcome. He tweeted this [machine translation] earlier today:

"Independence of spirit and national integration based on the 'faith based system'considerably.
Please gather all the power of the people.
Peace on the Korean peninsula will drive new economic growth across the North and South, encompassing Northeast Asia, ASEAN and Eurasia."

Today marks then 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Korean Independence, and Moon makes clear in his speech that there was and is only one Korea and one Korean people:

"One hundred years ago today, there was no South and North Korea.

"From Seoul and Pyeongyang to Jinnampo, Anju, Seoncheon, Uiju and Wonsan, loud chants of [the masses] erupted on the same day, and these calls for independence spread like a wildfire to every corner of the country.

"For two months from March 1, [mass] protests took place in 211 out of the total 220 cities and counties across the country regardless of the region – whether they belonged to what is now a part of South or North Korea."

Gotta love Moon's optimism in his closing remarks:

"The history of the past 100 years proves that we can achieve changes and innovation if we do not lose hope no matter how difficult our present reality is.

"Over the next 100 years, the growth of the people will directly lead to the growth of the nation. When unity is achieved from within by moving beyond ideological confrontations, and when peace and prosperity are accomplished from outside, genuine independence will be completed."

I'd be very interested in discovering what Kim did today. Hopefully, he, too, gave an address similar to Moon's.

james , Mar 1, 2019 3:49:21 PM | link
@94 BM - maybe Jody Wilson-Raybould can run for the prime ministers job if she can get on the top of the heap of the liberal party.. chances of this are slim!

[Mar 20, 2019] I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked

If so, economics will suffer and chances for Trump for re-election are much lower, of exist at all due to all his betrayals
In the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the wolf actually arrives at the end. Never forget that. Peak oil will arrive. We don't know when, and we are not prepared for it.
Shale play without more borrowed money might be the next Venezuela. .
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com

I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?

OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.

Jeff says: 03/14/2019 at 1: 50 pm

"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"

IEA´s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".

Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.

Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 3:23 pm

I am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.

I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.

The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.

Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be a real bitch.

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 4:57 pm
Carlos Diaz,

Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower growth in oil output.

Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).

At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.

I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.

Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 7:18 pm
So Dennis,

Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption. I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?

Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been significantly higher?

I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to grow robustly.

To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price) too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.

The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 9:20 pm
Carlos,

If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.

So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.

So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.

Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 5:03 am
No Dennis,

It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.

But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.

In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.

Oil limits → Oil cost → Oil Price ↔ Economy → Oil demand → Oil production

The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.

And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low oil prices couldn't be sustained.

Schinzy x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 11:18 am
Carlos,

Your reasoning is close to mine. See https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/oil-cycle-dynamics-and-future-oil-price-scenarios .

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 3:01 pm
Carlos,

Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important, it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.

The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.

There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.

I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.

My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs, discount rate, and lease operating expenses.

Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.

Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month, annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.

Mario C Vachon x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:39 pm
You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.
Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:57 pm

Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.

You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.

You simply cannot be more wrong about that.

And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not. There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself the trouble.

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:33 am
Carlos,

I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.

Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.

Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:34 am
Thanks Mario.
Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 10:49 am
Carlos,

Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore, Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)

On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting to stock levels) is likely to continue.

There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either percentage increase of absolute increase in output.

I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$). Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that is too optimistic a scenario even for me. 🙂

HHH x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 9:44 pm
China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.

Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.

In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160 the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60 or below.

The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.

We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.

Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.

We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.

Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.

Lightsout x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:25 am
You are assuming that the oil is priced in dollars there are moves underway that raise two fingers to that.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2174453/china-and-russia-look-ditch-dollar-new-payments-system-move

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:41 am
HHH,

When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.

It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025), oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).

Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 9:56 am
HHH,

My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World monetary and financial system.

Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.

HHH x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:50 pm
Dennis,

Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.

On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between $62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.

But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the dollar.

But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.

[Mar 20, 2019] What will happen if no energy source can cover the decline rate

Notable quotes:
"... "If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline rate." ..."
"... Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has soared (expected to top $250T in 2019). ..."
"... Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since it will be a push over compared to Iran. ..."
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com

Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 12:42 am

Iron Mike Asked:

"If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline rate."

Energy is the economy, The economy cannot function without energy. Thus its logical that a decline in energy supply will reduce the economy. The only way for this not to apply is if there are efficiency gains that offset the decline. But at this point the majority of cost effective efficiency gains are already in place. At this point gains become increasing expensive with much smaller gains (law of diminishing returns). Major infrastructure changes like modernizing rail lines take many decades to implement and also require lots of capital. Real capital needed will be difficult to obtain do to population demographics (ie boomers dependent on massive unfunded entitlement & pensions).

Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has soared (expected to top $250T in 2019).

My guess is that global economy will wipe saw in the future as demographics, resource depletion (including Oil) and Debt all merge into another crisis. Gov't will act with more cheap and easy credit (since there is no alterative TINA) as well as QE\Asset buying to avoid a global depression. This creating a wipesaw effect that has already been happening since 2000 with Boom Bust cycles. This current cycle has lasted longer because the Major central banks kept interest rates low, When The Fed started QT and raising rate it ended up triggering a major stock market correction In Dec 2018. I believe at this point the Fed will no longer seek any further credit tightening that will trip the economy back into recession. However its likely they the global economy will fall into another recession as consumers & business even without further credit tighting by CB (Central Banks) Because they've been loading up on cheap debt, which will eventually run into issues servicing their debt. For instance there are about 7M auto loans in delinquency in March of 2019. Stock valuations are largely driven by stock buybacks, which is funded by debt. I presume companies are close to debt limit which is likely going to prevent them from purchase more stock back.

Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since it will be a push over compared to Iran. I think once all of remaining independent Oil Exports are seized that is when the major powers start fighting each other. However is possible that some of the proxy nations (Pakastan\India),(Israel\Iran), etc trigger direct war between the US, China, and Russia at any time.

Notice that the US is now withdrawing from all its major arms treaties, and the US\China\Russia are now locked into a Arms race. Nuclear powers are now rebuilding their nuclear capacity (more Nukes) and modernizing their deployment systems (Hypersonic, Very large MIRV ICBMS, Undersea drones, Subs, Bombers, etc.

My guess is that nations like the US & China will duke it out before collapsing into the next Venezuela. If my assessment is correct, The current state of Venezuela will look like the garden of Eden compared to the aftermath of a full scale nuclear war.

Currently the Doomsday clock (2019) is tied with 1953 at 2 minutes:

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/past-announcements/

1953 was the height of the cold war. I presume soon the Doomsday clock will be reduced to less than 2 Minutes later this year, due to recent events in the past few weeks.

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

"the world's nuclear nations proceeded with programs of "nuclear modernization" that are all but indistinguishable from a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo against the use of nuclear weapons."

" The current international security situation -- what we call the "new abnormal" -- has extended over two years now. It's a state as worrisome as the most dangerous times of the Cold War, a state that features an unpredictable and shifting landscape of simmering disputes that multiply the chances for major military conflict to erupt."

[Mar 19, 2019] Richard Wolff on the money behind Brexit

YouTube
The is a method in British Brexit madness -- money.
Mar 19, 2019 | www.youtube.com

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.

[Mar 17, 2019] The Dangerous Absurdity of America's Trade Wars by Jeffrey D. Sachs - Project Syndicate

Mar 17, 2019 | www.project-syndicate.org

Trump's own signature tax policy is therefore the main explanation of the modest rise in the international imbalance. Again, trade policy is largely irrelevant to the outcome.

Yet trade policy is certainly not irrelevant to the global economy. Far from it. As Trump chases a chimera, the world economy has become more unstable , and relations between the US and most of the rest of the world have palpably worsened. Trump himself is held in disdain in most places, and respect for US leadership has plummeted worldwide .

Of course, Trump's trade policies not only seek to improve America's external balance, but also represent a misguided attempt to contain China and even to weaken Europe. This objective reflects a neoconservative worldview in which national security reflects a zero-sum struggle among nation-states. The economic successes of America's competitors are deemed to be threats to American global primacy, and thus to American security.

These views reflect the strands of belligerence and paranoia that have long been a feature of American politics. They are an invitation to unending international conflict, and Trump and his enablers are giving them free rein. Seen in this context, Trump's misconceived trade wars are nearly as predictable as the macroeconomic imbalances they have so spectacularly failed to address.

[Mar 16, 2019] If we assume average EROEI equal 2 for shale oil then rising shale oil production with almost constant world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket, or voodoo dances around the fire.

Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com

likbez says: 03/16/2019 at 9:34 pm

likbez says:

03/16/2019 at 9:34 pm

Some arguments in defense of Ron estimates

1. When something is increasing 0.8% a year based on data with, say, 2% or higher margin of error this is not a growth. This is a number racket.

2. We need to use proper coefficients to correctly estimate energy output of different types of oil We do not know real EROEI of shale oil, but some sources claim that it is in the 1.5-4.5 range. Let's assume that it is 3. In comparison, Saudi oil has 80-100 range. In this sense shale oil is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the problem (stream of just bonds produced in parallel is the testament of that). In other words, all shale oil is "subprime oil," and an increase of shale oil production is correctly called the oil retirement party. The same is true for the tar sands oil.

So the proper formula for total world production in "normalized by ERORI units" might be approximated by the equation:

0.99* OPEC_oil + 0.97*other_conventional_oil + 0.95*shallow-water_oil + 0.9*deep_water_oil +0.75*(shale_oil+condensate) + 0.6*tar_sand_oil + 0.2*ethanol

where coefficients (I do not claim that they are accurate; they are provided just for demonstration) reflect EROEI of particular types of oil.

If we assume that 58% of the US oil production is shale oil and condensate then the amount of "normalized" oil extracted in the USA can be approximated by the formula

total * 0.83

In other words 17% of the volume is a fiction. Simplifying it was spent on extraction of shale oil and condensate (for concentrate lower energy content might justify lower coefficient; but for simplicity we assume that it is equal to shale oil).

Among other things that means that 1970 peak of production probably was never exceeded.

3. EROEI of most types of oil continues to decline (from 35 in 1999 to 18 in 2006 according to http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png). Which means that in reality physical volume became a very deceptive metric as you need to sink more and more money/energy into producing every single barrel and that fact is not reflected in the volume. In other words, the barrel of shale oil is already 50% empty when it was lifted to the ground (aka "subprime oil"). In this sense, shale wells with their three years of the high producing period are simply money dumping grounds for money in comparison with Saudi oil wells.

4. The higher price does not solve the problem of the decline of EROEI. It just allows the allocation of a larger portion of national wealth to the oil extraction putting the rest of the economy into permanent stagnation.

5. If we assume average EROEI equal 3 (or even 5) for shale oil then rising shale oil production along with almost constant world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket, or voodoo dances around the fire.

NOTES:

1. IMHO Ron made a correct observation about Saudi behavior: the declines of production can well be masked under pretention of meeting the quota to save face. That might be true about OPEC and Russia as a whole too. Exceptions like Iraq only confirm the rule.

2. EROEI of lithium battery is around 32

[Mar 16, 2019] May and Merkel Fiddle While Their Unions Burn

Mar 16, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

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 there.

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 MSM?

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 unhappy.

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 worthwhile meaning.

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 colonised countries.

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 natural resources.

Posted by: BM | Mar 16, 2019 11:08:29 AM | 175

[Mar 15, 2019] Patriots Turning To #YangGang In Response To Trump, Conservatism Inc. Failure by James Kirkpatrick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Mar 15, 2019 | www.unz.com

The dark horse candidate of the 2020 Democratic primary is entrepreneur Andrew Yang , who just qualified for the first round of debates by attracting over 65,000 unique donors. [ Andrew Yang qualifies for first DNC debate with 65,000 unique donors , by Orion Rummler, Axios, March 12, 2019]

Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs. However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.

Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."

As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system. Charles Murray called for this policy in 2016. [ A guaranteed income for every American , AEI, June 3, 2016] Milton Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though Friedman called it a "negative income tax."

He rejected arguments that it would cause indolence. F.A. Hayek also supported such a policy; he essentially took it for granted . [ Friedrich Hayek supported a guaranteed minimum income , by James Kwak, Medium, July 20, 2015]

It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority and deconstruct Leftist power. I've retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.

However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for citizens only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously argued in a piece attacking Jacobin's disingenuous complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal basic income while still demanding mass immigration.

Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists.

Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang has directly spoken about the demographic collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from substance abuse and suicide ."

Though even the viciously anti-white Dylan Matthews called the tweet "innocuous," there is little doubt if President Trump said it would be called racist. [ Andrew Yang, the 2020 long-shot candidate running on a universal basic income, explained , Vox, March 11, 2019]

Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.

...He wants to make Puerto Rico a state . He supports a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with pledges to secure the border and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track gun owners, restrict gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to subsidize local journalists with taxpayer dollars...

... ... ...

Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are "far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism [are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [ Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has a meme problem , by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]

But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity. Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it except money.

President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.

The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically pledged to protect entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [ Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3 , by Tara Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.

Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an entire generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a family, not simply a marketplace .

President Trump himself is now trying to talk like a fiscal conservative [ Exclusive -- Donald Trump: 'Seductive' Socialism Would Send Country 'Down The Tubes' In a Decade Or Less , by Alexander Marlow, Matt Boyle, Amanda House, and Charlie Spierling, Breitbart, March 11, 2019]. Such a pose is self-discrediting given how the deficit swelled under united Republican control and untold amounts of money are seemingly still available for foreign aid to Israel, regime change in Iran and Venezuela, and feminist programs abroad to make favorite daughter Ivanka Trump feel important. [ Trump budget plans to give $100 million to program for women that Ivanka launched , by Nathalie Baptiste, Mother Jones, March 9, 2019]

Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is beyond saving.

Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway. If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.

National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [ Rise of the pink hats , March 12, 2019].

Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him.

[Mar 12, 2019] Not Looking Good -- Trump Attacks Coulter, Congressional GOP Cucking On Immigration by Washington Watcher

Mar 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

See, earlier by Ann Coulter: Trump's Failing On Immigration. Don't Ask Me To Lie About It

Three weeks ago, after Donald J. Trump abandoned the government shutdown and declared a national emergency to get some funding for his border wall, I asked: Did Trump Save His Presidency? Maybe -- IF He Doesn't INCREASE Legal Immigration . Unfortunately, and incredibly given his campaign promises , Trump has repeatedly said since then that he has indeed pivoted to increasing legal immigration -- reportedly under the influence of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka and Jared Kushner . Trump may still be saved by the Party of Hysterical Screeching 's inability to accept even victory (because increasing legal immigration would be demographic victory for them) at his hands. But in the interim, without Presidential leadership, it appears likely that the Congressional Stupid Party will not take up the various measures that could stem America's immigration disaster -- above all, the Merkel-type catastrophe now unfolding on the southern border.

Weirdly, Trump abruptly attacked Ann Coulter , one of his earliest and most eloquent backers , on Twitter Saturday night, perhaps signaling he is repudiating the immigration patriotism he won on -- or perhaps that he knows Ann is right:

In reality of course, "major sections of the wall" have not been built. And the administration suffered yet another defeat in the courts last week over its attempts to enforce immigration law. [ In another blow to Trump, judge rules in favor of ACLU in family separations case , by Maria Sacchetti, The Washington Post , March 8, 2019] Trump is fighting, to his credit, but he simply is not winning on the border.

Coulter has consistently demanded the president implement the immigration platform he campaigne d on and her recent (admittedly savage) criticism isn't much different from what she has said since the beginning of Trump's tenure. See, recently Ann Coulter To Donald Trump: Hey, Commander! Start Commanding!

The difference lies in Trump himself. [ Anti-Immigration Groups See Trump's Calls for More Legal Immigrants as a Betrayal , by Michael D. Shear, The New York Times , March 8, 2019]

Jared Kushner is currently leading negotiations with the Cheap Labor Lobby to craft a bill that will likely increase guest worker visas. It's unclear what exactly will end up in this legislation, but it is guaranteed to enrage immigration patriots. [ Globalist Business Groups with Koch, Bush Ties Dominate Immigration Talks at White House , by John Binder, Breitbart , February 26, 2019]

Congressional Republicans also seem uninterested in immigration patriotism.

Many Republicans want to block President Trump's national emergency declaration on the border -- the one good thing Trump has recently done on immigration–because it goes against their " principles ." Thirteen House Republicans voted to block the executive order last month. "The president doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times over the past several years," Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian, said of why he sponsored legislation to stifle the national emergency. [ Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency' , by Joe Seyton, Reason, February 26, 2019]. Amash was joined by a group primarily made up of squishy Republicans. [ Meet the 13 Republicans who rebuked Trump over his national emergency , by Bridget Bowman, Roll Call , February 26, 2019]

Trump's executive order is receiving even more pushback from Senate Republicans. Senators such as Shelly Moore-Capito (R-West Virginia) and Susan Collins think the national emergency is "concerning" and believe Trump already has enough wall money without the declaration. [ GOP wants Trump to back off on emergency , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , March 6, 2019]

Four Republican Senators have announced their intention to vote for legislation to block the national emergency: Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and usual Trump ally Rand Paul. More are likely to announce their support for this measure as the vote approaches this week. Pat Toomey and Todd Young, both who are close with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to propose resolutions to give cucky Republicans a way to voice their disapproval without voting with the Democrats.

The resolutions would convey the message that Republicans want border security, but don't want to take the necessary actions to fund said border security. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wants to pass a resolution that would restrict the president's emergency powers and place a 30-day or 60-day time limit on how long they can be in effect without congressional approval.

McConnell announced Monday that he could not prevent passage of legislation blocking Trump's national emergency declaration. The New York Times declared this announcement as proof that Trump has lost influence within his own party. [ Trump's Grip Shows Signs of Slipping as Senate Prepares to Block Wall Emergency , By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Emily Cochrane, The New York Times , March 4, 2019]

The good news is that Trump will most likely veto this legislation and Congress doesn't have enough votes to override the veto. The President is also threatening senators who vote for the block with stiff consequences. [ Senate Republicans divided ahead of vote on disapproval of national emergency , by Ted Barrett, CNN , March 7, 2019] There is little chance the President will sign a bill that overrides his own action, even if his close advisers tell him to do so. Trump's instincts would never allow such behavior.

The bad news: it's a sign congressional Republicans have no will to support immigration patriotism at the moment. This is very bad considering the immigration bills that may come before them in the near future, including the possible White House measure on guest worker visas. House Democrats are set to introduce a new DREAM Act that will legalize at least 1.8 million illegals and extend Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals.

Congressional Republicans need to get their act together to kill these pieces of legislation. But they may be at the forefront in support of them. Last fall, multiple Republican senators, including the appalling Thom Tillis, proposed a bill that would double the number of H-2b visas and screw over low-skilled American workers. And last month, several Republicans -- alas, including supposed immigration patriot Tom Cotton -- championed the easement of some regulations on H-1b visas.

