The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world
Patrick Cockburn | @indyworld |
Nationalism in different shapes and forms is powerfully transforming the politics of the
British Isles, a development that gathered pace over the last five years and culminated in the
general election this month.
National identities and the relationship between England, Scotland and Ireland are changing
more radically than at any time over the last century. It is worth looking at the British
archipelago as a whole on this issue because of the closely-meshed political relationship of
its constituent nations. Some of these developments are highly visible such as the rise of the
Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to permanent political dominance in Scotland in the three
general elections since the independence referendum in 2014.
Other changes are important but little commented on, such as the enhanced national
independence and political influence of the Republic of Ireland over the British Isles as a
continuing member of the EU as the UK leaves. Dublin's greater leverage when backed by the
other 26 EU states was repeatedly demonstrated, often to the surprise and dismay of London, in
the course of the negotiations in Brussels over the terms of the British withdrawal.
Northern Ireland saw more nationalist than unionist MPs elected in the general election for
the first time since 1921. This is important because it is a further sign of the political
impact of demographic change whereby Catholics/nationalists become the new majority and the
Protestants/unionists the minority. The contemptuous ease with which Boris Johnson abandoned
his ultra-unionist pledges to the DUP and accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea separating
Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain shows how little loyalty the Conservatives feel
towards the northern unionists and their distinct and abrasive brand of British
nationalism.
These developments affecting four of the main national communities inhabiting the British
Isles – Irish, nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, Scots – are easy to
track. Welsh nationalism is a lesser force. Much more difficult to trace and explain is the
rise of English nationalism because it is much more inchoate than these other types of
nationalism, has no programme, and is directly represented by no political party – though
the Conservative Party has moved in that direction.
The driving force behind Brexit was always a certain type of English nationalism which did
not lose its power to persuade despite being incoherent and little understood by its critics
and supporters alike. In some respects, it deployed the rhetoric of any national community
seeking self-determination. The famous Brexiteer slogan "take back control" is not that
different in its implications from Sinn Fein – "Ourselves Alone" – though neither
movement would relish the analogy.
The great power of the pro-Brexit movement, never really taken on board by its opponents,
was to blame the very real sense of disempowerment and social grievances felt by a large part
of the English population on Brussels and the EU. This may have been scapegoating on a
grandiose scale, but nationalist movements the world over have targeted some foreign body
abroad or national minority at home as the source of their ills. I asked one former Leave
councillor – one of the few people I met who changed their mind on the issue after the
referendum in 2016 – why people living in her deprived ward held the EU responsible for
their poverty. Her reply cut through many more sophisticated explanations: "I suppose that it
is always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner."
Applying life lessons to the pursuit of national happiness The Tories won't get far once
progressives join forces 22,000 EU nationals have left NHS since Brexit vote, figures show This
crude summary of the motives of many Leave voters has truth in it, but it is a mistake to
caricature English nationalism as simply a toxic blend of xenophobia, racism, imperial
nostalgia and overheated war memories. In the three years since the referendum the very act of
voting for Brexit became part of many people's national identity, a desire to break free,
kicking back against an overmighty bureaucracy and repelling attempts by the beneficiaries of
globalisation to reverse a democratic vote.
The political left in most countries is bad at dealing with nationalism and the pursuit of
self-determination. It sees these as a diversion from identifying and attacking the real
perpetrators of social and economic injustice. It views nationalists as mistakenly or malignly
aiming at the wrong target – usually foreigners – and letting the domestic ones off
the hook.
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world. It can only be ignored at great political cost, as the Labour Party has just found out
to its cost for the fifth time (two referendums and three elections). What Labour should have
done was early on take over the slogan "take back control" and seek to show that they were
better able to deliver this than the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. There is no compelling
reason why achieving such national demands should be a monopoly of the right. But in 2016, 2017
and 2019 Labour made the same mistake of trying to wriggle around Brexit as the prime issue
facing the English nation without taking a firm position, an evasion that discredited it with
both Remainers and Leavers.
Curiously, the political establishment made much the same mistake as Labour in
underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of English nationalism. Up to the financial
crisis of 2008 globalisation had been sold as a beneficial and inevitable historic process.
Nationalism was old hat and national loyalties were supposedly on the wane. To the British
political class, the EU obviously enhanced the political and economic strength of its national
members. As beneficiaries of the status quo, they were blind to the fact that much of the
country had failed to gain from these good things and felt marginalised and forgotten.
The advocates of supra-national organisations since the mediaeval papacy have been making
such arguments and have usually been perplexed why they fail to stick. They fail to understand
the strength of nationalism or religion in providing a sense of communal solidarity, even if it
is based on dreams and illusions, that provides a vehicle for deeply felt needs and grievances.
Arguments based on simple profit and loss usually lose out against such rivals.
Minervo , 1 day ago
Bigger by far are two forces which really do have control over our country -- the
international NATO warmongers but even more so, the international banksters of the finance
industry.
Why no 'leftist' campaign to Take Back Control of our money? Gordon Brown baled out the
banks when they should have gone bankrupt and been nationalised.
Blair is forever tainted with his ill-fated Attack on Iraq. Surely New Liberals or
Democrats or Socialists would want to lock down on that fiasco?
The Nationalism of taking back control could be a leftist project too.
The latest monthly indicators of economic activity in Japan, the Eurozone and Britain do
not make pleasant reading.
Japan's December manufacturing sector PMI, as it is called, fell to 48.8 from 48.9 in
November. Anything below 50 indicates a contraction. The services sector, however, picked
up slightly to 50.6 from 50.3. So the overall 'composite' PMI was unchanged at 49.8. That
means Japan is in recession (just).
The Eurozone manufacturing PMI slipped to 45.9, the lowest since October 2012 and
employment also fell at the fastest pace for more than seven years. New orders declined for
a fifteenth successive month, while input prices continued to fall sharply. The sector was
driven down mainly by Germany, where the manufacturing PMI hit 43.4, falling for the 12th
straight month.
However, as in Japan, there was a slight pick-up in the services sector, where Eurozone
PMI reached 52.4 from 51.9 in November. So the overall 'composite' PMI stood unchanged at
50.6. In effect, the Eurozone economy is standing still.
In the UK, the manufacturing sector took another dive to 47.4 (a sharp contraction).
Output fell the most since July 2012. The services sector was also down to 49.0, making the
overall composite PMI in negative territory at 48.5 - the deepest contraction since July
2016. The UK is in recession - but maybe the Conservative government election victory and
the ending of uncertainty over Brexit (the UK will now definitely leave the EU in 2020) may
encourage a recovery.
In sum, as we end 2019, Japan, the Eurozone and the UK are in recession or
stagnation.
Long story short: the EU is only not in outright recession because the "services sector"
(gig economy) is compensating for the collapse of its manufacturing sector - for now.
And no, the UK won't become "Singapore upon the Thames".
Despite the latest Sino-American phase one deal to ease tensions over trade, one former top
US official is now calling for a decoupling between both economies, reported the
South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Former US ambassador to India Ashley Tellis explains in a new book titled Strategic Asia
2020: US-China Competition for Global Influence -- that the world's two largest economies have
entered a new period of sustained competition.