The better hope for killing a guest worker expansion lies with the Democrats. Anyone with a brain realizes this would be bad for American workers and benefits greedy corporations. Democrats have never been too fond of this plan, as evidenced by their skepticism about its expansion in the Gang of Eight Amnesty. [ Gang of 8 defends guest worker plan , by Seung Min Kim, Politico , May 13, 2013]. What better way to portray Trump as a phony populist in 2020 than to skewer him for this gift to the cheap labor lobby?

The House Democrats' proposed DREAM Act will probably go nowhere–unless Trump includes that idea in his immigration package. There are some positive signs that the White House won't do this; and that Republicans would block its passage. Kushner floated the idea of giving green cards for Dreamers in exchange for wall funding during shutdown negotiations earlier this year. That plan was firmly opposed by conservative senators who thought it was insanity [ A "go big" idea to end the shutdown , by Jonathan Swan, Axios , January 23, 2019]

Though Congress and the White House seem set on terrible immigration ideas, it's worth remembering there are alternative patriotic immigration proposals they could push. All of these ideas would not likely pass the current Congress, but they would shape the immigration debate in a positive direction ahead of the 2020 election.

El Chapo Act:

This bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz would confiscate the money of drug lords like Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and allocate it to building the wall. Cruz reintroduced the proposal in February and believes the government could obtain $14 billion out of El Chapo's drug profits through this law [ Sen. Ted Cruz's solution to border wall impasse: Make El Chapo pay for it , by Deanna Paul, The Washington Post , February 13, 2019]. This would be more money than Trump currently has for wall construction and would send a strong message to the cartels. The president himself has said Sen. Cruz's idea is "interesting." There is no reason Republicans shouldn't hold a vote on this bill and make Democrats stand up for drug cartels.

Kate's Law:

This bill, named after Kate Steinle who was murdered by an illegal alien, would institute harsher penalties for illegals caught re-entering the country. This measure passed the House in 2017, but it died in the (n.b. GOP-controlled)Senate [ Senate Has Not Voted On Kate's Law Five Months After It Passed The House With Bipartisan Support , by Will Racke, The Daily Caller , December 1, 2017].

Trump should resurrect the bill. Yes, it's passage is less likely with a Democrat-controlled House. That doesn't matter. The president needs to convey he still wants to crack down on illegal immigration and that his opponents favor criminal aliens over American citizens.

Along with the El Chapo Act, probably has the best chance at passage among the ideas the Trump admin could push as multiple Democrats voted for it back in 2017. There is still a chance enough Democrats would vote for it again to achieve passage.

No Sanctuary for Criminals Act:

This act would cut Sanctuary Cities off from federal law enforcement funds and it was also passed by the House in 2017, albeit by a smaller margin than Kate's Law. It also went nowhere in the (GOP-controlled) Senate. If Republicans want to highlight the chaos created by Democrat policies, they should revive this bill and remind Americans that Trump stands up for law and order. This act, however, does have less chance of passage as it was more strongly opposed by Democrats [ Dems block Senate vote on sanctuary cities , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , February 13, 2018]

Mandatory e-Verify:

Requiring all American companies to use e-verify seems almost too good of an idea for Republicans. The bill explicitly protects American workers and puts the onus on employers to make sure they only hire those who are here legally. This should receive bipartisan support as both parties want to portray themselves as the true protectors of American workers.

House Republicans included the measure in their DACA deal last year, so they are aware of this proposal [ Goodlatte offers E-Verify mandate, farm worker fix for immigration bill , by John Bresnahan, Politico , June 26, 2018]. We just need one patriot Republican to stand up and offer mandatory e-Verify. This proposal also has a decent chance of passage.

Override the Flores Settlement:

This 1997 court decision has handcuffed the Trump administration's ability to enforce immigration law and is directly responsible for the current border collapse. It has allowed liberal judges to deem it unlawful for the government to detain illegal alien minors for more than 20 days. It also has allowed for these minors to have better access to asylum as they remain in America undetained. Some Republican lawmakers, including Ted Cruz, suggested legislative action in the last congressional session to correct this loophole [ The History of the Flores Settlement , by Matt Sussis, Center for Immigration Studies , February 11, 2019].

A bill to end this policy would not likely pass as many Republicans shrank from the Trump's family detention policies last summer [ Here Are the Republicans Opposing Migrant Family Separation , by Jeff Cirillo, Roll Call , June 19, 2018]. That doesn't change the fact that the Trump administration needs this legislation to avoid further court losses and to shift public discussion on family detention to focus on Democratic preference for illegal immigrants.

Eliminating birthright citizenship:

There is no way that this idea would pass Congress, but it does have the backing of the President and one prominent Republican senator. Trump said he may eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order and Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a bill to do so right before the 2018 election. [ Lindsey Graham Seconds Trump Proposal to End Birthright Citizenship , by Niels Lesniewski, Roll Call , October 30, 2018]

Those plans, however, seem to have disappeared since then. But Trump still seems interested in the issue -- he mentioned it in his speech to CPAC -- and events may prompt the president to revisit the topic. A bill would cause an uproar within Congress and among the Republican caucus, let alone an executive order. And that's good. If Trump wants to have a serious discussion on citizenship and reduce the negative effects of mass immigration, then he must force this issue into the public square.

Javanka would likely oppose any such effort, so perhaps their White House influence would have to be minimalized from what it is today for this to happen.

The RAISE Act:

The RAISE Act would halve America's yearly immigration intake and structure our system to be more "merit-based." It would also cap annual refugee numbers at 50,000 and eliminate the diversity visa lottery. The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue with Trump's backing in August 2017. But (again, despite GOP control of Congress) nothing happened.

If Trump wants to show he still puts America first ahead of 2020, he could resurrect the RAISE Act. There is no chance it would pass, but it would force Republicans to run on the plan and win the seats necessary to pass it in Trump's second term.

These are some positive things Trump and Republicans can do. Whether they choose to do them is up to them.

It's not looking good.

Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

[Mar 09, 2019] Debbie Wasserman Schultz has threatened to have Sanders kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator

Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of herpes.
Mar 09, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The Rev Kev, March 6, 2019 at 6:36 pm

Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.

Film clip at-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnlEVf7oaVQ

Some language used.

polecat , March 6, 2019 at 7:23 pm

Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !

[Mar 07, 2019] How Trump Happened by Joseph E. Stiglitz

Right now the title should "Can Trump happen again?" ;-)
But this is from 2016 and Professor Stiglitz missed the foreign policy and neoliberal globalization aspects of "Hillary vs Trump" battle. A vote for Hillary was a vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
It is unclear where is political force that can reverse neoliberal deregulation and neoliberal tax cuts. for example full set of taxes on all kind of income might help (so that dividends owners should pay Social security tax too) but currently is politically unfeasible, as control of Washington is in the hands of financial oligarchy which will not relinquish its power without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
"... The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis). ..."
"... Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. ..."
"... the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power. ..."
"... we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. ..."
"... The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all. ..."
"... From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. ..."
"... How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. ..."
"... Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy. The rules need to be rewritten. ..."
"... The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably ..."
Project Syndicate

But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.

Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.

At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).

Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.

Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.

Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.

Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were tried.

In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.

There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.

This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.

markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016

I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank you.

Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.

It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere, most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree in these states.

It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis).

Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.

While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.

Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016

I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'. There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable. But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.

James Murphy OCT 15, 2016

"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."

The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.

We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.

From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened. Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.

Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016
Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.

Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.

So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part of? NO.

Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.

As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.

So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.

Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016

The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.
Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016
The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.

Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.

M M OCT 14, 2016
The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can" not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place and this to state just a few examples.

... ... ...

[Mar 05, 2019] The ban on entry to the USA should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous atrocities

Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova -> pgl... February 01, 2017 at 08:40 PM

First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should have nothing to do with university education ;-)

"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and 'economic madness.'"

Compare with comments to "Ok To Bomb Them. But Don't Ban Them" ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46349.htm )

It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it.

The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous atrocities.

...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?

...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice.

[Mar 04, 2019] Trump calls for 21st century Glass-Steagall banking law

Notable quotes:
"... As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites. ..."
"... Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars. ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
allan November 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Trump calls for '21st century' Glass-Steagall banking law [Reuters, Oct. 26]

Financial Services [Trump Transition Site, Nov. 10]

Oddly, no mention of Glass-Steagall, only dismantling Dodd-Frank. Who could have predicted?

File under Even Victims Can Be Fools.

Chauncey Gardiner November 10, 2016 at 3:57 pm

Not surprised at all. The election is over, the voters are now moot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites.

Dr. Roberts November 10, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Also no mention of NAFTA or renegotiating trade deals in the new transition agenda. Instead there's just a bunch of vague Chamber of Commercesque language about making America attractive to investors. I think our hopes for a disruptive Trump presidency are quickly being dashed.

Steve C November 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm

Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars.

As to the last point, appointing Bolton or Corker Secretary of State would be a clear indication he was just talking. A clear violation of campaign promises that would make Obama look like a choirboy. Trump may be W on steroids.

pretzelattack November 10, 2016 at 5:17 pm

sure he may be almost as bad as Clinton on foreign policy. so far he hasn't been rattling a saber at Russia.

Steve C November 10, 2016 at 6:25 pm

Newland also is pernicious, but as with many things Trump, not as gaudy as Bolton.

anti-social socialist November 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm

Yathink?
https://www.ft.com/content/aed37de0-a767-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Katniss Everdeen November 10, 2016 at 5:38 pm

I can't imagine how he's neglected to update his transition plan regarding nafta. After all, he's already been president-elect for, what, 36 hours now? And he only talked about it umpteen times during the campaign. I'm sure he'll renege.

Hell, it took Clinton 8 hours to give her concession speech.

On the bright side, he managed to kill TPP just by getting elected. Was that quick enough for you?

[Mar 04, 2019] US does not have "plan B". Trump just betting on enough pressure will force China to surrender, like Japan did in the 80s.

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Mar 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

jacques sheete says: February 18, 2019 at 4:05 pm GMT 100 Words A superb and apparently too little appreciated point,

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


Agent76 , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:08 pm GMT

Feb 15, 2019 Next Phase, Xi & Trump, Coordinate The Transition

US industrial production plunges, this doesn't mean that manufacturing jobs are not coming back to the US this means the [CB] is deteriorating quickly as Trump brings back manufacturing.

Feb 16, 2019 Pentagon Warns of Chinese Space Lasers | China News Headlines

A new Pentagon report says #China and Russia have developed #laser weapons to target US satellites. Need a Space Force?

SteveK9 , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:09 pm GMT
Michael Klare believes in Russia-gate. Anyone that foolish is not worth reading.
The Scalpel , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 4:13 pm GMT

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

Yee , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:15 pm GMT
Erebus,

"The time and investment required to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means much of what's left of America's real economy would disappear within weeks.

American trade negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird."

Of course they're not oblivious, as you can see everytime the stock market goes down, some US official came out to say a deal/talk is on the way. Both the negotiators and the market know.

They're just betting on enough pressure will force China to surrender, like Japan did in the 80s.

nsa , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:18 pm GMT
@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

MEFOBILLS , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:26 pm GMT
@jeff stryker Reality much?

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 knowledge.

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.

The Scalpel , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 4:32 pm GMT
@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.
Digital Samizdat , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:32 pm GMT
@MEFOBILLS To make a long story short, China is run by the Chinese, while the US today is run by (((globalist parasites))).
The Scalpel , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 4:42 pm GMT
@Wally

And to think some take this fraud, Klare, seriously.

He writes for Tomdispatch. Need I say more?

jacques sheete , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:57 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing

Why limit it to that? I'd say there's plenty of merit in the author's definition especially since it would tend to shed some lights on the origins of major conflicts.

AriusArmenian , says: February 18, 2019 at 5:14 pm GMT
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.

The Scalpel , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 5:43 pm GMT
@jacques 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.

DB Cooper , says: February 18, 2019 at 5:52 pm GMT
@nsa I didn't know Indians are into the PCB industry. Do the customers aware that they are just middlemen getting their goods from China?

Anyway here is a behind the scene look at one of the PCB manufacturers in China. Pretty interesting stuff.

Cratylus , says: February 18, 2019 at 5:56 pm GMT
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.

Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:24 pm GMT
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 .
peterAUS , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Counterinsurgency You are onto something here.

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.

As for China, definitely agree.

wayfarer , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:55 pm GMT
China's "Petro-Yuan": The End of the U.S. Dollar Hegemony?
WorkingClass , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:09 pm GMT
When we speak of the culture war or the war on drugs or the war between the sexes or a trade war we are misusing the word war.

War with China means exactly shooting and bombing and killing Chinese and American people. Expanding the meaning of the word only makes it meaningless.

We are NOT already at war with China.

jacques sheete , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:57 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

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 !!!)

jacques sheete , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:00 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

Russia under Putin is an exporter of non GMO grains where as the U.S. exports GMO grains thatt the Chinese do not want as these GMO grains are a destuctive to humans and animals.

I hope that's true. To Hell with that GMO crap!!! Anyone using it for farming ought to be forced to drink glyphosate straight for breakfast.

AnonFromTN , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:02 pm GMT
As far as the war with China goes, we ain't seen nothing yet. It won't be pretty, especially considering that the US is starting it with severe self-inflicted wounds.
Cratylus , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:19 pm GMT
Yes, and the ads were often absurd – one somehow featuring Yosemite Sam and gun rights and another for a dildo, I believe. Great for click bait maybe but not real winners for a campaign.

As the incomparable Jimmy Dore says on his show, which should be required watching for everyone, if the Russians can swing an election with such modest resources against maybe $1-2 billion spent by the Donald and the Hillary together, then every candidate for offices high and low should run not walk with $54,700 in hand to secure a cheap and easy victory from the Russobots.

Commentator Mike , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:41 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Actually China has approved import of some US GMOs

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/reuters-america-factbox-china-approves-new-gmo-soybean-corn-and-canola-traits.html

Cyrano , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:41 pm GMT
I don't think China stands the chance. As we all know diversity is strength and China is mono-cultured rather than the obviously superior multi. So China will continue to decline, while US goes from strength to strength thanks to its brilliant, brilliant multicultural philosophy.

China was dumb enough to try real socialism, while obviously the fake one is the way to go. You convince your domestic population of your humanitarian credentials – via the phony socialism, plus you don't have to share a cent with them. How clever is that? Phony socialism is the way to go – it eliminates the need for the real one.

James Wood , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:49 pm GMT
At some point one must consider that this is all a fraud. In Washington Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats are proposing to eviscerate the US economy with their Green New Deal. While here we find Washington launching a long term struggle for economic, political, and military superiority over China.

As was once said in another context by an individual remembered in history, "What is truth?" A question which either revealed his own puzzlement or was simply a rhetorical dismissal of the question altogether. Likely both at the same time. One can be simply bemused by the turn of events.

Is all this activity simply a song and dance to entertain, terrify, confuse, and amuse the public while the real ordering of the world takes place behind closed doors? Put Ocasio-Cortez together with the Pentagon and we have apparently a commitment by the US to force the entire world to immolate itself. No state shall be superior to the US and the US shall be a third world hellhole. Cui bono?

AnonFromTN , says: February 18, 2019 at 9:04 pm GMT
@joe webb Russia and China are certainly not natural allies. However, deranged international banditry of the US (called foreign policy in the DC bubble) literally forced them to ally against a common threat: dying demented Empire.

As you call Chinese "Chinks", I suggest you stop using everything made in China, including your clothes, footwear, tools, the light bulbs in your house, etc. Then, using your likely made in China computer and certainly made in China mouse, come back and tell us how great your life has become. Or you can stick to your principles of not using China-made stuff, write a message on a piece of paper (warning: make sure that neither the paper nor the pen is made in China), put it into a bottle, and throw it in the ocean. Be patient, and in a few centuries you might get an answer.

Anonymous [375] Disclaimer , says: February 18, 2019 at 9:34 pm GMT
@joe webb Russia is currently trying to get China to ally against the West:

" Russia to China: Together we can rule the world "

https://www.politico.eu/blogs/the-coming-wars/2019/02/russia-china-alliance-rule-the-world/

In the halls of the Kremlin these days, it's all about China -- and whether or not Moscow can convince Beijing to form an alliance against the West.

Russia's obsession with a potential alliance with China was already obvious at the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of Russia's biggest foreign policy minds, in 2017.

At their next meeting, late last year, the idea seemed to move from the speculative to something Russia wants to realize. And soon

Seen from Moscow, there is no resistance left to a new alliance led by China. And now that Washington has imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, Russia hopes China will finally understand that its problem is Washington, not Moscow.

In the past, the possibility of an alliance between the two countries had been hampered by China's reluctance to jeopardize its relations with the U.S. But now that it has already become a target, perhaps it will grow bolder. Every speaker at Valdai tried to push China in that direction.

Anon [332] Disclaimer , says: February 18, 2019 at 9:45 pm GMT
@Sean Pollution in China is good for the environment:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/05/673821051/carbon-dioxide-emissions-are-up-again-what-now-climate

Another hurdle, reported in the journal Nature this week, is that China is cleaning up its air pollution. That sounds great for pollution-weary Chinese citizens. But climatologists point out that some of that air pollution had actually been cooling the atmosphere, by blocking out solar radiation. Ironically, less air pollution from China could mean more warming for the Earth.

tamo , says: February 19, 2019 at 2:53 am GMT
@AnonFromTN Frankly, I really don't give a damn about what you say. But do not use racial slurs FIRST. I use racial slurs ONLY in RESPONSE to the comments that contain them, in retaliation. If you don't use racial slurs, I wouldn't either.
nsa , says: February 19, 2019 at 3:02 am GMT
@DB Cooper DB,
Thanks for the PCB mfg video. Asian roboticized surface mount assembly plants are even more impressive. At one time supplied specialized instrumentation to the FN factory in South Carolina where the 50 cal machine guns are made, and received a tour. Crude by Asian standards, but efficient in its own way. Base price on a 50 LMG at the time was $5k without any of the extras: tripod, flash suppressor, water cooling, advanced night vision sights, etc. Base price would be $10k by now. The US Guv does not allow this kind of production to go offshore .but apparently cares not a jot about the production of consumer electronics, a massive and growing worldwide market.

Have read the Chinese shops assemble $1000 I-pods for as little as $5 each including parts sourcing, making domestic production here impractical. Surprisingly, the Germans manage to produce high end electronics and their manufacturing labor rates are even higher than North America. Says something about the skill and diligence level of the US workforce ..where just passing a drug test and not having felonies or bad credit is a major achievement.

@Anonymous Yes, it is quite off putting, even though most of the article is quite sound. Possibly Klare was obliged to add this bit of nonsense in order to get it published in TomDispatch but who knows.
Erebus , says: February 19, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT
@nsa A good friend supplies hi-end PCBs to EU & RU electronics mfrs, particularly in DE. Judging by the numbers I hear, hi-end electronics is still very much alive in Europe while it's all but dead in NA.

It's a capital intensive business, and raw labour cost is a minor component in the total cost of doing business. NA has put so many socio-political obstructions & regulatory costs in the way that even at min wage it makes no business sense to locate there. I doubt it would make sense even with free labour.

As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's manufacturing ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural aspects as well as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build a new one. I explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago. NA still "assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.

Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design & production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.

Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.

peter mcloughlin , says: February 19, 2019 at 1:55 pm GMT
Where a war begins – or ends – can be hard to define. Michael Klare is right, 'War' and 'peace' are not 'polar opposites'. We often look at wars in chronological abstraction: the First World War started on the 28th July 1914. Or did it only become a global war one week later when Great Britain declared war on Germany? The causes can be of long duration. The decline of the Ottoman Empire, for which the other Great Powers were positioning themselves to benefit, might have begun as far back as 1683 when the Turks were defeated at the Battle of Vienna. It ultimately led to the events of 1914.

Great power rivalry has always led to wars; in the last hundred years world wars. Graham Allison wrote that the US can 'avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and advancing American national interests' if it follows the lessons of the Cold War. History shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense. When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however destructive.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

Jason Liu , says: February 19, 2019 at 2:45 pm GMT
The trade war is meh.

The real conflict is a cultural/ideological war in which liberal democracy tries to apply its system worldwide under the delusion that egalitarianism, freedom, your definition of rights, is universal.

China will never accept this. Russia is already fighting back. Nor does any developing country look like they will ever truly embrace western values. It's gonna be SWPLs + WEIRDs vs The Rest of Humanity.

The new Cold War will last much longer than any trade issue and conflict over values will always be the underlying motivation, until the west either ends its universalist crusade, or abolishes liberal democracy within its own borders.

raywood , says: February 19, 2019 at 2:53 pm GMT
I would be more sympathetic with Klare's fear of cold war with China if he could just assure me that Chinese writers are equally able to voice concern with their own government's side of the equation.
peterAUS , says: February 19, 2019 at 5:42 pm GMT
@peter mcloughlin

Great power rivalry has always led to wars ..

History shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense. When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however destructive.

Pretty much, BUT, with one little difference re "some else's expense" now. M.A.D. scenario.

Even limited exchange of thermonuclear M.I.R.V.s could affect everyone (even if somebody can define that "limited" in the first place).

My take: we haven't developed, as species, along our capability for destruction.
Cheerful thought, I know.

denk , says: February 19, 2019 at 6:07 pm GMT
Pepe Escobar says: 'US elites remain incapable of understanding China'

That's B.S., Pepe should've known better . They dont 'misunderstand', they'r simply lying thru their teeth.

The following are all bald faced lies, Classic bandits crying robbery.

Lawmaker: Chinese navy seeks to encircle US homeland
[bravo, This one really takes the cake !]

US Accuses China Of Preparing For World War III

US accuses China of trying to militarise and dominates space

USN have to patrol the SCS to protect FON for international shipping..

tip of an iceberg

Those who uttered such nonsense aint insane, stupid or cuz they 'misunderstand' [sic] China.
They know we know they'r telling bald faced lies
but that doesnt stop them lying with straight face .

This is the classic def of psychopaths: people who'r utterly amoral, no sense of right or wrong, there's no such word as embarrassment in their vocab.

Is it sheer coincidence that all the 5lies have been ruled by such breeds ?
Ask Ian Fleming's fundamental law of prob .

but why couldnt they produce one decent leader
in all of three hundred years.
5lies have more than their fair share of psychopaths no doubt, but surely not everybody is like joe web and co., I know this for a fact. ?

Trouble is .

Washington DC is a veritable cesspool that
no decent man would want to dip his foot into it.
They might as well put it in the job requirement,
'Only psychopaths need apply '
Thats why in the DC cesspool, only the society's dregs rise up to the top.

A case of garbage in, garbage out .

A vicious circle that cant be fixed, except to be broken.

Китайский дурак , says: February 20, 2019 at 12:56 am GMT
1) People from China PRC has as a people on the whole become quite disgusting. But please exclude ppl from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibetans, Uyghurs etc. I confirm that PRC China people by and large are now locusts of the world. I am one of them by birth. how did it happen? Deep question for philosophers. It wasn't like this 60 years ago. some poisonous element entered the veins of the collective, infected at least 70 percent. I worry for Russia due to its inflated self confidence when dealing with PRC. Lake Baikal deal was almost sealed before it got shelved. Still, using racial curses don't hurt anyone but yourself. All the big internet advocates for Russia such as Orlov and Saker and Karlin don'tunderstand The Danger of China PRC. If you understand then you have a responsibility to keep yourself décent and respectable.

2) USA aside from its liberals and Zionist Jews etc. Has become a slowly stewing big asylum for psychologically infantile and demented big babies. How did it happen again is a big philosophical myth to me. Western Europe is sinking primarily because they came to resemble the US. especially French and Brits and Spanish.

3) Russia is ruled by a few individuals with brains and maybe a bit of conscience but the elite ruling class behave in such a way that one would conclude that they share the China PRC virus, just not as advanced. Your basic Russian people are in a state of abject degradation dejection, not changed all that much since 1990s. Only slightly ahead of the Ukrainians. If one cares about Russia then shove aside 19th century naive romanticism and face reality.

4) A sustained and massive war by USA against China maybe the only miniscule chance Greek/Christian civilization can be saved. Otherwise descend of history into thousand year dark age. The latter is more likely due to advanced stage of brain dead disease gripping the entire West.

jeff stryker , says: February 20, 2019 at 1:19 am GMT
@tamo TAMO

If you have observed cities like Detroit or Greater Los Angeles than you know that "white flight" as oppose to sycophancy is the end result of black or Hispanic populations reaching a certain level. Whites leave and the US then has another internal third world like Detroit or East LA.

It is a game of musical chairs where the white move into remote hinterlands, which develop into suburbs or exurbs, then of course as these become population centers the blacks and Hispanics enter them and the whites flee again.

What you will see is white flight from the US with the wealthiest whites simply moving to other developed countries. The 1% would move to New Zealand or Tasmania.

jeff stryker , says: February 20, 2019 at 1:54 am GMT
@Joe Wong JOE

The best way for the US to win a war over China is not to outsource their labor there.

There is no way the US could win a conventional war with China. It cannot even win a conventional war in Afghanistan.

China managed to fight off-if not defeat-the US in Korea and Vietnam.

atlantis_dweller , says: February 20, 2019 at 1:54 am GMT
The handicap for the USA in the confrontation is twofold its élite are in conflict (and afraid, and contemptuous of) at least half of their own populace.
Plus, all the resources of all kinds directed to enterprises in the Middle East, subtracted thusly from other enterprises.

Furthermore, there is the occasional bullying of Europe, and the continuous bullying of Russia, yet more resource drains.
The USA spreads itself too thin, perhaps.

Joe Wong , says: February 20, 2019 at 1:54 am GMT
@peterAUS Chinese are neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of peaceful coexistence, treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.

Chinese believes we are now living in a rapidly changing world Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past stalled in the oldays of colonialism, and constrained by the zero-sum Cold War mentality.

Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru the win-win approaches.

atlantis_dweller , says: February 20, 2019 at 2:16 am GMT
@Китайский дурак 2) The riddle reads simply: democracy, multiracialism, economic welfare (no-limit printing of currency made possible by uncontested military "overmatch").
jeff stryker , says: February 20, 2019 at 2:20 am GMT
@Joe Wong JOE

I lived in the Philippines and would chalk that up to fairly typical of a country run by China since it is effectively controlled by a syndicate of Fujian family cartels.

This is on the horizon in Africa. Probably.

In the West, Chinese were held in check by Jews and WASPS and to some degree by Malaysians. I see Africa becoming like the Philippines once Chinese can become citizens there, however.

Joe Wong , says: February 20, 2019 at 2:55 am GMT
@Biff The Romans create a desert and call it peace; British Empire imitated Roman Empire, USA is born out of British Empire; so only the White People particular the Anglo-Saxon is not ready for peace or salvation. But rest of the world has been waiting for peace or salvation for a long long time.
peterAUS , says: February 20, 2019 at 2:56 am GMT
@Joe Wong

Chinese are neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of peaceful coexistence, treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.

Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times.

Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru the win-win approaches.

Three options here:
Preferably,you are just pulling our legs. Not bad attempt, actually. Got me for a second.

Most likely, you are simply working. Sloppy and crude but, well, "you get what you pay for". 50 Cent Army. Retired but needing money. Sucks, a?

Crazy and the least probable, you really believe in all that. Ah, well

Joe Wong , says: February 20, 2019 at 3:28 am GMT
@jeff stryker Obviously you are brain washed by the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil 'Anglo-Saxon', blaming every of your own failure on the Chinese just like what the Americans and their Five-Eyes partners are doing right now.

The Filippino, the Malay and all the SE Asia locals have the guns not the Chinese, if the Chinese do not hand over their hard earned money they will use what their ex-colonial masters taught them since Vasco da Gama discovered the East Indies, masscared the Chinese and took it all. The Dutch, Spanish, English, Japanese and the American all have done it before in order to colonized the East Indies.

Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing, looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious' fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.

For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit the economies and resources and encircle China.

USA is 10,000 miles away on the other side of the Pacific. USA is not an Asian nation, and American is an alien to Asia. American is a toxin and a plague to Asian, They have done enough damage to Asian already, they are not wanted, not invited and not loved in Asia, go home Yankee.

Joe Wong , says: February 20, 2019 at 3:50 am GMT
@peterAUS You should know the White man has some fallacies built into their culture, such as they believe that the White man's words must be taken as given truth, only the White man can invent and the White man can succeed, and the Whte man's culture is the final form of civilization.

The West (Europeans and their offshoots like the American, Aussie, etc.) is where is now, because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears.

The West squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing, looting and murdering hundreds of millions of people all over the world in the scrabbling of a dog-eat-dog play rough over the monopoly to plunder the rest of the world through two World Wars, one on the edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon. It proves the West is incapable of bringing peace and prosperity to the mankind because of their flawed culture, civilization and religion. The chaos and suffering of the world in the last few hundreds of years under the dominance the West proves they are a failure.

Human beings deserve better, we need to depart from the chaotic and harmful world order and path established by the moronic West. China proposed a new way of life, a win-win approach for the well-being of mankind like Belt-Road-Initiative to build and trade the world into peace, harmony and prosperity. The West should not be the obstacle for achieving such refreshing winner for all initiative. The West should embrace the new approach proposed by China because the West will benefit from it. I call upon you, let go the old, obsolete, failed and detrimental believe passed onto you by your colonialist forebears please, welcome the new era.

Miro23 , says: February 20, 2019 at 4:16 am GMT
@Erebus

As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's manufacturing ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural aspects as well as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build a new one. I explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago. NA still "assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.

Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design & production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.

Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.

All true, leaving the question of what happens to North America before it reaches the African street market economy (low tech, low investment, low trust, basic products, vibrant and over each morning).

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.

Don't ask what happens to US nuclear weapons.

jeff stryker , says: February 20, 2019 at 4:32 am GMT
@Joe Wong JOE

If Chinese took over the world it would look like the Philippines.

Shabu labs everywhere? Corrupt politicians blowing away homeless squatters when some Chinese guy wanted to build a shopping center or Chinese arsonists setting squats on fire? Dictators living off wages Chinese don't want to pay exploited peasants?

No thanks, the whites don't want Chinese family cartels running our economies. We can see the harm you have done in Burma, Philippines etc.

Китайский дурак , says: February 20, 2019 at 5:07 am GMT
@jeff stryker This Joe Wong is obviously a WuMao (professional trolls paid by Beijing to parrot their government's pathological propaganda). Any mainland Chinese who can read will confirm this fact. It is not worth your time to deal with folks like him.
jeff stryker , says: February 20, 2019 at 5:38 am GMT
@Китайский дурак Maybe, but my posts are intended for those that think a Chinese-run planet would be a better New World Order.

Visit the Philippines.

Australians all wrapped up in America should pay close attention.

Китайский дурак , says: February 20, 2019 at 6:08 am GMT
@jeff stryker Australians, Philippines, Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Russians, Italians, Japanese,Mongolians, Koreans, New Zealanders, a tiny anguished minority of mainland Chinese themselves, everyone has gotten the mail, everyone has seen them on the streets, everyone understood -- what a Beijing lorded world shall be like, coffee beans in the morning. Americans are last in getting the news. Americans can be dim witted. Too many Nobel winning economists and globalist bankers in America. And China is the gift of these white people to the world.
joe webb , says: February 20, 2019 at 6:25 am GMT
@peterAUS thanks and if you are a young man, congrats for your rationality. I am old, but probably have ten or 20 years left, if not all those years real fit.

The young guys need to not fuc themselves up with regard to earning a living .keep your mouth shut , sort of, and your name protected.

I hope a new generation of "White Nationalists" come along sans Hitlerism. Stay rational, with just the facts M'am if you don't recall that line it was Dragnet and Detective Jack Webb I think .you are young, Congrats.

Stick to the facts, keep your ego under control, keep a smile on your face .. Buddhist wisdom to spread a little love around and it is essential for snaring a woman.

The Facts are with us. The Future is with us, including hard times, civil war, and so on. The Sentimental Lie (Joseph Conrad) of race equality cannot stand for long.

Joe Webb

NoseytheDuke , says: February 20, 2019 at 6:26 am GMT
@jeff stryker Australian people nowadays are far less wrapped up in America than at any time that I can remember but Australian politicians are just as bought and paid for as are those in the US.

Australians generally are much more well travelled than most Americans and have been to various places both in Asia and Europe, especially the UK. Despite having seen the longer term results of "diversity" with their own eyes they overwhelmingly seem to think that things will somehow work out differently in Australia. To even suggest that mass immigration from the third world is a ticking time-bomb is to be branded a racist of the very worst kind.

Yee , says: February 20, 2019 at 12:11 pm GMT
jeff stryker,

"The best way for the US to win a war over China is not to outsource their labor there."

Too bad you don't get to decide what "the best way for the US" is, no matter how many times you vote America has owners, and the owners aren't the average Americans.

PS. Philippines is just the poor-man version of USA. Does the American capitalist class have many concerns for their working class? The money class are all the same.

Your rant about Chinese of SE Asia is also quite similar with that of American Whites for the Jews, or South African Blacks for the Whites, just only on economic side, not politics.

People aren't much different everywhere

Nzn , says: February 20, 2019 at 2:44 pm GMT
Filipinos are nothing but semi retarded 85 IQ trying hard Americans, the vast majority who are too stupid to copy the better parts of US high culture, and so ape and cargo cult the trashiest and lowest of the low parts of US culture, or maybe low IQ Austronesians are just prone to overall trashiness unless they are regulated by a somewhat draconian conservative culture like Muslim Malays are.
Joe Wong , says: February 20, 2019 at 4:47 pm GMT
@Китайский дурак Perhaps some Russians like you are willing to live under the Anglo-Saxon's dominance, submitted to Anglo-Saxon's zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbour, negative energy infested cult culture, and try to talk like them and walk like them, but not everybody is like those feeble Russians. Other people has their long history, culture and identity to protect. Please do not smear other people's integrity because you are lack of it.
denk , says: February 20, 2019 at 5:48 pm GMT
@denk

Self-Defense, Civilizational Defense ,

Exhibit A

General William R. Looney III

If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to- air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now . It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.

Comments about the bombing of Iraq in the late 1990s, which he directed. Interview Washington Post (August 30, 1999); quoted in Rogue State, William Blum, Common Courage Press, 2005, p. 159.

William Blum,
RIP
Somebody should do an autopsy on him !

TT , says: February 26, 2019 at 12:48 pm GMT
@denk

In korea, a UN coaliton force , bristling with bombers, jet fighters, complete air superiority.no less. Tanks, artilleries, carbines, couldnt subdue the PLA fighting with ww1 vintage rifles.

There is never any UN coalition force in Korea war. Its a illegal US led aggression, known as Unified/United Command, in violating of UNSC charter. US deceived UN by using 'United Command' in its letterhead when communicating. And then go ahead to lie shamelessly using UN name.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-role-of-the-un-in-the-unending-korean-war-united-nations-command-as-camouflage/5350876

By acting before the Security Council could act, the US was in violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which requires a Security Council action under Chapter VII before there is any armed intervention into the internal affairs of another nation unless the arms are used in self-defense. (See Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US armed intervention in Korea was clearly not an act of self defense for the US.) Also the actions of the UN have come to be referred to as the actions of the "United Nations Command"(UNC), but this designation is not to be found in the June and July 1950 Security Council resolutions authorizing participation in the Korean War. (3) What is the significance of the US using the UN in these ways?

The current US military command in South Korea claims to wear three hats: Command of US troops in South Korea, Combined Forces Command (US and South Korean troops), and "United Nations Command" with responsibilities with respect to the Armistice. The United Nations, however, has no role in the oversight or decision making processes of the "United Nations Command". The US Government is in control of the "United Nations Command". The use by the US of the designation "United Nations Command", however, creates and perpetuates the misconception that the UN is in control of the actions and decisions taken by the US under the "United Nations Command".

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (more commonly referred to as North Korea) has called for disbanding the "United Nations Command"(UN Command). At a press conference held at the United Nations on June 21, 2013, the North Korean Ambassador to the UN, Ambassador Sin Son Ho argued that the actions of the US Government using the designation "United Nations Command" are not under any form of control by the United Nations. (4) Since the UN has no role in the decision making process of what the US does under the title of the "United Nations Command", North Korea contends the US should cease its claim that it is acting as the "United Nations Command".

TT , says: February 26, 2019 at 1:41 pm GMT
@Sean

Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006, China has been the world's largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip service they accept no binding target for reduction; quite the opposite.

Pls has slight decency to check before spewing nonsense.

According to Nasa, China has planted & expanded forest the size of Amazon, contributing 1/4 of global greenery effort.

Its now working on massive irrigation projects in Tibet & Xinjiang, including dams that will overshadow 3Gorges. These will convert arid Xinjiang into another green agriculture pasture & food basket providing economic to it landlocked natives.

China's effort to roll back desertification is also very impressive, converting thousands of hectares deserts into green forest using proprietary planting method.

It has built world most hydropower stations & dams in China, and help built in Asia, Africa with grants & subsidized loan. Forefront in reusable energy, EV, solar.

And China is the staunchest supporter of CO2 emission control with solid actions, when US write off Kyoto treaty in Paris as hoax.

TT , says: February 26, 2019 at 4:03 pm GMT
@jeff stryker Jeff,

what's about Spore that have 75% majority Chinese mainly come from Fujian too, HK, Taiwan!? Do they fare well & very safe, or a shithole filled with drugs & crimes that you projected to be?

And then compare with Chinese minority countries:
Msia with 25% Chinese contributing 70% economy, Indonesia 3% Chinese contributing 70% economy.
Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, .

It seems that the more Chinese % a country has, the more its prosperous & safe, vice versa. So Chinese is in fact the main economic & safety contributing factor, instead of the other way round you painted.

If Chinese are indeed as evil as you make out to be, then China will be worst than India, dysfunctional like Philippines, completely crimes & drugs infested like Mexico. Yet China today is biggest growing economy in real ppp, and world safest country well surpassing nearly all whites countries. No?