Tellis said Washington had developed a view that "China is today and will be for the
foreseeable future the principal challenger to the US."
"The US quest for a partnership with China was fated to fail once China's growth in economic
capabilities was gradually matched by its rising military power," he said.
Tellis said Washington must resume its ability to support the liberal international order
established by the US more than a half-century ago, and "provide the global public goods that
bestow legitimacy upon its primacy and strengthen its power-projection capabilities to protect
its allies and friends."
He said this approach would require more strategic cooperation with allies such as
Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
"The US should use coordinated action with allies to confront China's trade malpractices
should pursue targeted decoupling of the US and Chinese economies, mainly in order to protect
its defense capabilities rather than seeking a comprehensive rupture."
The latest phase one deal between both countries is a temporary trade truce -- likely to be
broken as a strategic rivalry encompasses trade, technology, investment, currency, and
geopolitical concerns will continue to strain relations in the early 2020s.
A much greater decoupling could be dead ahead and likely to intensify over time, as it's
already occurring in the technology sector.
Tellis said President Trump labeling China as a strategic
competitor was one of "the most important changes in US-China relations."
The decoupling has already started as Washington races to safeguard the country's
cutting-edge technologies, including 5G, automation, artificial intelligence, autonomous
vehicle, hypersonics, and robotics, from getting into the hands of Chinese firms.
A perfect example of this is blacklisting Huawei and other Chinese technology firms from
buying US semiconductor components.
Liu Weidong, a US affairs specialist from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told SCMP
that increased protectionism among Washington lawmakers suggests the decoupling trend between
both countries is far from over.
The broader shift at play is that decoupling will result in de-globalization ,
economic and financial fragmentation, and disruption of complex supply chains.
Editor's Note: Last month, Foreign Policy ran an article, "Open Borders Are a
Trillion-Dollar Idea," which advocated for Open Borders. So for all those who say, "Oh, no
one supports Open Borders," here it is in writing! Every point made by author Bryan Caplan,
an economics professor, is refutable, and, while the piece is long, we believe it's important
"for the record" to counter all of his points.
As I first read Bryan Caplan's "Open Borders Are a Trillion-Dollar Idea" in Foreign
Policy, besides disbelief, my thoughts were that this person must not get out much or must
not read much. A quote from writer Upton Sinclair came to mind as well: "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/open-borders-trillion-dollar-mistake/
Re Bill Mitchell–his theme is that the Labour disaster is all due to the failure of
the party to follow their working class base–if that is their base–and support
Brexit. I believe that was Clive's theme as well. This is definitely not my topic but any
Remainers care to rebut?
It is interesting how the situation in Britain seems to mirror the political situation
here and the dilemma of the Dems–aka our Blairites. People like Hillary denounce the
deplorables and Obama calls them bitter clingers but these verbal targets were once the
backbone of a party that stood in opposition to the party of the bankers and finance.
The problen for the DemoRats is that their new, hoped for diversity base isn't large
enough to replace the former great unwashed base. Perhaps that's Labour's problem too. We
have a party of the people whose leaders are (in secret when not in public) batting for the
other team.
All polls indicated that around 40% of Labour supporters were Brexiters, 60% Remainers (of
course the intensity of support might be different). Those were mostly the older working
class 'old Labour' types along with some ideological left wingers. Doing what Mitchell
suggested would certainly have shored up Labours working class bases. It would also have lost
Labour its base in the major metropolitan areas and most voters under 40. In short, it would
have been politically suicidal.
In the months after the referndum, people like Owen Jones tried to convince the Remainer
Labourites that they had to accept the result of the referendum and fight for the "softest"
Brexit possible (I remember because he was bringing that up in his post-mortems after the
election). And of course, most Remainers were having none of it. They came up with "The
People's Vote" and eventually Jones and the rest of the Labour bigwigs got on board.
But objectively, Brexit will be, and can only be, a disaster for Britain and most
pro-Brexit voters are badly misinformed, so what were Labour leaders supposed to do?
It looks undemocratic to stop people from shooting themselves (and you too!) in the foot, but
are you supposed to just let them pull the trigger?
The constituency where I canvassed, the divide was very clearly generational – the
old were Tory, the young were Labour or Libdem. It was very stark. I have not seen any
national data on this – has anyone else?
Yep, chechout the 3rd chart on this post. Very generational split moving from Labour to
Tories with age. 18-24 yos voted 19% Tory, 67% Labour, and it virtually reversed when looking
at 65yo+ which voted 62% Tory, 18% Labour, with an almost linear movement inbetween. I think
someone linked to this a few days ago
> Doing what Mitchell suggested would certainly have shored up Labours working class
bases. It would also have lost Labour its base in the major metropolitan areas and most
voters under 40. In short, it would have been politically suicidal.
I would say that what Labour ended up doing was suicidal, quite evidently. Labour (and
Corybn's) problem was existential, the fractured base (not merely by age, but geographically
and by class) bequeathed to them by Blair. I would say that Mitchell's proposal is not like
suicide, but like an animal caught in a trap chewing off a leg to escape -- the leg, in this
case, being PLP. Of course, if Labour wants to be the party of London professionals, that's
fine, but rebranding from "Labour" might be in order.
Richard North has been running some interesting material recently, including today,
raising the question to what extent the traditional working class still exists in England in
the sense it was once understood. I have no real insights into what is clearly a very large
topic but I found todays piece especially interesting.
I am doubtful Labour wants to be the party only of London professionals – there are
far too few of them to win elections. At present it is clearly the party of the young. Any
strategy for its future needs to take this into account. Although I am old myself I know a
fair number of the young in the UK through my children and their friends. They are having a
very hard time of it as their jobs are very insecure and their prospects of owning their own
homes/better quality housing are far poorer than those enjoyed by the boomers. They also face
a high risk of being made redundant at 40.
Rather than a class-based analysis of UK politics I wonder if a generational analysis
– boomers v the rest – would not be more fruitful at present. Though of course
you can see this as a rich/old versus young/poor struggle.
Labour lost biggest among the pensioners, who by definition, are not labouring. The reason
they lost all those Northern towns was that they had so many pensioners.
Doing deliveries on a bicycle, teaching children, and keeping the elderly alive,
meanwhile, are all labour, even if they don't take place in a factory or a mine. Certainly
not "professional" in the traditional sense.
Labour's error was failing to build a legacy media operation (print, TV, radio) to reach
the pensioners, and not turning out the younger vote.
The Blairites foisted the U-turn on Brexit onto the party when most of the seats it held
in the old parliament, and most of the seats it needed to win, voted leave. Now the Blairites
are hypocritically blaming Corbyn for the result of their own policy. The election loss was
exactly what they wanted: Corbyn out of the way and Britain 'safe' for neo-liberalism.
BigB ,
31 mn people voted to extend the consensual mandate of the neoliberal capitalist state to
globally expand, extract and expropriate planetary wealth for themselves. Unconsciously:
without any consideration of the consequences. Now, nearly 11 mn of them want to pretend they
were duped into this because two films did not get released? Can there be a more deluded
abdication of self-responsibility? Without any inherent maturity at all: it's hard to see
where UK politic goes from here? What is the deepest spot a mile below the nadir? The
'People's Government' of Boris Johnson we co-constituted the reality of last week?
The election was for a successor capitalist imperialist state: the capitalist imperialist
state was duly elected. No one – no one – can then abdicate responsibility to say
it was the "wrong capitalist state". If people do not like this process – and it is the
most debilitating, dehumanising, and destructive of all processes – then it is their
social responsibility to at least explore the possibility of finding another process. In the
co-creation of superior/inferior status and co-determination of the master/slave dialectic
– we volunteer to choose position of the inferior and the enslaved. Then spend the
consensual contract term complaining about the subordinant class politics we voted for.
Projecting blame scattergun everywhere but where the blame is due: with the voters and
endorsers of globalised neoliberal capitalism.
Is no one else getting bored of this? Not just the embarassment of excuses we can find for
our own self-inferiorisation and voluntary infantalisation: but the fact that no one will
make a positive assessment of how to break this vortex cycle of self-defeatism and
performative powerlessness so we never have to go through the same charade again? Which, no
doubt we will in five years time. Unless we take it on the chin: and fess up to what we have
created as a social reality the Trump/Johnson axis of world power.
If this below and beyond the low point cannot act as a bifurcation point – whereby
we totally reject the state electoral inferiorisation process – I do not know what can.
It is unlikely there will be much left to reclaim in five years: much less so in ten. If we
cannot claim humanity and ecology back from neoliberal globalisation in the next few years
well, it ain't going to be pretty.
A good starting point would be to admit the corruption of the entire state electoral
process of inferiorisation: and take co-responsibility for our part in the election of
Johnson. Then the avowal never to do it again and take the legislative and judicial power we
abdicated back. Which is the socially responsible alternative to the drawnout emetic debrief
that seems to be favoured.
GEOFF ,
Great point BigB I think you're wasting your time they don't care what happens here so long
as they're out of the EU that is all that matters to them. I'm so happy I don't have any
grandchildren, although I fear for those that have, so sad all done in the name of getting
our country back, I wonder how they will feel if farage gets some kind of peerage, you know
the one that has been fighting the elites, and celebrating his birthday at the Ritz owned by
those two socially aware brothers barclay , ha ha ha ha .
smelly ,
We have the very few, the few, and the serfs. The politics of the world is driven by the
Economics of the very few. The very few have created for themselves a feudal system, its
informal, its hidden, but its highly functional and it accounts in large measure for the
global atrocities.
The chiefs (a very few) distribute to the feudal lords(the few) in a variety of ways.
1. direct government contracts
2. privatize the assets and government services that remain after regime change or infra
structure destruction of economic value from regime sex corrupted, blackmailed, regime
changed or defeated nation states and or from sweetheart deals in corporate takeovers.
3. appointment to and assignment to intelligence, or high level diplomatic positions in
defeated entities.
4. promotion to USA congress or the USA presidency or to a high level corporate job.
5. control of access of the goy to education, entry level jobs leading to the knowledge to be
promoted, to bank loans, to houses in neighborhoods, to medical care, and to a massive
variety of other things. They are all in on it together.
6. many others
The tools of the trade are coercion by any means available to include sex, blackmail, spy
technology, war machinery, military, intelligence, private armies, dark money and money
laundering operations to name but a few.
Dependency : it is
This is no longer a problem bounded by one nation, it has become a problem important to the
liberties and freedoms and the station of status of person in the society, membership in
clubs, obtaining credentials to be eligible for licenses (law, medicine, home building,
contracting, service provider, and everything else). License is a huge gate used to keep the
Goya
What Bexit has shown is that there is not a bit of difference between those governed by
any of the nation governments of any kind(they are controlled by the same few), we are just
the Goy or as Hilary Clinton puts it: the deplorables. No longer should we look at ourselves
as citizens of Britain, or Citizens of the United States, or citizens of France, or citizens
of Saudi Arabia, or citizens of Israel, or citizens of Libya, or whatever, we must recognize
that it is the many vs the few . from here on out. We must not identify and expose all of the
ways nation state leaders use or allows others to use information to control our behaviors
and to dictate our rights.
We must help each other no matter or sex, language, religion or nationality because they
have made us all one, but trying to control our lives from birth to death and by trying to
use us, at our expense, for their purposes.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Professor Emeritus Vilfredo Pareto outlined the empirical skew of wealth transfer for 'the
few' as a function of culture whereby all have the same or similar wealth distribution.
Post-Lehman evidenced the wholesale destruction that empirical skew manifested on the Western
Banking System & concomitant ruling oiligopoly.
Empirically, the Western Fractional Reserve Banking System has crashed outright to
reveal
even greater skew after all the M&A post-Lehman debacle. In terms of wealth distribution
we are now in what Professor Emeritus Minsky characterized as Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism.
Amazon & Bezos are transnational, leveraged like a Hedge Fund, and a monopoly that was
legislated against during the 30s in the USA.
Today, in contemporary totalitarian society we are fed a daily diet of pseudoscience &
half-baked so-called 'truths' that serve to mask the lies & falsehood.
What is evidently true today is that the empirical skew of wealth has become a matter of
superstructural fault where the tectonic plates of sovereign nations are bound to give us all
degrees of continental shift in contradistinction to the empirical skew of wealth transfer
which is by no means immoveable.
Like gravity, what goes up must come down. Wealth hoarding sub-groups of elite will have
nowhere to hide when the avalanche cascades on top of them without notice before hand.
Six Sigma extinction level events exist for all empirical distributions given the right
conditions.
MOU
BigB ,
The other problem with 'the Few' analysis I have been trying to highlight is that we are in
it the Few that is. In terms of per capita mass aggregate consumption/pollution rates –
93% of us in the UK are in 'the Few'. Which holds for a rough Pareto Principle (80/20): we
are among the top 20% of consumers responsible for 70% of the lifestyle consumption emissions
[Anderson; LabourGND; Oxfam]. Which amounts to 28,000 tonnes per capita of aggregate material
flows: against a global average of 7,000 tonnes [Hickel]. In global consumption/pollution
terms: we are among the "wealth hoarding sub-groups of [the] elite" of the mass material
consumption bourgeoisie.
There are unfair distributions: and inequitable distributions between the haute
bourgeoisie and we in the bourgeoisie. But the greatest inequitable maldistribution is North
to South: where the poorest 50% of the global population are limited – by being
resource cursed and having to subsidise us – to 10% of lifestyle consumption emissions.
If you can call it a lifestyle; a consumer lifestyle; or a profligate pollution problem which
is doubtful? And it current rates of wealth redistribution: it will be 200-900 years before
they are out of poverty.
As for 'wealth hoarding sub-groups': we in the UK voted to extend the amount of mass
material material aggregate demand. Which is complex: because UK rates have been falling but
only because of the service economy. Rates of industrialisation and resource extractivism are
effectively exported. Global demand rises: and so must global supply. Our consumption
fetishism is driving global capitalism. Not solely: the whole of the developed world is.