Vietnam tried to purge Chinese ethics under Ho Chih Min anti-China policy, ended paralyzed its entire economy until Chinese were brought back to help. Today its still the Chinese ethics controlling its majority economy & ruling elites.

Indonesia Prez Suharto slaughtered million of Chinese ethics under Yanks CIA instigation to coup pro-China Prez Sukarno, and their economy suffered. Suharto later brought back Chinese to run 70% of economy, while his cronies suck off remaining.

Malaysia Mahatir had forthright admonished his disgruntled Malays complaining about 20% Chinese controlling 70% economy. He famously said Malays race by inheritance is lazy and bad in economic, screwing up every gov granted projects & handouts. So let the skillful Chinese take care of all business, and Malays can tax on them to make Malaysia prosperous. All subsequent leaders follow that policy, and the result is continuous economy growth.

Myanmar purged Chinese after independent, immediately encountered dysfunction economy. Today its still relying on Chinese ethic to support the main economy behind.

Thailand, Cambodia, Laos didn't purge Chinese ethics, and Chinese are similarly their main economy contributors.

There is one common observation in all these countries, where ever Chinese live, they are mostly law obedient, work diligently and eventually established in businesses contributing to most prosperity.

Whereas in majority Catholics Philippines, are literally controlled by Vatican appointed bishops, who forbid contraceptive & divorce, directly causing its explosive population, leading to grave poverty & crimes. These bishops are also colluding with corrupted politicians to dictate election outcome using their churh influence.

When pro-China Prez Duerte declared war on drugs with China help is achieving good result, these West-appointed bishops are leading their followers in full force to oppose, all in syn with West govs 'human rights'. Dont that smell fishy?

So will Philippines be better off without Chinese? Im not sure, just like whites, some Chinese are also ruthless crimals. But your sweeping statements & allegation certainly is fundamentally flawed.

But CIA has been plotting anti-Chinese ethic riots in Asean for a long time as part of China containment plan. Previously Denk posted one article on this.

jeff stryker , says: February 27, 2019 at 1:41 am GMT
@TT Your description of Malaysians as lazy and stupid is why Indonesians kill ethnic Chinese and not some CIA plot. That's the thinking right there that motivates Malays to dislike ethnic Chinese.

China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded with them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.

Philippines has the additional post-colonial curse of Mestizo half-breed Spanish landowning and political class of "Hacienderos" while Malaysians are unified under Islam. Since these Spanish-blooded elite are part-white, some of the blame for the problems in the Philippines can be attributed to whites.

As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.

Anon [117] Disclaimer , says: February 27, 2019 at 6:08 am GMT
"An emboldened China could someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are determined to prevent at any cost."

They will fail. The United States, like Carthage, is doomed to lose its struggle for dominance; too many things are running against it. Not only does China have the far larger population, but consider the following factors that run in their favor:

1. Like the US, China has a highly advanced and productive agriculture industry, making them all but immune to nation-killing food blockades.

2. China has an average IQ that may approach Japan's before it levels out; Japan is insanely outsized in terms of competitiveness, mainly due to its intelligent, group-oriented population, so imagine how much stronger China could be.

3. China is geographically situated in the heart of the world's economic engine, Asia. This puts China in prime position to break out from US dominance and, potentially, even surround the Americans by making their trading partners their vassals.

4. The US is located far away and in a fairly unimportant region of the world. It will be difficult for the US to get reinforcements to the Asian theater in the advent of a conflict. American allies know this, so they will be predisposed to making peace with the Chinese as the power balance continues to shift in China's favor.

5. Universalist dogma outsourced to American satellites Australia and New Zealand will eventually make both countries Chinese vassals. Sometime in this century both countries will have majority Asian populations due to immigration. Polls have repeatedly shown that Asian immigrants have positive feelings towards the Chinese, despite the propaganda efforts of the Americans. Take a look at what the Israel Lobby has accomplished and imagine what a future China Lobby in those countries will do. Also, there is virtually no way to stop this from eventually happening as this diversity dogma is spouted by the US at the highest level and is now deeply ingrained in its future Chinese satellites. Before the end of the century, the Chinese will have naval bases in both countries and the US will have none.

6. China is free from the social-trust killing, national ethos-sapping political divisiveness seen in the US – no feminism, no attacks on its majority Han population. America, on the other hand, is beset with hundreds of hate hoaxes targeted at its most important demographic, white males – the group that disproportionately dies in its wars, invents its best technology, and exports the best elements of its culture. If there is a military conflict between China and the United States ten years hence, expect the critical white male demographic to sit it out.

7. The Chinese are deeply patriotic and nationalistic. The US has experienced an unprecedented decline in patriotism according to polls; that trend will continue. Therefore, there is little appetite in the US for confrontation. This as a hungry China chomps at the bit to show everyone who "the real ruler of the world is", a concept I sometimes see floated on their social media.

8. The US is rapidly losing cultural influence due to a diminished Hollywood. The last several American tent poll films, for instance, have crashed in Asia. Meanwhile movies like Alita: Battle Angel (adapted from a Japanese anime) have done well in that market while doing not so well in the US (and coming under immense fire from SJW gatekeepers for portraying a female as something other than a weirdo). This means that tastes are diverging between the two markets, a trend the Chinese can exploit in the future due to shared tastes across the region and American inability to make anything other than low-quality superhero movies.

Hollywood is also now pretty much incapable of making the kinds of movies Asians (and Europeans) used to see – science fiction, fantasy, and action/adventure movies – due to rampant anti-white male hate and an industry focused on other demographics. Gone are the movies like Robocop, Aliens, Jurassic Park, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lord of The Rings, and the Matrix. Gone because the white guys who made them are aging out of the industry (or changing genders) and now all Hollywood wants to make are infantile superhero movies for the Idiocracy demographic.

And did you see the Oscars this year? What an embarrassment. They actually nominated Black Panther for Best Picture. I can't imagine anyone in Asia cares. They couldn't even get a host.

9. The Chinese are primed to dominate influential cultural industries like video games in a way that the Americans cannot due to checklist diversity requirements and the many anti-male gatekeepers within the industry.

The video game industry is now three times the size of Hollywood and much more influential than Hollywood for the youth. When technology and budgets are not a limiting factor, politically-incorrect nations like Japan dominate over large American corporations like Microsoft. The American video game industry, led by Microsoft, has effectively zero influence in Asian nations due to American corporate greed, developer laziness, checklist diversity, feminism, and a short-sighted strategy of broadly targeting low quality material to low quality people (stupid FPS games).

Microsoft has been crushed so badly by the Japanese that they are now putting their software on the Nintendo Switch; they simply cannot compete on any level. Meanwhile, Chinese cultural influencers grow in power. They await only a maturation in Chinese taste and a forward-thinking export policy but it will come. China's Tencent already owns a significant stake in Epic Games, a streaming platform that will compete with America's Steam for dominance of the huge online market.

One day, China will dominate their inferior American competition just as the Japanese and Koreans have done. This bodes very badly for the US in the future, especially when you stop to consider that all movies may be CGI in the future. The Chinese market is still immature, but when it does mature, it will dominate – games, movies, music everything.

10. Divisive rhetoric promoted by the American elite and aimed at white European-Americans – an effort to suppress white group solidarity – will eventually drive a wedge between Europe and America that the Chinese, through their Russian ally, can exploit. You already see a bit of this in Germany's refusal to cancel their gas pipeline (Nordstream 2, if I recall), and Italy's defiance of the Empire over Venezuela. When racist American politicians like Kamala Harris begin stealing money from European Americans and handing it to blacks through reparations schemes, expect the Europeans to start thinking twice about their relationship with this country.

After Trump loses in 2020, European elites will celebrate but not for long. Over the following decade, both the far left (for economic reasons) and the far right (for ethnic reasons) may unite against the United States. That will be made all the easier once the United States is no longer able to elect a competent European as president. Europe isn't going to want to be ruled over by someone of a different ethnic group that hates their own.

11. China is unified in a way the US never can be again. China is 90% Han Chinese. The US gets more diverse and divided by the day. Therefore, the Chinese public is more resilient to conflict with rivals.

12. China's political model is far superior to their American counterpart. The Americans, for instance, elect incompetent leaders through national popularity contests; said leaders then rule only for favored interests. China, on the other hand, is run by smart people for the benefit of all Chinese – the nation-state.

13. China's economic model is far superior to the corrupt, inefficient American corporate model. Whereas China is a meritocracy not beset with crippling diversity requirements and feminism. Tellingly, whenever the two models have gone head-to-head, such as in Africa, the Chinese have won by a large margin. I see nothing that will change that in the future as that would require a wholesale rethinking in the US of their basic philosophies, both on the left and the right and that is impossible at this point.

The US is a proposition nation, so dogma lies at the heart of civic life. The Chinese, in contrast, are free to pick and chose from the best of each ideology and apply it where warranted because they are a blood and soil nation – group interest comes first, not allegiance to dogma. Everyone in the US is an extremist of some sort – socialist, corporatist, environmentalist, etc. That's no way to run a government.

14. The US will soon lose the moral high ground. As the US devolves into a police state, as it continues kicking dissidents off the internet and silencing whistle blowers (and attacking nations like Iran and Venezuela), nations around the world will cease to see a difference between the US and China. At that point, they my either go independent (perhaps in alliance with India or Russia) or openly start to flirt with a Chinese alliance. After all, what does it matter if both states are authoritarian? At least the Chinese don't have a history of invading their competition.

15. The divided American public may not support more military spending over social service spending; this likelihood will only increase in the future due to demographic changes. They see that China has a competent single-payer medical program and will want the same for themselves, not pay for missiles and guns for other people.

16. The US cannot pursue relationships with vital nations like Russia due its anti-male and anti-European dogma, now infused into society at the highest levels. It will take decades to erase that and by then it will be too late.

Anon [117] Disclaimer , says: February 27, 2019 at 6:11 am GMT
"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."

True. One day someone like Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams will be president. Will Europe want to be ruled by non-Europeans who hate Europeans, want to tear down their monuments, and steal their money for reparations payments?

"The USA has lost strategic air superiority, as well as strategic brain power. I wonder how the USA would look after a week of retaliatory aerospace strikes?"

Like New Orleans after Katrina – a breakdown in the social order as all the diverse groups start fighting each other and shooting at rescue efforts because they're morons and thieves.

"Open the USA borders wide open and encourage 1 billion South Aemricans, Africans, SE Asians and South Asians into the USA is the fastest and easiest way to close the human resource gap between the USA and China."

How exactly is an efficient democracy supposed to work in that instance? Seems like dysfunction, low social trust, and corruption would reign. Besides, the Chinese population will still be far more intelligent overall, so no gap will be closed. The US should have focused on immigration from Europe and increasing its white birth rate back in the 1970s. They'd be in a far stronger position now if they had done that then.

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT
@Anon Which West European nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with crimes & unemployment en masse?

May be some poor cousins of East European. But they will soon find US is worst than their country, no good jobs, homeless without affordable accommodation, crime infested, their whites is actually marginalized by diversification, LGBT conflict with their WASP value. Most will want go back soon.

So its left with only choice of finest selection of 1.3B poor Indians, Latino, South Americans, Africans & ME refugees willing to go anywhere just to get out of their countries shithole.

When they arrived, hundreds of millions whites, Chinese & Asians will flee like been no tomorrow.

Here it go, United States of Asshole is founded. Pls handover all nukes to UNSC before implementing lest been exchange for food or use for heating in winter.

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 1:15 pm GMT
@jeff stryker Its Malaysia PM Mahatir who said Malays are inheritingly lazy. Im just quoting.

Do educate yourself about CIA & Muslim politicians instigated riots against ethnic Chinese before writing off in ignorant.

Spore was shielded from all these info distorted with West msm propaganda. I had only learned about these details from Indonesian Chinese friends whose family had suffered these trauma. After some readings, also Indonesia under current Chinese ethnic President Jokowi, did all these CIA-Muslims Generals collision genocides been publicized. How about you, where you got yours?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1998/02/indo-f14.html

https://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/cias-role-in-indonesias-anti-chinese-genocide-hidden-harmonies-blog/amp/

China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded with them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.

Why did you say China didn't help Prez Duerte in drugs war, your Chinese philippino mistress told you? Pls cite your evidence.

Its widely publicized in our msm, West msm that China gov working with Philippines police to track & dry up many drugs supply, even donated rehab centers as part of long term solution. So you mean all these West msm are lying to help China.

In your word, these shabu are make & sold by China gov? Or they are part of global drug syndicates that operated in every countries including all West?

As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.

Let these unequal US FTA & India CECA speak itself. These were shoved into our PM LEE ass to screw SG, allowing unlimited Indians of all kinds & their families to live & work in SG, with their mostly internationally unrecognized qualifications mandatory to be accepted.

Also both US & India nationals enjoy tax free in property investment, while Sporeans & all foreigners subjected to 3% + 7% + 7% tax regimes, literally giving them a 10~17% profits upfront.

https://thehearttruths.com/2013/11/11/this-is-why-singaporeans-will-not-be-protected-in-our-jobs-by-the-government/amp/

Indians as " competitive " ethnic group to suppress SG Chinese, you are joking or seriously think Indians IQ80 & its education is superior to Sg Chinese IQ107 that rank consistently Top in SAT, PISA & Olympiad?

These are the dredge of India, violent drunkard, not those US get. Numerous are caught with fake certificates when they simply could not even do the most basic task, near illiterate. A documentary show was make to investigate how widespread & complex is it in India, even there are someone stationed to pick up call as reference to certify everything. These including medical MD cert, aka fake Indian Drs that India Health Ministry condemn openly been so rampant up to 80% of India Drs(that was posted in one of Unz old discussion 2yrs ago)

https://gocertify.in/articles/certification-verification-rogue-it-credentials-rampant-in-india/

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 1:47 pm GMT
@Erebus If both US & China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading, who do you think can last longer?

As you said, in mere wks, US will be paralyzed with every shelves empty & factories shut down. Emergency declared with imports from other sources with much chaos. Frustrated, nation wide civil riots may ensue with states like California, Texas, demanding independent.

Whereas for China its life as usual with some restructuring, since it can live without yanks useless financial services, msm & few chips easily replaced by EU/Jp or live without. Airbus will be happy to replace Boeing.

China total export to US is ~$500B, 50% are imported components, so $350B damage is passed back to US $250B(total US export to China) & global suppliers $100B.

That make China actual impact only $150B, $4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the trade loss for >20yrs, while continue to expand its domestic consumption, BRI & global trade to fuel growth.

But the world will be in chaos to get double impact of a totally collapsed US $21T GDP & China import cut. With all economies stunt, global financial mkt burst, consumption all dive, US allies turning to China for leadership & trade, a WW3 look imminent as yank is left with only one product – weapons!

But not to worry, it should be very short one in yelling, as no yanks want to die with empty belly, nor there are $ to pump vessels & bombers or resources to prepare long war. Military is quickly paralyzed with desertion, & split between seperated states. There go 51 disUnited states of America.

So China is indeed discussing with yanks from great strength. But with farsight, they prefer to settle yanks brinkmanship in Chinese humble & peaceful way.

I hope China can drag on until US can no longer conceal its pain with fake data, screamming out loudly for truce to sign China dictates trade agreement. China need to teach yank a painful lesson to humble it once & for all, including a WTO style unequal treaty that yank shoved down china throat.

jeff stryker , says: February 27, 2019 at 3:35 pm GMT
@TT TT

For all the refugees the US creates in the Mideast, it doesn't except many of them. Most Iraqi and Afghani refugees have no hope of entering the US; European countries that protested the war in Iraq end up absorbing the human cost.

jeff stryker , says: February 27, 2019 at 3:42 pm GMT
@TT An Indian-Malay should know.

As for the CIA cooperating with Muslims in anti-Chinese anything, I am skeptical. My feeling about Indonesia is that a 3% minority owning everything and displaying contempt for the natives as lazy savages is enough fuel ethnic hatred and Chinese backing of Suharto didn't help things.

Indians don't represent job competition for Singapore, they are simply a basic menace to your society. And it is possible that the US government, not wanting to see Singapore become a vassal state of China, wanted your country's population to become more well, diversified.

Patricus , says: February 27, 2019 at 4:50 pm GMT
@Joe Wong The "dominance" of Anglo-Saxons is overstated. They are a pretty small minority in the US. They still dominate Britain, maybe.
Erebus , says: February 27, 2019 at 7:59 pm GMT
@TT

If both US & China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading, who do you think can last longer?

China would take a hit, but not greater than the whole world could be expected to take. Probably quite a bit less.

There's little doubt in my mind that China is in a much stronger position to both survive and to be in a position to take advantage of the world's eventual recovery. As you note

$4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the trade loss for >20yrs

It also has the world's widest and deepest industrial infrastructure.

It's not only the $4T and the infrastructure. China also has a lot of gold within its domestic system, which it can mobilize to make purchases from the the rest of the world's staggered economies. Approx 20kT, by some quite carefully done estimates. Mobilizing that gold, of course, is where things get tricky. The world would be awash with useless dollars and how all that liability gets unwound would cause a lot of Central Bankers and their govts a lot of sleepless nights.

Anon [409] Disclaimer , says: February 27, 2019 at 9:17 pm GMT
"Which West European nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with crimes & unemployment en masse?"

Quite a number of Europeans would have moved to the US circa 1965 – 1990 with the countries then demographics, which was the point being made in the comment. The US is a huge country with lots of space. In 1980, virtually all Eastern Europeans would have been better off in almost any place in the US over where they were. The US Ruling Class had the chance but cast it aside for lesser and more divisive groups so they could win elections and stiff their workers. Even the US now is a mostly a better place to live than virtually any place in Eastern Europe, and quite a number of places in overcrowded Western Europe – now filled with Muslim invaders, rising crime, higher unemployment than the US, and yearly riots.

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 10:25 pm GMT
@Erebus One TV celebrity went on crusade to expose Monsanto GMO toxicity impact in food chain few yrs ago.

He visited US & collected clinical evidences of GMO cancer causing from several US professors, publicized them online. These force China gov to investigate, and their clinical test too revealed mice & animals fed with GMO have huge tumors growing all over shortly.

China agriculture minister was investigated, found to hold lucrative high pay job in Monsanto taking bribery, and blanket approved all untested Monsanto GMO seeds, grains & weed killer. Even those used as domestic animals feed but banned for wild animals in US were introduced into food chain. Some also passed off as non GMO to plant in vast land not approved for GMO.

About 30% of China food chain & vast agriculture lands contaminated, no longer productive. That agri minister got arrested. No sure what China gov is doing about it. But Prez Xi is hailing organic food. Tibets & Xinjiang have mega irrigation projects on going now, might be to open up new agri lands to offset.

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 10:50 pm GMT
@jeff stryker Tonnes of evidences on CIA-Muslim generals instigated riots & massacre since 1965. You choose to see otherwise.