It is this material economy that acts as a baseline – of sorts – for the
overfinancialised derivative, arbitrage, and highly leveraged stocks, bonds, and equities and
any other exotic financial instruments that can be gambled on. A market that is roughly 75
times the size of the material 'real' productive economy. The market that is likely being
subsidised by the repo- and other 'not QE' hypertrophic liquidity supplements. The market
that is going to collapse when the anabolic steroid effect fails to maintain exponential
growth. Professor Minsky will have his moment!
Whereupon the UK will quickly realise that it is a pissling little island in a sea of
globalisation. With an 80% tertiarised service economy. Servicing an extinct financial market
economy. With failing services and no food coming in from abroad. Or medicines. Or water
purification products. And possibly no energy. But we will have 60,000 military and
paramilitary police to uphold the private property rights of the haute bourgeoisie.
Maybe then we will see and feel what it is like for the rest of the world? Who we have
only ever viewed as subsidisers of our wealth? Just as we subsidise the wealth of those we
choose to be subordinate to. It's a shitty, shitty, system which the UK has done not too
badly out of. Well, enough for us to never look from the outside in through the eyes of a
Frantz Fannon: and try to change the system for a globally more equitable system free from
our white privileged ethnosupremacist racism.
We got the government we deserved – and voted for. And we await the fate of collapse
we deserve – and voted for. As John Michael Greer said: the UK is rushing to collapse
early to avoid the disappointment in the rush. We live in a complete fantasy bubble of a
post-Empire state of mind. As if other – dehumanised foreign – people and the
holistic integrity of the biosphere did not exist. Well, thanks to our lifestyle choices,
they may not for much longer. But the only thing that has perturbed our reserved compassion
and indifferent inhumanity is our election of a Johnson government. Well, that is an
indignity! But not even a fraction of an indignity that we are quite happy to violently
impose on the rest of the world. But let us pretend and console ourselves it would have been
a utopia if they had not held back those films.
Dungroanin ,
"We don't have to join too many dots to see why a discussion about Wikileaks, war crimes in
Iraq, and OPCW crimes in Syria was something the Tories didn't need,"
They also didn't need the Intelligence report of 'Russian' influence in their party and
government; the direct threat made by Pompeo to stop Labour, the deal which they have been
negotiating with the US which confirms the NHS is part of it amongst many other things
– as was confirmed by their Ambassador Woody (Of Johnson&Johnson fame who stand to
benefit hughy) ;the dangerous levels of capacity in the NHS; etc etc etc.
Anyway the Graun is claiming to run a ask us a question about the election now on their
blog – I've asked mine but am not holding my breath for an answer.
tonyopmoc ,
David Macilwain usually writes far better than this. In fact 90% of this, is the same sort of
nonsense, he has apparently been brainwashed with, by reading the Guardian et al.
He displays his own ignorance and arrogance, by yet again telling over 50% of The British
voting public that we didn't know what we were voting for re Brexit.
"not least because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in
complete ignorance of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing
prejudices."
He analysed Skripal very well. This is total crap.
Tony
JudyJ ,
As soon as UK based Russian oligarchs are mentioned the presumption of many –
encouraged by Western media – is that they must be 'friends' of Putin or have 'close
connections' to him. In fact, in respect of most of them, it is exactly the opposite. They
are based in London precisely because the UK establishment doesn't clamp down on tax dodging
and corrupt business dealings as Putin has done since the beginning of his Presidential
tenures. Corrupt business owners donations to parties in power? Hmm, I wonder why it is that
they are given every encouragement and incentive to settle in London undisturbed?
This article is wrong to imply/assume that Brexiters/Lexiters didn't know what they were
voting for. Wrong to suggest/assume we did/do not have a strategy to try to help leave the
EU. Wrong to assume we are racist and/or stupid. Of course there are a few exceptions but on
the whole people know the score and we love the individual, distinct European countries; we
just despise the imperial, uber-technocratic, ultimately anti-democratic superstate that is
the EU.
See UK Column & similar websites, and the archive of Tony Benn/Barbara Castle/Peter
Shore/Bob Crow (on the reasons for disliking the EEC/EU/Maastrict & Lisbon Treaties etc)
for why so many people voted to leave the EU. I reckon when the options on who to vote for
were purposely limited by the LP (in the last few months after JC was forced to go along with
the PLP) and TBP (after Farage made a deal with Trump/Boris) many Brexiters (and a few
Lexiters?) were forced to vote for the Tories to give a message to the establishment? I am
guessing they thought the election would result in a hung parliament with the tories having
to ally with the DUP again.
Imo – I have a strong suspicion that the real result was a very close result (hung
parliament) and that the establishment using the secret services helped in some way to
engineer this landslide result (probably through postal ballot rigging). On the day of the
election many people observed and commented on the huge queues in the poll stations and
seeing so many young people voting like never before (including many photos on social media).
The result does not seem plausible and the status quo has/had so much to lose.
Incidentally, and this is obviously anecdotal but in my household (and as far as I know)
all my friends voted Labour or stayed at home (we are mostly Lexiters, don't-knows, and a
couple Brexiters) and only know quite well of two openlyTory voters (at my partners'
workplace). On the other hand, I do know my local area (which has been impoverished since the
Thatcher years) is a heavy leave-voting area and I reckon most people here lend their vote to
Tories for strategic reasons (I know a neighbour who wants the Tories to 'own' Brexit knowing
full well they will renege on all their promises and not just the Brexit promise – they
think Boris is a fake and wants to BRINO or, ultimately, even to remain).
I can only state what I observe and hear around me, and what I saw on social media during
the election, but I do know people are so much more informed than the establishment/media
would like to admit.
Francis Lee ,
I was shocked, yes shocked, to see the type sentiments espoused below.
"No-one could seriously believe that Brexit is something the ruling elite has pursued
because it respects the so-called democratic will of the British public – not least
because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in complete ignorance
of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing prejudices.
That could have come from the mouth Jo Swinson, the Economist, the Guardian or any other
ultra-remainer rag.
It gets better, or worse depending on your point of view.
"Had the Government not had an interest in restructuring its relationship with the US and
NATO, and seen political and economic gains – well illustrated by the jump in the value
of Sterling following the result – then the idea of Brexit would just have quietly died
away."
Yep, it's those damn proles who voted for Brexit again and "did so in complete ignorance
of what that might mean and because of their own long-standing predudices." But of course!
Time to rethink the idea of universal suffrage perhaps. Actually those sort of sentiments
(see above) are precisely why Labour lost the election so heavily.