A trove of recently released declassified documents confirms that Washington's role in the country's 1965 massacre was part of a bigger Cold War strategy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/543534/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/still-uninvestigated-after-50-years-did-the-u-s-help-incite-the-1965-indonesia-massacre/5467309/amp

https://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-indonesian-allies-in-bed-with-isis-backed-fpi-militia-they-seek-to-oust-elected-president-jokowi/5588694/amp

I couldn't find one article published in one unz comment by Denk?, where West msm interviewing Indonesia biggest opposition party. Their chiefs had audacity to brag how they will instigate another massive anti-Chinese riots to win next election.

The jews are much more vicious & open in controlling US, but you won't see CIA staged riots & protest against their jewish masters Aipac.

Thailand Chinese ethnic are holding most economy too, but their politicians elites been Chinese don't instigate riot against own ethnic to meddle election.

TT , says: February 27, 2019 at 11:07 pm GMT
@jeff stryker

US government, not wanting to see Singapore become a vassal state of China, wanted your country's population to become more well, diversified.

Its not diversification, its complete indianized with Weapon of Mass Migration, by jews controlled US to push back China influence. As China refused to let jews control them!!! Its also happening for Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Mauritius now.

Its Top to bottom all indians now in SG, 9% Indians with India new migrants controlling 75% Chinese & 15% Malays. Since when Indians have turn so great well surpass all Chinese capability, over a short span of 10yrs since Obama's new balance in Asia Pacific started. Its a regime change, silent coup.

Starting from Indian Prez, Indian DPM(a ex-criminal for leaking state secret data, he was highly touted as best future PM to test voter response, but a Chinese PM candidate was eventually selected for coming election as voters brainwashing not yet complete), national DBS bank CEO chairman Indian. Central bank MAS chief Indian. Law, Home Affair, Foreign Minister all Indians. High court judges flooded Indians. Chief judge Indian. Top senior counsels(equivalent to Queen Councils) many Indians. MPs also new india migrants. MSM journalist & writers flooded Indians.

Some are India newly arrived Indians of no credential. Yet no msm reporting on that. Its near complete regime change in stealth.

Patricus , says: February 28, 2019 at 2:00 am GMT
@Erebus In addition to the herbicide and insecticide resistance some plants are modified to withstand prolonged dry conditions, or to produce more of certain proteins or vitamins, or to increase yields.

The corn or maize we now have started from an indigenous plant in Central and South America. Twenty plants would produce a tablespoon of grain. The native corn plant can still be found. Over thousands of years these were bred for increased size and yields but probably for other reasons as well like drought resistance. That's genetic modification over many generations.

In this country the Food and Drug Admin. and Dept. of Agriculture have studied the genetically modified plants extensively. Not that government agencies always get it right but it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming people, or animals and insects. Sometimes the fear of Frankenfoods is related to a fear of lower cost imports and a sop for the local farmers.

Having an interest in horticulture I produced greenhouse bedding plants for the most part. One significant expense was pesticides. We took great pains to carefully watch the crops. If the aphids, or other creatures, showed up we would strive to isolate the affected plants and only treat the ones with aphids and some that were nearby. Lots of hours with a bright light and magnifying glass. We didn't proactively apply these because of the expense. Sometimes an entire greenhouse required several treatments and there goes much of the profit. On the other hand refusing to use pesticides leads to total crop failures. Nobody applies pesticides if there are no pests. Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the remaining living people would know about famines.

jeff stryker , says: February 28, 2019 at 2:58 am GMT
@Anon ANON

In terms of space, most Europeans would immigrate to US cities. Chicago was popular with Slavs, for instance. And of course Silicone Valley. Very few immigrants move to rural wide-open areas. There is nothing to do there and Norwegians in 1990 were no longer homesteading on the North Dakota plains.

By 1990, few Irish wanted to immigrated to Boston or Italians to New Jersey. Europe was actually safer and more prosperous when I was young than the US.

Europeans prior to 1965 were attracted to the US middle-class standard of living and that has shrunken precipitously.

The refugee crisis in Europe is relatively recent. As for unemployment, indeed this is bad. But the social safety net is slightly better and there is less poverty overall in Western Europe.

anon [267] Disclaimer , says: February 28, 2019 at 5:47 am GMT
"Very few immigrants move to rural wide-open areas."

Sure, if you're talking Nevada or New Mexico desert. But there are areas considered "rural" in the US that have relatively mid-sized cities nonetheless. Oklahoma City has a population roughly equal to the population of Latvia's capital, for example. And I'm sure that Eastern Europeans could have been coaxed to leave Europe for the US had America pursued a deal with the Soviets – white South Africans, too. Certainly, this could have been done with success post Soviet breakup. Some Western Europeans could also have been coaxed, perhaps a few million, with the right financial incentives. Along with substantial efforts to increase the native European birthrate and targeted, gender-imbalanced ~skills-based immigration* from emerging market, high IQ countries, US demographics would be in a far better place today. The country would be less divided and more rational on a global stage (and probably friends with Russia, too).

*In other words, purposely encourage 2 to 1 female immigration from places like Korea and China back when they were both poor and filled with people ready to emigrate and compliment that with an equal but reversed ratio elsewhere (Vietnam, Laos). This forces interbreeding and prevents formation of divisive ethnic communities, while also having the benefit of harming your competitor's demographics down the road. Actor Keanu Reeves is something like 1/8th Japanese. But most people just think he's a white guy.

If that kind of policy had been adopted in 1965, along with my plan above (and a few other things not mentioned), things would be better for the US now. The US would be overwhelmingly white with a small admixture of smart Asian while leaving descendants who look European; the kind of internecine racial strife we see now could have been avoided. However, that kind of plan requires a competent, and rational, near-authoritarian to be in charge. As Fred Reed has pointed out, that kind of plan is not capable in Western countries that choose their leaders via popularity contest with a birthright citizenship voting base.

Erebus , says: February 28, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Patricus

That's genetic modification over many generations.

One wonders how many fish genes made their way into corn over those generations, and how they got in there.

it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming people, or animals and insects.

Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people, I doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones and rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course, genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations from now.

Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the remaining living people would know about famines.

I'm of the firm opinion that a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and we'll be seeing famines soon enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other famines.

Patricus , says: February 28, 2019 at 7:23 pm GMT
"Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people, I doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones and rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course, genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations from now.'

The pests who feed on domesticated crops lived in nature before people were around. When they stumble upon thousands of acres of corn or wheat they rapidly reproduce to exploit the windfall. The pesticides will hopefully kill or drive off many of these insects but their total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a balance of power.

Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future. Therefore let's stop all new technology. For now we have the methods of physical science to guide us. These aren't perfect but it's the best we have and more sensible than the precautionary principle, also called the paralysis principle.

"..a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and we'll be seeing famines soon enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other famines.".

I'm hoping my family and I (and you) are not among the culled billions. Death by starvation is not a pleasant way to go, so I've heard.

Erebus , says: March 1, 2019 at 1:28 am GMT
@Patricus

their total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a balance of power.

Probably? Pre-human? Yours is the disingenuity of a pesticide salesman.
The insect world is in a massive die off, losing of ~75% its flying population over 3 decades, as attested by countless studies. The studies tell us what we already know. 40 yrs ago, a 2 hr drive in the countryside at night meant 30 min spent scraping insects off your windshield and headlights. Every lonely streetlight in the middle of nowhere had a cloud around it. Screens to protect the radiator, or even the entire front of the car were sold by every automotive shop and gas station. Seen one lately?

Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future.

One could say it, and one would often be right for doing so. As the complexity of the technological advance increases, so do its effects. Who considered 50 years ago that pesticide use would devastate the insect world? Who knows with any level of certainty what the effect of that will be on the ecosystem we live in? What we know is it ain't gonna likely to be good, and may be devastating. They're now found in mother's milk with potential effects we lack the tools and brain power to comprehend, never mind predict.

When it comes to playing with complex, chaotic systems that support our life on the planet, humans are like a monkey with a hand-grenade. To borrow a phrase "If the planet's ecosystem was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it. " Our myopia & hubris will kill us, if our stupidity and belligerence doesn't do it first.

Patricus , says: March 2, 2019 at 11:14 pm GMT
The insect "die off" is an interesting occurrence. Puerto Rico lost a large percentage of insects while at the same time they decreased pesticide use by 80%. This die off is observed in a limited number of regions of the world. It isn't known exactly what caused the drop in insect population. Some say pesticides, others say climate change (the theory that explains all things), are killing the bugs.

Pesticides have been overused in the past but there have been impressive improvements in the technology which reduces the amounts required. There are herbicides and pesticides designed with chemical half lives. These kill the weeds or pests then break down into harmless components and in 10-14 days can no longer be detected in the field. Unfortunately for some any improvements will require some kind of technology.

We are all going to die eventually, hopefully later rather than sooner.

[Mar 04, 2019] War With China by Michael T. Klare

Mar 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

In his highly acclaimed 2017 book, Destined for War , Harvard professor Graham Allison assessed the likelihood that the United States and China would one day find themselves at war. Comparing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to great-power rivalries all the way back to the Peloponnesian War of the fifth century BC, he concluded that the future risk of a conflagration was substantial. Like much current analysis of U.S.-Chinese relations, however, he missed a crucial point: for all intents and purposes, the United States and China are already at war with one another. Even if their present slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its long-term consequences could prove no less dire.

To suggest this means reassessing our understanding of what constitutes war. From Allison's perspective (and that of so many others in Washington and elsewhere), "peace" and "war" stand as polar opposites. One day, our soldiers are in their garrisons being trained and cleaning their weapons; the next, they are called into action and sent onto a battlefield. 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. Today, war means so much more than military combat and can take place even as the leaders of the warring powers meet to negotiate and share dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes (as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping did at Mar-a-Lago in 2017). That is exactly where we are when it comes to Sino-American relations. Consider it war by another name, or perhaps, to bring back a long-retired term, a burning new version of a cold war.

Even before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, the U.S. military and other branches of government were already gearing up for a long-term quasi-war, involving both growing economic and diplomatic pressure on China and a buildup of military forces along that country's periphery. Since his arrival, such initiatives have escalated into Cold War-style combat by another name, with his administration committed to defeating China in a struggle for global economic, technological, and military supremacy.

This includes the president's much-publicized "trade war" with China, aimed at hobbling that country's future growth; a techno-war designed to prevent it from overtaking the U.S. in key breakthrough areas of technology; a diplomatic war intended to isolate Beijing and frustrate its grandiose plans for global outreach; a cyber war (largely hidden from public scrutiny); and a range of military measures as well. This may not be war in the traditional sense of the term, but for leaders on both sides, it has the feel of one.

Why China?

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. Behind the scenes, however, most senior military and foreign policy officials in Washington view China, not Russia, as the country's principal adversary. In eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria, cyberspace, and in the area of nuclear weaponry, Russia does indeed pose a variety of threats to Washington's goals and desires. Still, as an economically hobbled petro-state, it lacks the kind of might that would allow it to truly challenge this country's status as the world's dominant power. China is another story altogether. With its vast economy, growing technological prowess, intercontinental "Belt and Road" infrastructure project, and rapidly modernizing military, an emboldened China could someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are determined to prevent at any cost.

Washington's fears of a rising China were on full display in January with the release of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, a synthesis of the views of the Central Intelligence Agency and other members of that "community." Its conclusion: "We assess that China's leaders will try to extend the country's global economic, political, and military reach while using China's military capabilities and overseas infrastructure and energy investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to diminish U.S. influence."

To counter such efforts, every branch of government is now expected to mobilize its capabilities to bolster American -- and diminish Chinese -- power. In Pentagon documents, this stance is summed up by the term "overmatch," which translates as the eternal preservation of American global superiority vis-à-vis China (and all other potential rivals). "The United States must retain overmatch," the administration's National Security Strategy insists, and preserve a "combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success," while continuing to "shape the international environment to protect our interests."

In other words, there can never be parity between the two countries. The only acceptable status for China is as a distinctly lesser power. To ensure such an outcome, administration officials insist, the U.S. must take action on a daily basis to contain or impede its rise.

In previous epochs, as Allison makes clear in his book, this equation -- a prevailing power seeking to retain its dominant status and a rising power seeking to overcome its subordinate one -- has almost always resulted in conventional conflict. In today's world, however, where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing option for all parties. Instead, 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.

Trade War

When it comes to the economy, the language betrays the reality all too clearly. The Trump administration's economic struggle with China is regularly described, openly and without qualification, as a "war." And there's no doubt that senior White House officials, beginning with the president and his chief trade representative, Robert Lighthizer , see it just that way: as a means of pulverizing the Chinese economy and so curtailing that country's ability to compete with the United States in all other measures of power.

Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports ( increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a trade imbalance between the two countries, while protecting the American economy against what is described as China's malign behavior. Its trade practices "plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy," as the president put it when announcing the second round of tariffs.

An examination of the demands submitted to Chinese negotiators by the U.S. trade delegation last May suggests, however, that Washington's primary intent hasn't been to rectify that trade imbalance but to impede China's economic growth. Among the stipulations Beijing must acquiesce to before receiving tariff relief, according to leaked documents from U.S. negotiators that were spread on Chinese social media:

halting all government subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its Made in China 2025 program, an endeavor that covers 10 key economic sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric cars, robotics, computer microchips, and artificial intelligence; accepting American restrictions on investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating; opening up its service and agricultural sectors -- areas where Chinese firms have an inherent advantage -- to full American competition.

In fact, this should be considered a straightforward declaration of economic war. Acquiescing to such demands would mean accepting a permanent subordinate status vis-à-vis the United States in hopes of continuing a profitable trade relationship with this country. "The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather than a basis for negotiation," was the way Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University, accurately described these developments.

Technological Warfare

As suggested by America's trade demands, Washington's intent is not only to hobble China's economy today and tomorrow but for decades to come. This has led to an intense, far-ranging campaign to deprive it of access to advanced technologies and to cripple its leading technology firms.

Chinese leaders have long realized that, for their country to achieve economic and military parity with the United States, they must master the cutting-edge technologies that will dominate the twenty-first-century global economy, including artificial intelligence (AI), fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications, electric vehicles, and nanotechnology. Not surprisingly then, the government has invested in a major way in science and technology education, subsidized research in pathbreaking fields, and helped launch promising startups, among other such endeavors -- all in the very fashion that the Internet and other American computer and aerospace innovations were originally financed and encouraged by the Department of Defense.

Chinese companies have also demanded technology transfers when investing in or forging industrial partnerships with foreign firms, a common practice in international development. India, to cite a recent example of this phenomenon, expects that significant technology transfers from American firms will be one outcome of its agreed-upon purchases of advanced American weaponry.

In addition, Chinese firms have been accused of stealing American technology through cybertheft, provoking widespread outrage in this country. Realistically speaking, it's difficult for outside observers to determine to what degree China's recent technological advances are the product of commonplace and legitimate investments in science and technology and to what degree they're due to cyberespionage. Given Beijing's massive investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the graduate and post-graduate level, however, it's safe to assume that most of that country's advances are the result of domestic efforts.

Certainly, given what's publicly known about Chinese cybertheft activities, it's reasonable for American officials to apply pressure on Beijing to curb the practice. However, the Trump administration's drive to blunt that country's technological progress is also aimed at perfectly legitimate activities. For example, the White House seeks to ban Beijing's government subsidies for progress on artificial intelligence at the same time that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into AI research at home. The administration is also acting to block the Chinese acquisition of U.S. technology firms and of exports of advanced components and know-how.

In an example of this technology war that's made the headlines lately, Washington has been actively seeking to sabotage the efforts of Huawei , one of China's most prominent telecom firms, to gain leadership in the global deployment of 5G wireless communications. Such wireless systems are important in part because they will transmit colossal amounts of electronic data at far faster rates than now conceivable, facilitating the introduction of self-driving cars, widespread roboticization, and the universal application of AI.

Second only to Apple as the world's supplier of smartphones and a major producer of telecommunications equipment, Huawei has sought to take the lead in the race for 5G adaptation around the world. Fearing that this might give China an enormous advantage in the coming decades, the Trump administration has tried to prevent that. In what is widely described as a " tech Cold War ," it has put enormous pressure on both its Asian and European allies to bar the company from conducting business in their countries, even as it sought the arrest in Canada of Huawei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, and her extradition to the U.S. on charges of tricking American banks into aiding Iranian firms (in violation of Washington's sanctions on that country). Other attacks on Huawei are in the works, including a potential ban on the sales of its products in this country. Such moves are regularly described as focused on boosting the security of both the United States and its allies by preventing the Chinese government from using Huawei's telecom networks to steal military secrets. The real reason -- barely disguised -- is simply to block China from gaining technological parity with the United States.

Cyberwarfare

There would be much to write on this subject, if only it weren't still hidden in the shadows of the growing conflict between the two countries. Not surprisingly, however, little information is available on U.S.-Chinese cyberwarfare. All that can be said with confidence is that an intense war is now being waged between the two countries in cyberspace. American officials accuse China of engaging in a broad-based cyber-assault on this country, involving both outright cyberespionage to obtain military as well as corporate secrets and widespread political meddling. "What the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing," said Vice President Mike Pence last October in a speech at the Hudson Institute, though -- typically on the subject -- he provided not a shred of evidence for his claim.

Not disclosed is what this country is doing to combat China in cyberspace. All that can be known from available information is that this is a two-sided war in which the U.S. is conducting its own assaults. "­The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities," the 2017 National Security Strategy affirmed. What form these "consequences" have taken has yet to be revealed, but there's little doubt that America's cyber warriors have been active in this domain.

Diplomatic and Military Coercion

Completing the picture of America's ongoing war with China are the fierce pressures being exerted on the diplomatic and military fronts to frustrate Beijing's geopolitical ambitions. To advance those aspirations, China'sleadership is relying heavily on a much-touted Belt and Road Initiative , a trillion-dollar plan to help fund and encourage the construction of a vast new network of road, rail, port, and pipeline infrastructure across Eurasia and into the Middle East and Africa. By financing -- and, in many cases, actually building -- such infrastructure, Beijing hopes to bind the economies of a host of far-flung nations ever closer to its own, while increasing its political influence across the Eurasian mainland and Africa. As Beijing's leadership sees it, at least in terms of orienting the planet's future economics, its role would be similar to that of the Marshall Plan that cemented U.S. influence in Europe after World War II.

And given exactly that possibility, Washington has begun to actively seek to undermine the Belt and Road wherever it can -- discouraging allies from participating, while stirring up unease in countries like Malaysia and Ugandaover the enormous debts to China they may end up with and the heavy-handed manner in which that country's firms often carry out such overseas construction projects. (For example, they typically bring in Chinese laborers to do most of the work, rather than hiring and training locals.)

"China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing's wishes and demands," National Security Advisor John Bolton claimed in a December speech on U.S. policy on that continent. "Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption," he added, "and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S. developmental programs." Bolton promised that the Trump administration would provide a superior alternative for African nations seeking development funds, but -- and this is something of a pattern as well -- no such assistance has yet materialized.