The point seems to be missed that euroland is an occupied zone and has been zone since
1945 – it is a neoliberal juggernaut and junior partner in the geopolitical global
order. In addition it is the civilian wing of NATO, another American construction. It is
based upon a core-periphery economic structure and upon a currency which locks its members
into a neoliberal straight-jacket, and since they cannot devalue the core runs up trade
surpluses whilst to periphery runs up permanent trade deficits. The euro currency is designed
to do precisely this. Moreover the Stability and growth pact robs states of their ability to
have an independent foreign and economic policy. The eastern and southern peripheries are
little more than colonies. Printing their own currencies – God forbid – is
strictly verboten, so that they cannot and will not recover. Taking Italy 137% of debt-to-gdp
ratio and Greece with a staggering 181% of debt-to-gdp you will get a pretty good picture of
what is happening in Euroland.
It really don't know why I have to explain all of this, particularly in light of the fact
that Corbyn himself has always been a eurosceptic, along with other notables such as Benn
(Sr.) Bryan Gould, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle, that was a unlike the present time when
Labour was Labour.
I think the Labour party has now gone to far to reverse course; it has become an
anachronism, and a neo-Blairite – ultra-remainer – is party now taking shape.
GEOFF ,
I've no idea why you keep going on about the EU , you got your way, we're leaving forget it,
lets see how good it's going to be in this shithole without some protection from the EU , why
do none of you address that, the slob has already started with his refusal to include workers
rights, the fat slob says we can have better employment protection once we leave ha ha ha ha
ha ha whats been stopping him from doing it for the last 40 years ? nothing. everyone is
entitled to their view obviously and I respect it, but you just shut us out as if your
opinion is all that matters, I would suggest 80% of those that voted leave know absolutely
nothing about the EU, I arrive at that by talking incessantly to people, who think they're
clued up and when you start pointing faults with their argument, you get the usual ' hey mate
I've only come in for a pint'
Francis Lee ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=But+we+haven%26%238217%3Bt+left+it.+And+there+is+g...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F20%2Fofficial-secrets-lies-and-the-five-eyes%2F%23comment-107077">
But we haven't left it. And there is good reason to suppose that we never will. A BRINO is
being cooked up by a coalition of the usual suspects whose object is to end the existence of
the UK as an independent nation state and turn it into a province of a European super-state.
We will be voting – if at all – in the equivalent of local government or council
elections with decisions, with economic and geopolitical issues being decided by non-elected
technicians and bureaucrats.
Democracy is only meaningful at the national level. Democracy and Empire (the EU) or
should I say the EUSA, do not mix. Even Thucydides knew this.
GEOFF ,
But that happens here without the EU there are two pricks zac goldsmith and morgan, both been
rejected by the electorate , both been given a place in the H.O.L £305 a day , totally
unelcted but there to make our laws and you still won't see i twill you
Cassandra2 ,
Very much agree, I don't trust Boris to effect a clean break.
I generally trust my instincts like most normal plebs, but since the Lisbon Treaty Europe
has consolidate Federalisation, far removed from the original concept and principles of a
Common Market and my instincts prompted a closer look.
Delving deeper, an easy process given internet access, one discovers a cesspit of
deception. European Union is in reality the successor to the (totalitarian) Third Reich.
Refer to Christopher Story's YouTube 3 part lecture on the subject. EU was planned in 1942 by
a German social elite hierarchy in the likely event of Hitlers defeat. Key members of this
hierarchy were transferred (operation paperclip) to USA at the end of the war and were
integrated into a form of 5th column governing elite (power behind Deep State) who have since
1946 systematically hollowed the out the USA by undermining it's production base (excluding
military hardware production) and displacing economic investment through reckless
speculation/manipulation and perpetual global warfare.
Other than filling the Elites multi-trillion banking chest USA's resources and manpower
(Military & Intelligence) have been utilised to construct a global platform for imposing
a 'New World Order'. Europe's homogenization simply forms an essential part of this
ambition.
Given a cursory (pleb) assessment of Europe's widespread corruption, undemocratic
structure and it's true strategic purpose I cannot help but feel that those who voted
'remain' have had their critical faculties effectively lobotomized by Elite owned State MASS
INDOCTRINATION i.e. BBC et al.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Goldman Sachs engineered the entire EU finance by first fudging the books on Greece. The
whole edifice was built upon a shifting substrate of sand.
Castles made of sand float into the sea, eventually. Jimi Hendrix Axis Bold as Love
MOU
Francis Lee ,
"NOBODY voted for a HARD brexit onto WTO rules and the country should have been asked very
specifically if that is what the mythical 17 Million wanted."
'Nobody voted for a hard -Brexit.' Really!
How come you are privy to this "information?" It would be amusing to see you trying to
substantiate this statement.
And as for the 'mythical 17 million' (17.2 million actually) 'well, yes that must have
been a mirage; it didn't happen.
Strange times in which we live when conjecture is treated as if it were fact. Yep, that is
one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset. In his marvellous essay, 'Notes on
Nationalism' Orwell captures this frame of mind perfectly. He writes:
"By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be
classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people'
(Leave voters by any chance?) "can be labelled 'good' or 'bad' But secondly (and this is much
more important) I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a particular nation, political
party, religious group or even football team, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising
no other duty than that of advancing its interests" (Remainers perhaps?)
Moreover, "although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat or revenge, the
nationalist is somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to
feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do
this off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether or not they support his
views Arguments with his adversaries are always inconclusive since each of the contestants
believe themselves always right and always winning the victory (in the sight of God
anyway).
Some of the true believers are not far from clinical schizophrenia, living quite happily
amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world."
Sadly true.
Dungroanin ,
WE will NOT let YOU forget the VoteLEAVE bs. Paul & co.
Here is Vote Leave NOT saying we are going onto WTO rules:
'The day after nothing changes legally. There is no legal obligation on the British
Government to take Britain out of the EU immediately. There will be three stages of creating
a new UK-EU deal – informal negotiations, formal negotiations, and implementation
including both a new Treaty and domestic legal changes. There is no need to rush. We must
take our time and get it right.
WHAT'S THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK WE NEED?
Overall, the negotiations will create a new European institutional architecture that
enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in
a friendly way. In particular, we will negotiate a UK-EU Treaty that enables us 1) to
continue cooperating in many areas just as now (e.g. maritime surveillance), 2) to deepen
cooperation in some areas (e.g. scientific collaborations and counter-terrorism), and 3) to
continue free trade with minimal bureaucracy. The details will have to await a serious
negotiation but there are many agreements between the EU and other countries that already
solve these problems so we will be able to take a lot 'off the shelf'.'
Etc. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
AND HERE IS FACT CHECK
'As far as we've seen, Leave campaigners hardly mentioned the customs union in explicit
terms at all, so there was generally little clarity about what leaving might mean in that
regard.'
&
'There are also examples of leave campaigners claiming the UK could adopt a position similar
to Norway -- which is still part of the single market while not being an EU member.
Arron Banks, a founder of the Leave.EU campaign tweeted in November 2015 "Increasingly the
Norway option looks the best for the UK".'
This article has clarified the main targets for the globalists but where do you think
Brexit stands in their agenda, do they want out of the EU or not? I am confused which side is
in favour of freedom and liberty and which one wants global centralised command and
control.
BEIJING, Dec. 21 (Xinhua) -- The
phase-one economic and trade deal between China and the United States benefits both sides and
the whole world, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Friday.
In a phone conversation with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, Xi noted that the two
countries have reached the phase-one agreement on the basis of the principle of equality and
mutual respect.
Against the backdrop of an extremely complicated international environment, the agreement
benefits China, the United States, as well as peace and prosperity of the whole world, Xi
said.
For his part, Trump said that the phase-one economic and trade agreement reached between
China and the United States is good for the two countries and the whole world.
Noting that both countries' markets and the world have responded very positively to the
agreement, Trump said that the United States is willing to maintain close communication with
China and strive for the signing and implementation of the agreement at an early date.
Xi stressed that the economic and trade cooperation between China and the United States has
made significant contributions to the stability and development of China-U.S. relations and the
advancement of the world economy.
Modern economy and modern technologies have integrated the world as a whole, thus making the
interests of China and the United States more intertwined with each other, Xi said, adding that
the two sides will experience some differences in cooperation.
As long as both sides keep holding the mainstream of China-U.S. economic and trade
cooperation featuring mutual benefits and win-win outcomes, and always respect each other's
national dignity, sovereignty and core interests, they will overcome difficulties on the way of
progress, and push forward their economic and trade relations under the new historical
conditions, so as to benefit the two countries and peoples, Xi said.
China expresses serious concerns over the U.S. side's recent negative words and actions on
issues related to China's Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, Xi said.
He noted that the U.S. behaviors have interfered in China's internal affairs and harmed
China's interests, which is detrimental to the mutual trust and bilateral cooperation.
China hopes that the United States will seriously implement the important consensuses
reached by the two leaders over various meetings and phone conversations, pay high attention
and attach great importance to China's concerns, and prevent bilateral relations and important
agendas from being disturbed, Xi said.
Trump said he is looking forward to maintaining regular communication with Xi by various
means, adding he is confident that both countries can properly handle differences, and
U.S.-China relations can maintain smooth development.
Xi said he is willing to maintain contacts with Trump by various means, exchange views over
bilateral relations and international affairs, and jointly promote China-U.S. relations on the
basis of coordination, cooperation and stability.
The two heads of state also exchanged views on the situation of the Korean Peninsula. Xi
stressed that it is imperative to stick to the general direction of a political settlement,
saying all parties should meet each other halfway, and maintain dialogue and momentum for the
mitigation of the situation, which is in the common interests of all.
If true this china capitulation. Or some shrewd tactical maneuver, as the next year it is
China who hold trump cards -- it can derail Trump re-election with ease.
I have my doubts about Trump being the Grand Dealmaker he calls himself. Looking at seven
bankruptcies as a proof of that ... mythical skill I don't find much. I recall Trump suing the
Deutsche Bank after the bank wanted a credit back. His lawyers in court referred to the bank
crisis, called the Deutsche Bank as a bank responsible for that and said that thus they don't
deserve repayment. that was Chutzpah in the First Degree, For very obvious reasons Trump lost
that case and did pay back.
When Trunmp recently went on searching lawyers to work and sue for him he didn't find any. A
big corp lawyer anonymously briefly explained why: "Doesn't pay. Doesn't listen.'
A US-China trade deal was announced to chaotic fanfare late Friday Asian time – and we
are sceptical. First, we still don't have details other than that December tariffs were
postponed by both sides, the 15% US tariffs imposed on 1 September are to be reduced to 7.5% as
a sign of goodwill, and the 25% tariffs on USD250bn stay in place . Second, we aren't going to
get a signing ceremony between the US and Chinese leaders, which does not send an encouraging
signal. And third, what we see is close to the terms we previously criticized for being
unrealistic in reports such as 'A Great Deal of Nonsense" and "LOL-A-PLAZA".
The US Trade Representative (USTR) says the final text of the phase one
agreement is still being finalised, and he will sign it early next year for a likely incept
date of end-January 2020. The areas covered include: Intellectual Property (IP); Technology
Transfer; Agriculture; Financial Services; Currency; Expanding Trade; and Dispute Resolution.
Each of these promises much and yet potentially delivers little.
China has pledged to address issues of geographical indications, trademarks, and enforcement
against pirated and counterfeit goods. That's just after a Chinese court ruled that Japanese
retailer Muji doesn't own its own name in China and a local rival started years afterwards
does. Enforcement matters, not promises: more on that in a moment.
China has agreed to end forcing or pressuring foreign companies to transfer their tech as a
condition for obtaining market access or administrative approvals. Again, enforcement is all
that matters here. China also " commits to refrain from directing or supporting outbound
investments aimed at acquiring foreign technology pursuant to industrial plans that create
distortion. " That is China's reason for outbound investment! For example, Sweden's Defence
Research Agency just released a detailed survey of Chinese corporate acquisitions in their
country showing at least half are correlated with the "Made in China 20205" plan.
China will " support a dramatic expansion of US food, agriculture and seafood product
exports " , with the USTR stating the target is to jump to USD40bn in 2020, a USD16bn increase
over the pre-trade war level of USD24bn, and to aim for USD50bn. Part of that reflects China's
decimated pork herd, so is hardly a concession. Yet it is hard to conceive of how the total
figure can be achieved without China using the US to displace agri imports from other nations,
e.g., Argentinean and Brazilian soy, and perhaps Aussie and Kiwi farm goods. That also
increases China's economic exposure to the US at a time of rising geopolitical tensions between
the two (see news of the US' secret expulsion of two Chinese diplomats), and US' farmers
exposure to China in kind. For its part, the Chinese press are not mentioning these US hard
targets, and are talking about WTO trading terms, which bodes poorly.
The financial services chapter pledges China to an opening up already underway as it
searches for new sources of USD inflows, so again is not a concession. Interestingly, it also
says US ratings agencies will get access – which will be fun given the evident credit
stresses emerging in China just as US banks will be trying to sell China as an investment
destination. .
On currency the US is requiring "high-standard commitments" to refrain from competitive
devaluations and targeting of exchange rates. Everyone knows the CNY is not freely-traded
– but also that China is doing its best to prop it up, not to try to push it lower. The
key message is CNY is not going to be allowed to do what it ought to be doing, i.e., weakening,
as China is pledging new fiscal stimulus in 2020 that will decrease its external surplus. That
runs counter to market forces, and smacks of a kind of Plaza Accord. Of course, as long as this
US-China agreement holds that might be sustainable due to the promised higher capital
inflows...
Eexcept the expanding trade chapter implies the opposite. The USTR says China is pledging to
boost its 2020 imports of US goods and services by USD100bn over the level in 2017, and by
USD100bn again in 2021, for a total increase of USD200bn . Given 2017 was pre-trade war and US
exports to China dropped off a cliff in 2019, this means around a 110% y/y increase in
purchases in 2020 – and agri is only a portion of that. The problems should be obvious.
How can a slowing Chinese economy (imports are down y/y from most sources), see this kind of
increase without substituting US for world exports or local goods? How can a China with a USD
liquidity shortage serious enough to be driving said lowered import bill, and
'1USD-in/1USD-out' de facto capital controls, cope with the net reduction on the trade side? As
of November, the 12-month rolling Chinese global trade surplus with the US it was USD330bn and
globally was USD440bn. We are talking about reducing that US figure by 2/3 and the global total
by 1/2!