In addition to diplomatic pushback, the administration has undertaken a series of initiatives intended to isolate China militarily and limit its strategic options. In South Asia, for example, Washington has abandoned its past position of maintaining rough parity in its relations with India and Pakistan. In recent years, it's swung sharply towards a strategic alliance with New Dehli, attempting to enlist it fully in America's efforts to contain China and, presumably, in the process punishing Pakistan for its increasingly enthusiastic role in the Belt and Road Initiative.

In the Western Pacific, the U.S. has stepped up its naval patrols and forged new basing arrangements with local powers -- all with the aim of confining the Chinese military to areas close to the mainland. In response, Beijing has sought to escape the grip of American power by establishing miniature bases on Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea (or even constructing artificial islands to house bases there) -- moves widely condemned by the hawks in Washington.

To demonstrate its ire at the effrontery of Beijing in the Pacific ( once known as an "American lake"), the White House has ordered an increased pace of so-called freedom-of-navigation operations (FRONOPs). Navy warships regularly sail within shooting range of those very island bases, suggesting a U.S. willingness to employ military force to resist future Chinese moves in the region (and also creating situations in which a misstep could lead to a military incident that could lead well, anywhere).

In Washington, the warnings about Chinese military encroachment in the region are already reaching a fever pitch. For instance, Admiral Philip Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, described the situation there in recent congressional testimony this way: "In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States."

A Long War of Attrition

As Admiral Davidson suggests, one possible outcome of the ongoing cold war with China could be armed conflict of the traditional sort. Such an encounter, in turn, could escalate to the nuclear level, resulting in mutual annihilation. A war involving only "conventional" forces would itself undoubtedly be devastating and lead to widespread suffering, not to mention the collapse of the global economy.

Even if a shooting war doesn't erupt, however, a long-term geopolitical war of attrition between the U.S. and China will, in the end, have debilitating and possibly catastrophic consequences for both sides. Take the trade war, for example. If that's not resolved soon in a positive manner, continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth, including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and components.

This new brand of war will also ensure that already sky-high defense expenditures will continue to rise, diverting funds from vital needs like education, health, infrastructure, and the environment. Meanwhile, preparations for a future war with China have already become the number one priority at the Pentagon, crowding out all other considerations. "While we're focused on ongoing operations," acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan reportedly told his senior staff on his first day in office this January, "remember China, China, China."

Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of climate-altering greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future. With a war under way, even a non-shooting one, the chance for such collaboration is essentially zero. The only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China to declare peace and focus together on human salvation.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular , is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. His most recent book is The Race for What's Left . His next book, All Hell Breaking Loose: Climate Change, Global Chaos, and American National Security , will be published in 2019.

[Mar 04, 2019] As far as "economic" war, China has been fighting one for decades. It's called competing and trying to do the best to improve your people's lot.

Mar 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

Godfree Roberts , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:41 am GMT

A recent Asia Society conference asked how we should compete with China. https://asiasociety.org/northern-california/made-china-2025-policy-behind-rhetoric

The genuinely expert panelists could not articulate America's demands beyond the familiar 'level playing field' that America created by shackling China with uniquely humiliating conditions before admitting it to the WTO.

Today, China generates 20% of global GDP (the US 15%), its imports and exports are in balance, its currency fairly valued, its economy one third larger and growing three times faster than America's and it produces essential technology that America needs and cannot provide.

It is almost impossible to imagine a war scenario that the US could win, short of China invading America.

Alfa158 , says: February 18, 2019 at 5:31 am GMT
Excellent article Mister Klare, but would like to raise a few quibbles.

1) As far as "economic" war, China has been fighting one for decades. It's called competing and trying to do the best to improve your people's lot. The US is finally starting to fight back but some of it's measures are inappropriate and/or ineffective.

2) As far as the US trying to confine the Chinese military to its own region, I really haven't seen that the Chinese military is particularly interested in operation outside their own region anyway. It seems to be focused on protecting China and its own neighborhood and interests, and the Chinese aren't stupid enough to bleed away their wealth and blood in distant misadventures.

3) I'd gotten the impression from the Deep State's rhetoric that they are much hotter on fighting a shooting war with Russia than with China. In an extended struggle, as long as it doesn't go nuclear, US chances are much better against a Russia whose economy is only a fraction of China's.

MEFOBILLS , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:06 am GMT
Keynes says this, "All trade is only barter." The Wall Street/China Gambit is key to understanding today. Clinton signed MFN trade status with China, screwing over NAFTA. Those Zenith TV's that were supposed to be made in Mexico became Chinese made electronics.

Balanced trade was also thrown out the window, as Wall Street was in on the gambit. Trade in goods was unbalanced, and America supplied dollars to China to make up the difference. China then recycled those mercantile won dollars back to the U.S. to buy Tbills, helping keep interest rates low, and acting as a prime variable in forming U.S. housing bubble. Returning dollars then spun out into the American economy, so American's could buy more Chinese goods from transplanted American factories.

The wall street China gambit turned mainstreet American's into Zeros, while wall street became heroes.

Any discussion of China current economic status cannot overlook the role of Wall Street exporting of jobs, to then get wage arbitrage. Immigrating third world people into America is also a function of this "finance capitalism" as it wants wage arbitrage from third world labor as well.

Finance Capitalism in turn is part of Zion and Atlantacism. International credit "banking" will send its finance capital anywhere in the world to get the lowest price. In the case of China, overhang of communist labor in the mid 90's was available to make things, and then export Chinese made goods back to U.S. (at the China price.)

China still uses Atlantic doctrine, where raw materials come in by ship, and finished goods with increment of production value add leave by ship. (Value add is key element to making any economy thrive. Just extracting raw materials turns a country into Africa, witness the attempt at turning Russia into an extraction economy in the 90's.)

Note difference in American policy in the 90's: Russia was to become extraction, and China was to become value add. As Tucker Carlson says, America is run by a ship of fools.

For China, "Eurasia" beckons, and raw materials can be had from China's interior and via overland routes. This then is a pivot away from London/Zion Atlantacism (finance capital) and toward industrial capitalism.

In other words, both U.S. and the West have hoisted themselves on their own petard. People that wax poetic about China's gains overlook this important mechanism of "gifting" of our patrimony to China. It is very easy to copy or be a fast follower, it is beyond difficult to invent and create.
Wall Street and greed gave away our patrimony, which was hard won over the ages in order to make wage arbitrage today, and gave away the future.

China uses state banks, and also forgives debts lodged in their state banks. This is actually one of the secret methods used to rope-a-dope on the west. The Chinese economy is not debt laden, and what public debts there are, are lodged in a State Bank, where they can be jubileed or ignored.

The U.S. and the West had better take a long hard look at finance capital method, which uses only "price signals" to make economic decisions, as pricing is main vector from which jobs were exported, and which China cleverly used to climb up its industrial curve. Sovereign money/Industrial Capitalism IS the American System of Peshine Smith and Henry Clay. Atlantacism/Zionism/Finance Capital is not American – the parasite jumped to the U.S. from London.

China is wisely in control of its money power via its state banks and is pivoting away from Atlantacism now that it has served its purpose. The belt and road routes are mostly overland, with some coastal sea routes, and there isn't a thing sea power (((atlantacists))) can do about it.

China has played the game well, but don't overlook the gifting of Western patrimony caused by a false neo-liberal finance capital economic ideology, which blinds Western adherents.

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:09 am GMT
@joe webb Yeah, so America can topple China and go after Russia immediately afterwards? I don't think the Russians are so stupid.

There is only 1 way Russia survives the 21st century without being broken up and ruined, and that is allying itself with China. The same is true for China.

The only way China can survive intact is to ally itself with Russia.

Pretty simple stuff I am sure each country understands.

Erebus , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:15 am GMT

China generates 20% of global GDP (the US 15%)

On a PPP basis, of course.

China's real economy, of course dwarfs that of the US'.

The author touches on a nuclear trade option China holds over the US that I see little mention of elsewhere. High tariffs are one thing, but a closure of trade in components and raw materials would do far more than

endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and components.

Should China block exports of everything other than finished goods to the US, almost every US factory would close due to lack of parts and materials. The time and investment required to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means much of what's left of America's real economy would disappear within weeks.

What then?

Unlike Russia, the US is highly vulnerable to targeted sanctions. American trade negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird.

Wally , says: February 18, 2019 at 6:36 am GMT
author Klare said: "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."

– What "revelations"? "What meddling"?

– He tipped his hand right off the bat. Klare is just another run of the mill Communist with a case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, complete with Communism's favorite scam, 'global warming'.

Klare said: "Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports (increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a trade imbalance between the two countries "

– No, the aim is to encourage China to removes it vastly more & extreme tariffs on US goods & services.

Klare said: " continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth, including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and components."

– Nonsense, all China needs to do is remove it's many times over more severe tariffs.

– If the US's lesser tariffs on Chinese goods / services 'hurt the US', then why don't China's massive tariffs on US goods / services hurt China?

And to think some take this fraud, Klare, seriously.

Biff , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:17 am GMT
It was all a really great, intriguing article, but then it morphed into a dreamworld at the end.

The only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China to declare peace and focus together on human salvation.

Humans aren't ready for peace or salvation, and anybody that has promoted such a thing is readily shot dead – Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jesus.

"Love thy neighbor" "Give peace a chance"

"Fuck you! Bam!"

Humans are not ready.

Anonymous [370] Disclaimer , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:24 am GMT

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.

Eh? What revelations?

Cyrano , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:39 am GMT
It's not the economy stupid. According to many "experts" on this site, since the US economy and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it seems "logical" to those experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that not only is not 10 times better, it's not even equal to Russia's army. Again, according to the same types of "experts" Russia's economy is the size of Italy. Why don't then someone break the good news to Italy and encourage them to go to war with Russia? Since their economies are equal – it seems that Italy stands a fair chance of beating Russia, thus eliminating the need of the 10 times superior army to fight them. The moronity on this site, man – it's unbelievable.
tamo , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:49 am GMT
@joe webb You sound like a failed proctologist in the crumbling Honkiedom.
Franklin Ryckaert , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:40 am GMT
China is not suffering from massive degeneration as the US is. Instead of trying to prevent China from becoming a leading nation of the world, why could the US not accept China's coming prominence and concentrate on strengthening its own population ? Unlike the US, China is not interested in "ruling the world", it is only interested in expanding its economy. For the rest, it is dedicated to stability and cooperation. No threat to the world at all, except for some compulsive hegemonists in the Pentagon.
HiHo , says: February 18, 2019 at 11:05 am GMT
This article is pure propaganda and as such is based upon lies, misconceptions and pure fantasy.
If there already is a war it is all in the minds of Anericans, and they have already lost that war because America needs allies and can only create enemies amongst people that were its friends.
Europe will join with Russia as soon as it can get away from the US bully. That means 550million Europeans will join 160 million Russians. 710 million people with Russian technology and Chinese investment (China already runs Btitain's North Sea gas), will produce an economic power that will humiliate the USA at every turn.
All of South America wants to break with the US, the entire Orient hates the US. America is actually doing to Africa what the US accuses Russia and China of doing.
If there really is a war between the US and China then the US has already lost it. The rest of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US. Everyone hates the US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies 100%.
You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting the fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians.

I'm amazed Fred Unz publishes this sort of trash. It is unadulterated lies, brainless stupidity and total hog wash. Pure drivel.

Counterinsurgency , says: February 18, 2019 at 11:19 am GMT
The obvious:

It might be a bit harder than that.

It is often said that, had the Western and Eastern Europeans formed a coalition rather than fight WW I, they would still be dominant.
And if I had wings, I could fly to the moon.
The Eastern Europeans had never accepted the Western Enlightenment (still haven't), and to have done so would have destabilized their family structure -- the deep structure of their society -- exactly as it has finally destabilized ours, today. The nature of authority and organization in Eastern Europe differed considerably from that of Western Europe. Their forms of organization were different enough to make integration impossible, and perhaps to make formation of a coalition impossible.

China's organizational forms, family structure, and and social assumptions in general differ even more from the present day form of the Western Enlightenment than did those of East Europe c.a. AD 1900.

It's at times like these we get to test the assumption that reason and fear of death can lead to agreement on a modus vivendi.

Counterinsurgency

mikemikev , says: February 18, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT
@Alfa158

In an extended struggle, as long as it doesn't go nuclear, US chances are much better against a Russia whose economy is only a fraction of China's.

I wonder how their economy would look after a week of strategic bombing.

Shaun , says: February 18, 2019 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Biff I forget, who shot Jesus?
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: February 18, 2019 at 1:36 pm GMT
China is now PAC-man of the world.
DESERT FOX , says: February 18, 2019 at 1:42 pm GMT
I will never believe the Zionist controlled U.S. will go to war with China as long as one U.S. company remains in China and damn near all the major U.S. companies are in business in China, this is a ploy for the zionist controlled MIC to loot the America taxpayer!
JC , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:18 pm GMT
I didnt read the article but I dont think china needs the US for anything they are well on their way to be the dominant world power the US and ist zionist occupied government are losers the zionists want never ending wars which stupid USA has done,,china and all the rest will eventually dump the rothchild banking system and form its own which will in all likely hood benefit more than the zionist one does
WHAT , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:20 pm GMT
@HiHo Ron probably has a quota to fill. Reed gets his scribbles in by the same token, I bet.
WHAT , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:22 pm GMT
@mikemikev >m-muh bombers

It will be fine, chinese know where to buy AA complexes that actually work.

onebornfree , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 2:36 pm GMT
No mention of an ideological battle, and no wonder, as "the Chinks" et al have apparently already won that one, as evidenced by the fact that the last US general election was merely yet another idiotic, meaningless [ yet highly entertaining], cat fight over blue socialism versus red socialism.

The US vs China trade war is just another power/domination battle scam between two competing, wholly criminal orgs, both totally against anything ever resembling truly free trade ..nothing more.

And so it goes .

The "America Is Not A Socialist Country" Scam :
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2019/02/onebornfrees-special-scam-alerts-no-87.html [bottom of page]

Regards, onebornfree

Rich , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm GMT
"The US and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future." Really? If this doesn't prove this guy is a lefty shill, nothing does. Even the clowns raking in grants and trying to impoverish everyone with higher taxes have seen the light and have been saying "climate change" lately. Many scientists are now arguing that we may be headed into a new cooling period rather than a "hellish" warming period that brought us so much prosperity. This "global warming" religion with its hockey stick icons and polar bear mythology is worse than the Heaven's Gate religion.
ThreeCranes , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:53 pm GMT
@HiHo

"The rest of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US. Everyone hates the US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies 100%.
You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting the fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians."

Well yes. As history has shown, occupation and rule by Jahweh's Chosen People tends to bring this fate down upon the host country.

Ned Ludlam , says: February 18, 2019 at 2:59 pm GMT
Oh, for Pete's sake:
1. It will always be China+Russia vs. the US. The EU, site of WWIII, will just soil itself.
2. The Debt Bubble US economy will collapse. At some point. Changes every calculation.
3. The US will devolve into a state of civil war. Of some sort. Paralyze the place.

Momentum is with China and Russia. The US is sliding into history's toilet.

Just give it a few more years. And the whole world sees and knows it. The whole world can get along very well without the US. And would very much like that to be.

therevolutionwas , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:09 pm GMT
Global warming my azz! But the rest of it rings pretty true. If nukes arn't used, Russia and China will win this war simply because they have the gold now and the US has spread its fiat petro dollar all over the world which will come back big time to bite them. That is if China and Russia are smart enough to go on a gold exchange standard.
MEFOBILLS , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:11 pm GMT
@Cyrano

since the US economy and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it seems "logical" to those experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that not only is not 10 times better, it's not even equal to Russia's army.

I would argue the same.

Russia is a land power. This means using a land army and area denial. Russia does not need to power project with a blue water Navy and she does not follow Atlantacist doctrine.

Atlantacist doctrine got its start when our (((friends))) evolved the method during the Levantine Greek City State period, where our tribal friends would be stationed in various entrepot cities ringing the Mediterranean. They would use their tribal connections to Launder pirated goods, and to push their "international" usurious money type, which in those days was silver. Simultaneously they were taking rents on their secret East/West mechanism, whereby exchange rates between gold and silver were exploited. Gold was plentiful in India and Silver more plentiful in the West, so the Caravan's took arbitrage on exchange rates as silver drained east and gold drained west.

The U.S. inherited Atlanticist method after WW2. The U.S. is not an island economy like England – it does not need to go around the world beating up others to then extract raw materials. The U.S. is actually more like Russia in that U.S. can afford to have economic autarky and be independent. The U.S. does not need to power project with a blue water navy, despite the false narrative (((inheritance))) passed down to us, especially after WW2. Nobody likes being punked with false narrative.

U.S. military expenditures are so heavy because of this tendency of finance capital to search the world for gains, and this means posting overseas military bases, which in turn are expensive to operate. Russia only has a "close in" defensive posture of area denial. This is far less expensive than power projecting.

Also, GDP figures are misleading. In the U.S. if housing prices go up it reflects in GDP growth, when in reality – the house didn't improve. GDP figures are lies. If finance takes 50% cut of the economy, they are only pushing finance paper back and forth at each other this is not the real economy, but it shows up in GDP because finance paper is an "asset".

Russia's economy is much larger than their GDP, probably it is closer to Germany's in real terms. Real terms = real economy = the making of goods and services.

China is not America's natural ally, Russia is. Atlantacist doctrine sold America's patrimony to China for cheap, and then the ((international)) will just jump to another host.

America has been parasitized by false doctrine and the output is thus that of an infected brain – an output that is crazy. Finance plutocracy typically will not let go willingly, but has to be removed forcefully.

jeff stryker , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:22 pm GMT
Russia is a country of vodka drunks and Dubai prostitutes run by a syndicate of Israel oligarchs and ex-KGB who kill their journalists in foreign countries.

China is dependent on outsourcing and if the US factories were to withdraw tomorrow the Chinese economy would take a huge hit.

NoseytheDuke , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:27 pm GMT
@Erebus The US is vulnerable in so many other ways too, see how fast the store shelves empty just on the news of an approaching big storm. Panic buying is rife and some people keep minimal food available at home. I know people who have to stop at an ATM to get $20. All kinds of vital distribution of food, water, power, fuel and more seems to pass through a myriad of often vulnerable bottle-necks real or virtual. Easy targets for low cost, low tech sabotage teams I'd think.

I'm inclined to think also that this threatening hysteria possibly is a deep state psy-op designed to prime Americans prior to the enactment of some sort of "democracy" modifications.

Sean , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:28 pm GMT
America is the most powerful country solely because it has the most powerful economy in the world, and that was in no small measure due to America's abundance of arable land, navigable waterways, natural resources ect ect. . In a few decades China has rocketed close to US level and is in a global hegemon trajectory solely on the quality and size of its population . There is not much doubt about the outcome of any competition between China and the West, especially as much of the profits of the ruling class in the West has come from offshoring and investment in China and their economy of scale production suppressing labour's power in the West. The Chinese and their Western collaborators will just wait Trump out. Trump is a populist not a creature of the Deap State alarmed at China's rise. The leading strategists of America's foreign policy establishment still don't realise what they are dealing with in China.

Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of climate-altering greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future.

Better to reign in hell. Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006, China has been the world's largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip service they accept no binding target for reduction; quite the opposite.

Even if their present slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its long-term consequences could prove no less dire.

The manufacturing should be done in the most advanced regions of Earth ie the West, because that is where the technology and will exists to protect the environment. China is trying to churn out cheaper goods and does not care what damage they do in cutting environmental corners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
China still supports the "common but differentiated responsibilities" principle, which holds that since China is still developing, its abilities and capacities to reduce emissions are comparatively lower than developed countries'. Therefore, its emissions should not be required to decrease over time, but rather should be encouraged to increase less over time until industrialization is farther along and reductions are feasible

In other words the global environment is going to continue to be ripped apart like a car in a wrecking yard by China. "Industrialization is farther along" is obviously Chinese speak for "when China is able to dominate the world with enormous productive capacity and we do not even have to pay lip service any more".

In today's world, however, where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing option for all parties. Instead, 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.

No, the appeal of a real war will increase precipitously for any clear loser in the economic competition who has a rapidly declining military advantage (especially in thermonuclear first strike capacity due to proximity fuses and sub location tech), and we all know who that is going to be. A shooting war will come, and the sooner it comes the better for the whole world. Reassuring Russia that it will not be subjected to the same treatment by the West at some point in the future will be the main problem inhibiting the coming military take down (and nuking if necessary) of China.

NoseytheDuke , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:30 pm GMT
@Shaun Eric Clapton, surely. Or was it Eric Idle? I forget. Who was it?
Reuben Kaspate , says: February 18, 2019 at 3:32 pm GMT
As to bringing in Hindoos and Pakis into to the America-China conflict with a singular example of the demand for defense related technology transfer by the former

India is a mediocrity but Pakistan is a nightmare for all concerned, given that after imbibing religious mumbo jumbo from moronic Arabs, with which havocs were created in Afghanistan via neoconnish America, now they are fellating uncircumcised Chinese for crumbs the ungodly Chinese will play the idiotic Pakis like a fiddle to the detriment of the West!

[Mar 02, 2019] US Said to Ready Final China Trade Deal as Hawks Urge Caution

Mar 02, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Bloomberg

Negotiations with Beijing to address structural economic reforms are taking place on a track that's separate from the talks about the quantity of American products the Chinese may agree to buy to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, one of the people briefed on the matter said.

The Chinese have offered to ramp up purchases of American goods by $1.2 trillion over six years, according to the person. It's still unclear how Beijing would follow through on those purchases if retaliatory tariffs remained in place and other trading barriers aren't removed, the person added. China bought $130 billion in U.S. goods in 2017, according to U.S. figures.

After several rounds of face-to-face meetings between U.S. and Chinese officials since last year, the sides are now in regular contact via phone and video-conference to hammer out the details of a deal, according to the person.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office said Thursday it will publish a notice in the Federal Register delaying the increase of tariffs on Chinese imports until further notice. Trump had previously planned to raise tariffs on March 1, but on Sunday dropped the threat amid progress at the negotiating table.

[Mar 02, 2019] The Trump presidency From the Manhattan underworld to the White House by Patrick Martin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship. ..."
Mar 01, 2019 | www.wsws.org

"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France

What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of 2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class battles.

That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral politics.

What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise; Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance, mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.

Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.

The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade taxation).

One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed markets.

These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.

The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen presidential election of 2000.

The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely subordinated to the financial aristocracy.

The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human race.

These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history, where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited workforce.

The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of 2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.

As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right. His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on the basis of economic nationalism.

As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even before the 2016 elections:

The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality television to politics.

The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers' strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of rule.

The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.

Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020 election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."

Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship.

The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.

[Mar 02, 2019] The "Exceptional Nation" has now become the "Detestable Nation"!

Notable quotes:
"... The Puppet show display by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the American Empire are refusing to tow the line? ..."
"... A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world. ..."
Mar 02, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

KiwiAntz , February 20, 2019 at 6:31 am

The "Exceptional Nation" has now become the "Detestable Nation"!

The Puppet show display by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the American Empire are refusing to tow the line?

Trump has alienated & disgusted it's Allies, so much that they can now see how deranged, unworkable & destructive is the Americans Foreign Policy & its bankrupt disfunctional , delusional Policies?

It's ridiculous, irrational & pathological hatred for Iran has shown that the US is the main Terrorist Nation on Earth not Iran who has never invaded anyone unlike the hypocritical US Empire!

Meanwhile in Sochi, the real Diplomacy for peace is taking place with Russia, Iran, Turkey & Syria having won the War against the US Empire & its cowardly, crony white helmeted, ragtag bunch of proxy Army misfits made up of Israel, ISIS, SDF & the Kurds now scurrying out of the Country like rats leaving a sinking ship!

And what was really laughable about VP Pences speech in Warsaw was the defeating silence to the pauses in that speech expecting people to clap on demand which never happened?

How embarrassing & really showed the lack of respect & utter contempt that everyone has for America these days!

Sam F, February 20, 2019 at 12:32 pm

A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world.

Let's hope we see the end of NATO as an excuse for US bully tyrants to "defend" us with greedy aggression.

Perhaps that will lead to strengthening the UN and isolating it from the economic power of US tyrants.
The UN would be far stronger if it taxed its members instead of begging for support, on pain of embargo by all members, and monitored for corrupt influence.

[Feb 27, 2019] Mueller investigation was clearly was part of the leverage used to get control of Trump

Feb 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zachary Smith , Feb 26, 2019 1:37:24 AM | link

@Circe @100

Tump can go back and keep his job pleasing the Zionist elite that installed him.

So far as I'm concerned Hillary was the dream candidate for the apartheid Jewish state. That the Zionists have made a terrific rebound in capturing Trump seems to me to be another story entirely. At a guess, I'd say the job was done with a combination of flattery, bribery, and naked force.

I've tuned out the Mueller thing, but suspect it was part of the leverage used to get control of Trump. Again a guess, but I'd say Trump was totally in bed with the Russians - and everybody else with whom he thought he might run a scam. But this was "business", as in making promises and squeezing money out of them. Things like Trump University. With proper handling the cost of the failures would fall mostly on the "investors". And in the worst case, there was always the fifth or sixth bankruptcy.

Trump didn't expect to be president - that was a humongous publicity campaign financed by the Corporate Media. I don't think Pence was expecting anything besides getting some national exposure which might lead him becoming Senator from Indiana in 2018.

I'm very glad Hillary isn't perched in the White House, but the price of avoiding that has been higher than I expected. Speaking of the devil, I read some ugly stuff at the 2:00 news part of Naked Capitalism.

Clinton (2): "EX-CLINTON POLLSTER: Hillary will run if Biden doesn't -- or field is 'too far left'" [The American Mirror]. "After defending Clinton's credentials as 'one of the most experienced politicians around,' [Mark] Penn went on to say of the reported recent confabs between Hillary and declared candidates, "Those meetings are going to be somewhat awkward because she hasn't declared that she's not definitely running, and she, in fact, at the same time is looking over the field and I think will make a decision later in the year whether or not to run herself. Penn said the chances of Hillary running depends on how the field shapes up. 'If the party looks too far to the left and there's no front runner, she'll get in,' he said. 'I think if Joe Biden gets in, that probably means she won't run if he gets in. If he doesn't get in, I think the field will be open for her,' Penn said." • She's tanned, rested, and ready!

That fits right in with my belief that the corporate Dems would prefer Trump's second term or Pence's first term to any decent Democrat being elected. I'll be saying this over and over - while Sander's foreign policy credentials stink to high heaven, the prospect of him being "decent" in domestic matters isn't too awfully bad.

Jackrabbit , Feb 26, 2019 2:26:48 AM | link

Zachary Smith | Feb 26, 2019 1:37:24 AM | 102

Mueller [investigation]... suspect it was part of the leverage used to get control of Trump.
Well, the "Russia meddled" scare-mongering has worked well as a means of reviving anti-Russian McCarthyism. It even ensnared Wikileaks and Michael Flynn (both of whom were CIA/Deep State targets).

And, why would the Deep State allow an unvetted person to assume control of the Presidency? They are too careful for that. In fact, all recent President's have some connection to CIA: Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama. Felix Slater, an FBI informant worked for Trump for over a decade while informing on the Russian mob, and most of Trump dubious Russian oligarch connections are actually more loyal to Israel than Russia.

Trump didn't expect to be president
That's funny, given the fact that he bragged that he would win and that he was the ONLY populist running for the Republican nomination (out of 19 contenders!). And none of the other candidates (many of whom are seasoned campaigners) sought to alter their strategy when the saw Trump pulling ahead?!?!

Oh, and Hillary helped her friend Trump win when she alienated key constituencies (Sanders progressives, Blacks) and energized Trump's base by calling them "deploreables".

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Oh, sorry, these things are supposed to be memory-holed. Hope you and MoA readers don't suffer from too much cognitive dissonance from such facts.

[Feb 26, 2019] Banning Huawei in the US will hurt US Huawei dealers more than it will hurt Huawei.

Feb 26, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Feb 24, 2019 1:29:18 PM | link

I'm watching CGTN ... Huawei are telling the Yanks that they can live without the USA market and will NOT allow back doors in their phones; adding that banning Huawei in the US will hurt US Huawei dealers more than it will hurt Huawei. The report also included an Advertorial for the new Huawei folding smart phone. It looks like a 7" tablet when open and folds down the centre with the screen on the OUTSIDE of the closed phone. It can download a 1 Gb movie in 3 (three) seconds and will cost $2600-00, making it the most expensive smartphone on the market.
Sounds like a great big FU AmeriKKKa to me.

[Feb 26, 2019] It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of human rights promotion, as have some other communists

Notable quotes:
"... It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as have some other communists. ..."
Feb 26, 2019 | www.unz.com

Digital Samizdat , says: February 26, 2019 at 1:03 pm GMT

@Commentator Mike Today's system is a hybrid of a late finance-stage global capitalism and cultural–not economic–Marxism. Instead of class struggle, we have identity politics. Instead of the ownership of the means of production, we have tranny bathrooms.

So the right-wingers (like Peter Hitchens) who say that 'Marxism won' are half right culturally, not economically. What causes all the confusion (among the libertarian types especially) is that capitalism in reality does not in any way resemble how it ought to work according to libertarian theories and never did. But when you point out to them that capitalism never worked in practice to begin with, they answer: 'But true capitalism has never even been tried!' And of course, they're right. 'True' capitalism (i.e., what libertarian theory calls capitalism) really never has been tried, and for exactly the same reason that perpetual motion machines have never been tried either: they're impossible.

None of which means I'm a 'pure' socialist. I'm open to mixed-economies and new experiments. I usually characterize myself more as a national socialist, mostly to differentiate myself from the 'world revolution' Trotskyite socialists who now predominate on the far-left.

That means I also take some inspiration from some fascists and national-syndicalists, although I don't regard any of them as holy writ, either.

In my opinion, the number one success factor for a civilization is not what theory it professes, but rather who controls it. Theories will always have to be modified to suit the circumstances; but the character of a people is much harder to change.

China's prospering because it's controlled by Chinese engineers; our civilization is suffocating because it's controlled by Jew-bankers and Masonic lawyers. Get rid of them first, and we can debate monetary theory till we're blue in the face.

Commentator Mike , says: February 26, 2019 at 4:01 pm GMT

@Digital Samizdat

I think that applying the old concepts of Marxism is no longer possible in the west since there is hardly a genuine proletariat as a proper class any more with the deindustrialisation and the transfer of major industries to China and other Asian and Latin American countries.

On the other hand the lumpenproletariat has grown and will grow further with greater automation in industry.

Many more people are now unemployed, underemployed, in service industries, part-time and temporary jobs, or ageing old age pensioners and retirees.

With the greater atomisation of the individual, break up of families, greater mobility, the concept of classes rooted long-term in their communities seems less applicable. You could say most of the global proletariat is now in China.

It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as have some other communists.

Paul Edward Gottfried's "The Strange Death of Marxism" seems to offer some explanations but is not of much use in developing a new activism capable of taking on the system or providing a more viable alternative.

RobinG , says: February 26, 2019 at 4:29 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike

classical concepts of socialism and capitalism, and left and right politics

The left/right concept is no longer valid. For one thing, of what use is a $15. minimum wage (apparently a standard "left" plank) if there aren't any jobs? Take a look at Andrew Yang. At least he is posing the right questions.

Andrew Yang's Pitch to America – We Must Evolve to a New Form of Capitalism

[Feb 23, 2019] Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes

Notable quotes:
"... "I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." ..."
"... Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators. ..."
"... His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. ..."
"... The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may have molested them." ..."
Feb 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

William Dorritt , 3 hours ago link

LOLITA EXPRESS...ORGY ISLAND...ELITE PEDOPHILE RING ?-2006
* George W Bush President: January 20, 2001 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General USA: Feb. 3, 2005–Sept. 17, 2007
* Michael Bernard Mukasey, AG. USA: Nov. 9, 2007 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Eric Holder, A G. USA: Feb. 3, 2009 – April 27, 2015
* Loretta Lynch, Attorney General USA: April 27, 2015 – Present
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana
* Epstein's Attorneys: Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.

+ "He (Epstein) is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations."

+ Bill Clinton...26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express"

Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading.

+ Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.

+ Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen -- have been repeatedly accused in court filings of acting as pimps. Oxford-educated Maxwell, recently seen dining with Clinton at Nello's on Madison Avenue. Manhattan-London G. Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell.

+ A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex slaves'

+ Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from

+ Clinton invited her (pimp) to Chelsea's wedding

+ According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein's secluded island in the Caribbean.

+ 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 said were sexually abused by Epstein, Palm Beach Police and FBI

+ 35 female minors sexually abused, Epstein settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.

..............................Source: FBI & Federal Prosecutors

+ flights on Epstein's planes 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz (FOX NEWS, Harvard Law), former Treasury Secretary and Harvard president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.

+ In the most recent court documents, filed on December 30, Roberts further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders." Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor, advance his business, and for political influence.

The FIX

2015 Doc Release by Judge:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. "I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge ... maybe we can set a time to meet, if you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or 'on call' as well."

"I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein."

In a December 2007 letter, the prosecutor acknowledges some notifications of alleged victims but says they were sent after the U.S. Attorney's Office signed the plea deal and halted for most of the women at the request of Epstein's lawyers.

"Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement," Villafana wrote, again to Lefkowitz. "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065

Original Deal Hidden

On Sept. 24, 2007, in a deal shrouded in secrecy that left alleged victims shocked at its leniency,

Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators.

Sources:

Fox By Malia Zimmerman, May 13, 2016

Daily Mail Reporter 19 March 2014

Gawker Nick Bryant 01/22/15

Western Journalism Kris Zane March 27, 2014

Politico By Josh Gerstein 07/07/15

New York Magazine, By Landon Thomas Jr.

THE FIX IS IN

"In 2006 the FBI counted at least 40 underage girls who had been molested by Epstein. Authorities searched his Florida mansion and found two computers containing child *********** and homemade video and photographs from cameras hidden in bedroom walls which had been used to film sex acts. The case was airtight for many counts of sexual crimes but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer and the Justice Department stepped in and offered Epstein a plea deal. In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida court to one count of soliciting underage girls for sex. His punishment was 13 months of "8 hour nights only" at a halfway house. No other charges about raping underage girls nor running an underage sex trafficking ring were mentioned in the plea. His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz.

The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may have molested them."

http://dcxposed.com/2015/01/26/bilderberg-pervs-island-sin-scandal-threatens-ultra-elite-politicians-lawyers-royalty/

William Dorritt , 3 hours ago link

The Talented Mr. Epstein

Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. Vicky Ward explores Epstein's investment career, his ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past.

June 27, 2011 12:00 am

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-200303

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery

So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard to come by. A working day for Epstein starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St. Thomas, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/index3.html

[Feb 22, 2019] US Efforts To Block Huawei Gives China An Advantage

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. fears that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate. ..."
Feb 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

For several centuries China had a monopoly on silk. It was exported along the silk road to Persia and from there to Europe. Silk production was highly profitable. The export of silkworms and their production method was prohibited. in the mid 6-th century two monks made their way from Europe to China and found out how silk was produced. They reported back to the Byzantine emperor Justitian I who induced them to secretly acquire silkworms and to smuggle them back home. The monks managed to do that and soon thereafter the Chinese silk monopoly, and Persia's monopoly of silk trade with Europe, were no more .

The U.S. fears that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate.

The 5G mobile data networks will use new frequencies and algorithms to deliver gigabit data streams from, to and between mobile devices. This will allow for completely new applications like direct communication between (semi-)autonomous cars at any road crossing. Worldwide a number of companies are working to provide 5G technology. That involves antennas, base stations, new hard- and software in the periphery and in the core telecommunication systems. Main providers of such systems are US companies like Motorola, Qualcomm and Cisco. Others are Ericsson and Samsung. One of the largest one is the Chinese company Huawei.

Currently Huawei is the most advanced company in the 5G field. It started early and invested huge sums into research and development for 5G technology. It owns some 15% of all relevant patents. It is currently the only provider that can deliver an end-to-end solution for 5G networks. As it serves the huge market of China it can produce on a large scale and sell its equipment for less than other companies do. The other dominant telecommunication equipment provider, including those in the United States, are lagging in 5G technology. They did not invest early enough and are now late to deliver.

Instead of investing in faster development and better technology the U.S. is trying to block Huawei from selling its goods. This hurts the development of other countries that want to provide 5G networks to their people.

The US has long pressed its allies not to use Chinese equipment in their phone networks. It falsely claims that Huawei equipment is a security threat.

Australia and New Zealand followed the US order and prohibited the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G networks. The US also tried to press the big European countries to shun Huawei. So far it failed. Germany resisted US pressure to not use Huawei stuff. It fears delays in 5G deployment should it ban Huawei. Yesterday Britain also pushed back :

[Feb 22, 2019] Trump vs. the FBI Who are the good guys by Joe Jarvis

With Trump incoherence, impulsivity and appointment of Pompeo and Bolton it is really unclear who are the good guys and and who are bad guys.
Color revolution against Trump failed and that's a good sign, the sign of healthy political system. But it might well be that "The moor has done his duty, the moor can go"
Trump already undermined the credibility of neoliberal MSM and we should be glad to him for that. He also withdrawing troops from Syria (which were in the country illegally) but only after bombing Assad air forces half-dozen times on false premises.
Looks like he reached some progress in talks with China and Chine will buy more agricultural production from the USA. But the question to him is: if China already has the capacity to produce all those goods, how he think manufacturing will return to the USA.
He still is warmongering about Iran. And he initiated the regime change in Venezuela.
On domestic front he positioned himself as a clear neoliberal and bully -- king of "national neoliberalism" instead of national socialism of the past (what is funny is that many point of NSDAP program of 1920 are now far left to the Democratic Party platform, to say nothing about Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune ..."
Feb 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

by TDB Thu, 02/21/2019 - 12:24 5 SHARES By Joe Jarvis via The Daily Bell

The bad guys wear black hats. We're programmed to see things in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. From what we are shown in movies and books from an early age, there is a protagonist and an antagonist.