Which brings us to the last chapter: Dispute Resolution. Getting China to comply is far
harder than getting it to sign. The USTR notes the agreement " establishes strong procedures
for addressing disputes related to the agreement and allows each party to take proportionate
responsive actions that it deems appropriate ." In other words, each side can unilaterally do
what they want when they want! So much for the unilateral US control of the process.
So how to see this in summary? The reduction in tariffs from 15% to 7.5% is a positive,
albeit far less than the Wall Street Journal had promised. (NB, the USTR took the
extraordinary step of publicly chastising the WSJ journalists who wrote that story –
regular readers may recall I have also called them out more than once in the past.) Indeed, if
China really has agreed to all that is stated here then further incremental tariff rollbacks
can be seen – though the USTR has said the 25% tariffs will stay as collateral for a
phase two deal that nobody really expects to happen. Yet the terms of this phase one still seem
to be A Great Deal of Nonsense. How can China stop buying foreign tech? How can it buy as much
US stuff as pledged? How can it do so and not undermine the WTO? How can it do so and not
weaken CNY? And how can it do so with a strong CNY without increasing its USD debts, its
strategic reliance on the USD, and to US goods? In short, if China does as the USTR claims, the
US is a huge winner here (and there are lots of losers); if China does not comply with what
look an impossible import targets, then the US can frame China as the bad guy and the tariffs
can go back up again. Arguably, the question is not if that will happen, but when.
They will gingerly exchange the regulated EU economy for the freewheeling American economy - and hasn't that economy worked
so well for American workers.
If so, that's a good thing, for the regulated EU economy has treated Britons and Europeans even worse. The EU regulations, treaties
and policies are overall highly destructive to workers, massive welfare for the rich. What remains of European Social Democracy and
welfare states obscure the fact that US workers are actually treated better by their nation's fundamental economic policies and structures.
Europe as a whole is MORE unequal, more of a class society than the USA, not less.
Brexit is a good thing, a leftist, progressive policy. It's jumping completely off the hot stove, not into the fire. The British,
who preferred Labour's other policies, felt that the merits of Brexit outweighed all the other negatives of the Tories. They might
be right.
Money quote: "Johnson will have to work superhard on this if he is to re-create not the
Thatcher coalition but the Disraeli nation. That's what he means when he talks about "One Nation
Conservatism." That was Disraeli's reformist conservatism of the 19th century, a somewhat
protectionist, supremely patriotic alliance between the conservative elites and the ordinary man
and woman. It will take a huge amount of charm and policy persistence to cement that coalition if
it is to last more than one election. But if Boris pulls that off, he will have found a new
formula designed to kill off far-right populism, while forcing the left to regroup."
Notable quotes:
"... But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy ..."
Brexit is an eruption of English nationalism, and the Tories are now, under that shambling
parody of a drunk racist English aristo, Johnson, an English nationalist party.
IMHO this is highly questionable statement. Brexit is a form of protest against neoliberal
globalization. The fact that is colored with nationalism is the secondary effect/factor:
rejection of neoliberalism is almost always colored in either nationalist rhetoric, or Marxist
rhetoric.
Here are some quotes from paleoconservative analysis of the elections taken from two recent
articles:
While I do not share their enthusiasm about "Red Tories" rule in the UK, and the bright
future for "Trumpism without Trump" movement in the USA, they IMHO provide some interesting
insights into paleoconservatives view on the British elections results and elements of social
protest that led to them:
[AS] It is clearer and clearer to me that the wholesale adoption of critical race, gender,
and queer theory on the left makes normal people wonder what on earth they're talking about
and which dictionary they are using. The white working classes are privileged? A woman can
have a penis? In the end, the dogma is so crazy, and the language so bizarre, these natural
left voters decided to listen to someone who
does actually speak their language , even if in an absurdly plummy accent.
[AS] But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on
public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the
far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy . ... This is
Trumpism without Trump. A conservative future without an ineffective and polarizing nutjob at
the heart of it. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new immigration
system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on the working
poor, not the decadent rich. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new
immigration system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on
the working poor, not the decadent rich. It's very much the same movement of left-behind
people expressing their views on the same issues, who, tragically, put their trust in Trump.
What we've seen is how tenacious a voting bloc that now is, which is why Trumpism is here to
stay. If we could only get rid of the human cancer at the heart of it.
[AS] Trump has bollixed it up, of course. He ran on Johnson's platform but gave almost all
his tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, while Johnson will cut taxes on the poor. Trump talks
a big game on immigration but has been unable to get any real change in the system out of
Congress. Johnson now has a big majority to pass a new immigration bill, with Parliament in
his control, which makes the task much easier. Trump is flamingly incompetent and unable to
understand his constitutional role. Boris will assemble a competent team, with Michael Gove
as his CEO, and Dom Cummings as strategist.
[AS] If Johnson succeeds, he'll have unveiled a new formula for the Western right: Make no
apologies for your own country and culture; toughen immigration laws; increase public
spending on the poor and on those who are "just about managing"; increase taxes on the very
rich and redistribute to the poor; focus on manufacturing and new housing; ignore the woke;
and fight climate change as the Tories are (or risk losing a generation of support).
[RD] I have no idea why the Republicans are so damned silent on wokeness, including the
transgender madness. No doubt about it, the American people have accepted gay marriage and
gay rights, broadly. But the Left will not accept this victory in the culture war. They
cannot help bouncing the rubble, and driving people farther than they are willing to go, or
that they should have to go. It's the elites -- and not just academic elites. Every week I
get at least two e-mails from readers sending me examples of transgender wokeness taking over
their professions -- especially big business. People hate this pronoun crap, but nobody dares
to speak out against it, because they are afraid of being doxxed, cancelled, or at least
marginalized in the workplace.
[RD] My friend said (I paraphrase):
"Can you blame people for not answering pollsters' questions? Everybody is told all the
time that the things they believe, and the things they worry about, are backwards and
bigoted. They have learned to keep it to themselves. It's the same thing here. I hate
Donald Trump, but I'm probably going to end up voting for him, because at least he doesn't
hate my sons. I want a good future for every child -- black, Latino, white, all of them --
but the Left thinks my sons are what's wrong with the world
[RD] Boris (and Sully) style Toryism is better than nothing, isn't it? As a general rule,
in this emerging post-Christian social and political order, we conservative Christians had
better not let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the common-sense good enough.
"... I think the current period can be called the “collapse of neoliberalism” period. In any case the neoliberal elite who was in power (Blairists, Clintonists) lost the trust of people. This is true both for the US and labour in the UK. In this sense the anti-Semitic smear against Corbin is equivalent to neo-McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. Both reflect the same level of desperation and clinging to power of “soft neoliberals.” ..."
It’s time to stop pretending we’re still in the postwar period (the question is, are we in a pre-war one).
True. As “Full Spectrum Dominance” inevitably lead to “threat inflation” it is logically drives the USA into the major war.