Clever writers make it a little more complex, with the Boo Radleys and Snapes who are thought to be villains but turn out to be heroes. But generally, the characters fit largely into extremes: good guys or bad guys with little overlap: Harry Potter versus Voldemort.

But it's those characters on the edge who people can't get enough of. Like Walter White, the cancer patient who starts producing meth to leave some money behind for his family in the TV show Breaking Bad .

And that's probably because its an often unspoken truth that life is mostly gray, and not so black and white.

But the binary two choice meme has a function. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. And it prevents us from being crippled by indecision and inaction.

Of course, this is also easily exploited by bad guys

When I hear that the FBI considered attempting to oust Trump from the oval office, I am tempted to think, hey, Trump must not be such a bad guy.

According to a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, top FBI brass discussed using the 25th amendment to remove Trump, even though as the Wall Street Journal explains:

A President exercises his constitutional prerogative to fire the FBI director, and Mr. Comey's associates immediately talked about deposing him in what would amount to a coup?

The 25th Amendment was passed after JFK's assassination to allow for a transfer of power when a President is "unable" to discharge his duties. It is intended to be used only after demonstrated evidence of impairment that is witnessed by those closest to the Commander in Chief. It doesn't exist to settle political differences, or to let scheming bureaucrats imagine they are saving the country from someone they fear is a Manchurian candidate. The constitutional process for that is impeachment.

So if the horribly corrupt FBI doesn't like Trump, he must have something to offer. But this is only true in the binary world or pure good and evil. In the real world, evil often opposes evil, because they are different factions fighting for the same territory.

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune

We usually end up supporting who we see as the lesser of two evils.

That's sort of like Walter White. He starts off as a timid science geek and devoted father and husband. He is attracted to the drug industry for apparently noble purposes. And he ends up poisoning a child, causing another child to be murdered, ordering an innocent assistant killed, and causing the death of his brother-in-law. Ultimately, Walter White admits he didn't become a massive meth producer for his family. He did it for the thrill, the glory, the power that came with it . We live in a world of Walter Whites, not Voldemorts.

J.K. Rowling made Voldemort pure evil. But to her credit, she demonstrated how easy it was for him to seize the reigns of power at the Ministry of Magic, and how all the bureaucrats and ministers simply started serving a new master. Some even rejoiced in their new authority, relishing the newfound power.

When it comes to Trump versus the FBI, the Wall Street Journal editorial laments, "This is all corrosive to public trust in American democracy."

So what do we do about it?

Rejoice!

The less trust we put in the political system, the better. All we can do is separate ourselves to the best of our abilities from far off bureaucrats and politicians.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb says in his book Skin in the Game , paraphrasing brothers Geoff and Vince Graham:

I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist.

... ... ...

[Feb 18, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Smears Debunked by Jimmy Dore

The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Kimberley Murphy , 1 week ago

I actually trust her more than Bernie. Bernie endorsed HRC, Tulsi did not. She stuck to morals. I respect that.

chadinem , 1 month ago

Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her.

CAY7607 , 1 week ago

Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent.

[Feb 17, 2019] What a crew we have today: Bolton is evil, Pompeo is a liar, Pence is a moralizing buffoon

And Trump?
Notable quotes:
"... At least Bolton embraces the fact that he is simply exerting power over others without the insufferable moralizing of a Mike Pence. ..."
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Chris Chuba , 4 hours ago

1. Bolton is evil, 2. Pompeo is a liar, 3. Pence is a moralizing buffoon.

I detest them all but who do I hate the least? I'm going to go with Bolton.

Since I believe that Pence is an honest man, it twists my mind how someone can stand on a stage and seriously believe that other countries have a moral obligation to obey the U.S. in who they do and don't do business with. How dare you undermine U.S. sanctions he thunders, and the look on his face, priceless.

At least Bolton embraces the fact that he is simply exerting power over others without the insufferable moralizing of a Mike Pence.

What a crew we have today.

[Feb 17, 2019] Beware of well dressed ladies who smell of Chanel #5

Well meaning idiot is the most dangerous type of idiots, if he is the king, who is still in power...
This use of "beautiful ladies" is the trick that centuries old... Children can also be used this way, especially girls...
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Persuading the king ...

I watched Trump's Rose Garden session in which he announced that he would sign the appropriation bill and also declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act. IMO he will win whatever court challenges are made because his authority to do this is clear in "black letter" law and the opposition will have to base their plaints on a judgment as to whether or not there is an emergency. IMO there is nothing in the constitution or law that makes the judgment or the courts competent to overrule his judgment in this case. If they don't like the National Emergencies Law, let the Congress repeal it.

On the other hand, Trump also told the world that because of a personal appeal by a woman from Idlib Province in Syria who came to see him in the Oval Office, he called Putin and argued him into calling off the preparations for a massive Russo/Syrian/Iranian offensive that would IMO have recovered Idlib for the SAG.

I am recalling here roughly what he said.

The lady's argument was that she believed that the millions who lived in the province would be killed or maimed in the process and all the towns destroyed. Her parents lived in the province. And, after all, she said, there are only 45,000 jihadis in the province. I was not in the room, but would be willing to bet that she was; well spoken, well dressed, and reasonably attractive. Trump was persuaded and Idlib remains a cancer in the side of the Syrian state, the Russians, having listened to Trump, attempted to create a de-militarized zone around Idlib Province within which the jihadis have consolidated power.

Some years ago I was asked to speak at a two or three day discussion of the Middle East at Mississippi State University. This is a big school. Attendance was in the thousands. On the program with me (or I with him) was, then TV personality, (later governor of Ohio) John Kasich. At a pre-conference dinner, Kasich sought to dominate the table talk and me (his principal competition) at this conference. There were numerous senior faculty present at table. Kasich sought to belittle whatever knowledge I might have of the MENA region and of the peoples and cultures there. In particular he said that I did not understand Islam at all because I said that the jihadis were among the various forms of Islam, a religion which I foolishly claimed had no central authority structure and in which the "true Islam" was not to be known except in the consensus (ijma') of various groups of Muslims.

Having heard him out, I explained to him my background and experience. He grew more and more sober, clearly unused to opposition. I asked him what the basis was for his opinion that the various jihadis were not real Muslims at all.

He told us that a number of beauteous Muslim ladies had been brought to see him. He said they were well spoken, well dressed (some in French couture clothing) and that they smelled good. This last was said after I asked him about it having run into this phenomenon before.

These ladies were all at pains to explain to him that the jihadis were outside Islam because they did not accept the ijma' of the scholars of whatever "school" (mathab) of Sunni Sharia these ladies adhered to.

The lesson - Beware of well dressed ladies who smell of Chanel #5. pl


PeterVE , 5 hours ago

Are you suggesting that President Trump could be influenced by an attractive, well spoken woman with an exotic accent? Maybe the Iranian Mullahs need to change their UN representative to get off Trump's s#*! list.
Barbara Ann , 3 hours ago
Great anecdote Colonel, interesting that Kasich's first instinct was to see you as "competition" in such a setting. I don't suppose you told him that, despite your evident ignorance, you were known by the name of a famous warrior poet in several ME countries - or inquired as to his own sobriquet as in these places? My guess is the women folk of Idlib province are not in the habit of frequenting the Oval Office, it would be interesting to know who arranged her visit.

Machiavelli does not seem to have commented on the specific matter of wariness of beauteous messengers. However, I'd expect his advice on such matters would echo your own, in the importance of evaluating a message independently of its perfume.

Pat Lang Mod -> Barbara Ann , 2 hours ago
That is very good. Antar thanks you. An Iraqi general once asked me how I came to be called that. He said, "you are not Black." I said that was true but that I lived with a woman whose sobriquet was Abla and after so much war my heart was black enough. He said that was true of them as well.
Pat Lang Mod -> Pat Lang , 19 minutes ago
Actually Abla and I were named by a Palestinian Arabic teacher who wanted his class to have working names that began with 'ain. He was from Bethlehem and owned a night club in San Francisco where he was occupied while not teaching Arabic at DLI in Monterey. The name stuck. He was killed in Kuwait by the Kuwaiti resistance who said he was a collaborator with the Iraqis. He was a marvelous 'oud player.
Keith Harbaugh , an hour ago
On the other side of the coin, I recall reading how HRC, when she was SecState, was convinced by well-spoken, well-dressed Westernized and Western-educated men from Libya and Syria that if only the U.S. would overthrow the "brutal tyrants" then ruling those nations, that then democracy and freedom would reign in those lands.
In particular, she was lobbied by one such Westernized Libyan just before she persuaded BHO to intervene in Libya, leading to the subsequent chaos.
BTW, for a reminder of who else pushed BHO to intervene in Libya,
see "Fight of the Valkyries" by Maureen Dowd, 2011-03-23.
Is calling such women stupid about things that matter sexist?
Thinking about how popular the values of Westernized people from the Islamic world are back in their native lands, there is the illustrative example of Benazir Bhutto .

Also BTW, the URL for this post currently is: https://turcopolier.typepad...
"my-entry"? Is this right?

The Beaver , 2 hours ago
Colonel

Here is that lady:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/...

She is with SAMS thus in cahoots with White Helmets

https://www.buckscountycour...

and their reactions about Douma

https://www.sams-usa.net/pr...

Pat Lang Mod -> The Beaver , 2 hours ago
She qualifies.
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , 3 hours ago
While not having the time nor energy at the moment to read much (even more post much), this statement from DJT just stunned me. And i am not easily stunned.
Some ppl including me thought of this possibility, to be precise that Ivanka and Jared fed him: You got to save those inocent people there! And he took the bait.

But then again i didnt truely want to believe that this is how the goverment of the biggest world power works. With all those gazillions of analysts, SIGINT HUMINT etc. at hand, briefings and what not..

Even more comically and tragic is, that he might just told the truth, and this is truly what happend.

IMHO this is how the neocons influence him: By presenting selective "information", and just like the MSM he falls for it. Be it his family or patriachic instincts or what ever the psychologic motivation:

He admitted that he was influenced by the same MSM methods he claims to fight, and in turn protecting the biggest gathering of international Jihahist in this century against their sure defeat.

MAGA = Make AlQaida Great Again! ;)

AFAIK this is how DJT stopped the funding of the FSA, when he was shown the video of the child the Zenki Jihadists beheaded. So it is not a single decision, but the M.O. of his style of decision making.

Under all that narcissistic, egomanic and sociopathic behaviour seems to be a human being, a quite emotional too. Too bad it seems to care more for single female Jihadists propagandists than for his campaign promise of fighting Jihadists..

Maybe Assads wife should make a undercover visit to DJT? ;)

EDIT: Typos

Pat Lang Mod -> DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , an hour ago
The problem with him is his abysmal ignorance of anything outside the world of business. This makes him vulnerable to nonsense like this.
Pat Lang Mod -> DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , 2 hours ago
What is with the "EDIT:Typos" thingy? We are all plain folk here. Basma Asad? A beautiful, well spoken creature. There is a certain strain of blond Syrian upper class woman who will just knock your socks off. This what Italians call "the thunderbolt." I went to visit one in the Maryland suburbs of DC. A relative asked me to go. She was that type. After she decided I wasn't going to do whatever it was she thought I would want to do she took me out to the garage where there were several big cats; tiger, leopard, puma, etc. in cages. I asked her why. She just shrugged and went back in the house.
mourjou , 3 hours ago
The woman concerned.
Dr Rim Al-Bezem is the president of the eastern chapter of the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS), an organization that provides training, medical equipment and medicine for a country decimated by the war.


From memory, SAMS only ever worked in the rebel-held areas .
And again from memory, she has been economical with the truth, by ignoring the doctors in west Aleppo and inflating the number of people in Aleppo. Yet again from memory, I think it never reached much above 2 million, 1.5 million in the west and 0.5 million in the east.

"Many of the doctors have left the country because they, too, have families. In Aleppo alone, there are 35 doctors left to treat the population of 5 million people," she said.

.

David Solomon , 3 hours ago
Colonel, I really enjoyed this piece. It may not have been intentional on your part, but it brought some joy to my day.

Regards,

David

[Feb 13, 2019] Furious China Accuses US Of Fabricating Threats, Slams Huawei Boycott As Hypocritical And Immoral

Feb 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Furious China Accuses US Of Fabricating Threats, Slams Huawei Boycott As "Hypocritical And Immoral"

by Tyler Durden Wed, 02/13/2019 - 08:15 44 SHARES

The U.S. (and other countries, ahem Canada) have not presented any conclusive evidence that Chinese telecom giant Huawei threatens their national security and are merely stirring fears out of self-interest, a Chinese government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

According to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, Huawei's critics are conjuring up threats and misusing state power to "suppress the legitimate development rights and interests of Chinese enterprises" and are "using political means to intervene in the economy."

Hua continued his slam of the US saying that "all countries should deal with relevant matters in an objective, comprehensive, rational, and correct manner, rather than fabricating excuses of all kinds for one's own pursuit of interest at the cost of others, which is quite hypocritical, immoral, and unfair."

Needless to say, Hua's comments - coming just as US trade negotiators are in Beijing with president Xi unexpectedly set to join the discussions - at a daily briefing were "some of the sharpest yet" in the growing feud over Washington's drive to convince other nations to shut Huawei out of their markets due to national security concerns, Reuters reported.

Huawei - the world's biggest supplier of network gear used by phone and internet companies and the leaders in 5G technology - insists that it is independent and poses no threat to the security of others, but has long been seen by some as a front for spying by the Chinese military or security services. It's also why the United States, Australia, Japan and some other governments have imposed curbs on use of Huawei technology, including smart phones.

US warnings about the risks of Chinese telecom technology come as governments are choosing providers for the rollout of 5G wireless internet, where Huawei is among the global leaders.

Escalating the growing boycott of Chinese telecom, on Tuesday in Poland, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo repeated a warning that the United States may be forced to scale back certain operations in Europe and elsewhere if countries continue to do business with Huawei. Pompeo said the U.S. had strong concerns about Huawei's motives in Europe, especially in NATO and European Union member states, as well as its business practices.

"We've made known the risks that are associated with that, risks to private information of citizens of the country, risks that comes from having that technology installed in network systems," he said.

The US has argued that under Chinese security laws companies such as Huawei or ZTE could be compelled to hand over data or access to Chinese intelligence. However, Hua responded that such concerns were based on provisions of China's national intelligence law that differ little from similar legislation in other countries.

"It is an international practice to maintain national security with legislation and to require organizations and individuals to cooperate with national intelligence work," Hua said.

And, in the angriest retort to Washington yet, Hua accused the US of creating "conspiracy theories" backed by nothing but hearsay, and that lacking solid evidence, the U . S. "keeps making up crimes and churning out various threat theories."

"We believe that this is very hypocritical, unfair and immoral," she said. All nations, Hua said, have an obligation to "abide by the market principle of free and fair competition and truly safeguard the market environment of fairness, justice and non-discrimination."


CatInTheHat , 21 minutes ago link

Doesn't matter what they believe as long as the US dollar is main currency weaponize it whenever possible

US wants back door on China 5G so it can spy more on US citizens and NATO vassal countries

US hasn't caught up with China 5G and lacks innovation to do so .

Pompeo is a horses ***.

popeye , 1 hour ago link

To my knowledge Huawei has not yet been caught hacking sovereign leaders cellphones. Others have, and ....nothing.

Victory_Rossi , 5 hours ago link

"... lacking solid evidence ..." - evidence of what? That Huawei steals and copies technology? I can't be the only current or former Cisco employee here. Anyone remember watching a Huawei router boot a production IOS image? Building 8 in the first floor h/w lab? We rolled the Huawei router over from the TME lab next door? Then the lawsuit and the "settlement"? Trust no one but especially don't trust state controlled Chicoms.

BakedBeans , 5 hours ago link

Thanks, CISCO for all the NSA back doors you conveniently provided, allowing the govt to violate the 4th ammendment.

https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.html

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Victory_Rossi , 5 hours ago link

Hate CSCO, IBM, AAPL, GOOG, AMZN, FB and all the rest. Just don't go crazy and think that the Chicoms (ie: Huawei) are on your side.

AriusArmenian , 4 hours ago link

I don't care as much about Chinese or Russian backdoors (if they exist), I care more about NSA backdoors since I live inside their fraudulent political, economic, and judicial regime that services US elites.

AriusArmenian , 4 hours ago link

The Chinese didn't steal tech, it was sold to them by US elites that made fortunes on it. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame US elites that outsourced US jobs and industry to make a buck (fortunes of bucks).

Read 'The Conspirators' by Al Martin. A hell of a read that has some gems on how Bush's, Clinton's, and others made millions on selling tech to China along with real estate fraud, stock swindles, and running narcotics and weapons. Congress critters were involved along with the CIA, ONI, and US military. It still goes on. They love you going with the fear and hate China narratives.

AriusArmenian , 5 hours ago link

Huawei is the world's leader in 5G technology, but when US elites can't compete they play dirty.

The other problem for the US is that Huawei won't allow NSA backdoors in their equipment. Remember the Snowden revelations about Cisco router order shipments being redirected to be modified for the NSA?

Screw the US Stasi Security State.

AriusArmenian , 4 hours ago link

If you are a US citizen and live in the US and if US elites fraud that is plowing and plundering the american people continues (and nothing suggests the people will stop it) then nothing good will come from whatever elite narrative you decide to follow. US elites made a bundle on outsourcing US jobs and industry to Asia, and now they are still insiders leading the march to fear and hate China and Russia.

Read 'The Conspirators' by Al Martin on the Iran-Contra frauds run by powerful families in the US to get a taste of what they do.

admin user , 5 hours ago link

The U.S. (and other countries, ahem Canada) have not presented any conclusive evidence that Chinese telecom giant Huawei threatens their national security and are merely stirring fears out of self-interest, a Chinese government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

I have to agree. Everything I needed to know about American perfidy, I learned from Edward Snowden.

AriusArmenian , 4 hours ago link

The US elites in Congress passed the laws to outsource US jobs and industry to Asia. They were insiders that made fortunes on it. Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband are examples. Now that the pickings are getting slim and China is going its own way those same elites are beating the drum about the dangerous China (and Russia) and are rolling out Cold War v2.

So I agree with you but do not blame Asia for what was offered to them on a silver platter. But I cannot agree with blocking all products from China which would result in price inflation in the US on steroids. The cost of living (especially for the young) would drive many into poverty. The US economy would crater into depression. So what to do? There are two direction: (1) do as the US is currently doing: spend more on its military and cyber weapons and threaten, bomb, kill to get other countries to let US corporations enter and dominate, or (2) cut US military spending by 60%+ and plow money into the US infrastructure and people.

It's one or the other and US elites