I think the current period can be called the “collapse of neoliberalism” period. In any case the neoliberal elite who was
in power (Blairists, Clintonists) lost the trust of people. This is true both for the US and labour in the UK. In this sense the
anti-Semitic smear against Corbin is equivalent to neo-McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. Both reflect the same level of desperation
and clinging to power of “soft neoliberals.”
Unfortunately Corbin proved to be too weak to withstand the pressure and suppress Blairists. But Blairists in labour might
still be up to a great disappointment. The history train left the station and they are still standing on the neoliberal platform,
so to speak.
That’s why Brexit, as a form of protest against neoliberal globalization, has legs. It is a misguided, but still a protest
movement.
From now on, only the rich will have the luxury of any sense of historical continuity.
The rich are not uniform. Financial oligarchy wants to stay, while manufacturers probably would prefer Brexit.
Why did so many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to state department and National
Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about how the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it’s easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of life by fighting a country 10,000
kms away.
This show the poor literacy, poor analytical thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy,
other neo con organisations like National rifle club etc.
and
manoftheworld -> Redswordfish 10 Dec 2019 15:47
Perhaps the only thing Trump has got right .. and ever will get right.. is his dislike for war. He is right about Afghanistan.
The terrible US press and political reaction to his peace talks with the Taliban showed that the deep state still doesn’t
get it…
Mattis, Graham et al are insane liars… and so is Hilary Clinton and Petraeus… none of them has ever had the guts to tell
the truth…
the average American is way more indoctrinated than the average pupil at a madrasa. …we should boot these lying American
generals out of NATO.. they’re a threat to world peace…
In any case Brexit is a litmus test of what is the next stage for neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization.
@Peripatetic
Commenter "He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have
one fully built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration
into the US."
To date (August 2019), the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated
barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump's pledge -- that Mexico would pay for
the wall -- hasn't been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost.
"So right now, 78 miles have been built, have been built where there was an existing form of
barrier," [Acting CBP Commissioner Mark] Morgan said, effectively admitting that none of the
wall that has been constructed has been in new areas.
For the record, I have no problem with rebuilding and/or replacing our border wall. But
Trump has failed to deliver on his campaign promise.
The most important thing about the "phase one" trade agreement announced Friday by U.S. and
Chinese officials is what won't happen: The two countries won't impose additional tariffs on
Sunday that would have further escalated the trade war.
There will also be a bit of de-escalation. In September, Trump imposed 15 percent
tariffs on $110 billion worth of Chinese consumer goods, such as clothing; those tariffs will
be cut in half, to 7.5 percent. But the largest piece of Trump's China tariffs -- a 25 percent
tariff on $250 billion in goods mostly sold to businesses rather than consumers -- will stay
unchanged, for now.
Awaited confirmation by China about the Trade Deal before writing about it. This article is what I
waited to be published: "Phase one trade deal a step forward, a new beginning," yes, an
optimistic tone, although tempered in the text:
"Rome was not built in a day. Trade protectionism has expanded in some places of the
world, affecting some people's thinking. It is not easy for China and the US to agree on the
text of the deal. But how to define this deal and whether it can keep its positive effects
on the global market and even accumulate more positive energy will depend on further efforts
from China and the US , as the global market has been disturbed by the trade war.
" We must see that the first phase of the trade agreement is a win-win outcome which
will deliver tangible benefits to the world . The response from investors around the
world is most real because they would not use their own money just to make a grand gesture.
However, some people in both China and the US may hype that their own country suffers loss
from this deal. This is a natural counter-stream of public opinion, but does not represent
the mainstream attitude on either side." [My Emphasis]
Gee, "benefits for the whole world," not just China and Outlaw US Empire? What forced the
Empire to compromise:
"The US-China trade war happens at a time when the US' strategic thinking on China has
changed. This requires Washington to find a strategic impetus to end the trade war. So what
would be such a strategic impetus?
"We believe as long as the US side is realistic, it is possible that such a strategic
impetus can be formed and gradually expanded. The trade war is not an effective way to
resolve the strategic competition between China and the US. It can neither scare China nor
effectively weaken China, but will cause a gradual rise in the cost of the US economy" .
[My Emphasis]
IMO, China's assessment's correct. The financialized economy of the Evil Outlaw US Empire
has drained it of the resilience it once enjoyed and that China's economy has obtained. Plus,
as I wrote several months ago, China's employing geoeconomic levers which the Empire can no
longer deploy and is thus stuck with using the only remaining tool it has--its waning
geopolitical levers.
Awaited confirmation by China about the Trade Deal before writing about it. This article is what I
waited to be published: "Phase one trade deal a step forward, a new beginning," yes, an
optimistic tone, although tempered in the text:
"Rome was not built in a day. Trade protectionism has expanded in some places of the
world, affecting some people's thinking. It is not easy for China and the US to agree on the
text of the deal. But how to define this deal and whether it can keep its positive effects
on the global market and even accumulate more positive energy will depend on further efforts
from China and the US , as the global market has been disturbed by the trade war.
" We must see that the first phase of the trade agreement is a win-win outcome which
will deliver tangible benefits to the world . The response from investors around the
world is most real because they would not use their own money just to make a grand gesture.
However, some people in both China and the US may hype that their own country suffers loss
from this deal. This is a natural counter-stream of public opinion, but does not represent
the mainstream attitude on either side." [My Emphasis]
Gee, "benefits for the whole world," not just China and Outlaw US Empire? What forced the
Empire to compromise:
"The US-China trade war happens at a time when the US' strategic thinking on China has
changed. This requires Washington to find a strategic impetus to end the trade war. So what
would be such a strategic impetus?
"We believe as long as the US side is realistic, it is possible that such a strategic
impetus can be formed and gradually expanded. The trade war is not an effective way to
resolve the strategic competition between China and the US. It can neither scare China nor
effectively weaken China, but will cause a gradual rise in the cost of the US economy" .
[My Emphasis]
IMO, China's assessment's correct. The financialized economy of the Evil Outlaw US Empire
has drained it of the resilience it once enjoyed and that China's economy has obtained. Plus,
as I wrote several months ago, China's employing geoeconomic levers which the Empire can no
longer deploy and is thus stuck with using the only remaining tool it has--its waning
geopolitical levers.
This year's winner is Branko Milanovic's
Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World . (This is the second
Globie for Milanovic, who won it in 2016 for Global Inequality .) The book is based on
the premise that capitalism has become the universal form of economic organization. This type
of system is characterized by "production organized for profit using legally free wage labor
and mostly privately owned capital, with decentralized coordination." However, there exist two
different types of capitalism: the liberal meritocratic form that developed in the West, and
state-led political capitalism, which exists primarily in Asia but also parts of Europe and
Africa.
The two models are competitors, in part because of their adoption in different parts of the
world and also because they arose in different circumstances. The liberal meritocratic system
arose from the class capitalism of the late 19th century, which in turn evolved out of
feudalism. Communism, Milanovic writes, took the place of bourgeoise development. Communist
parties in countries such as China and Vietnam overthrew the domestic landlord class as well as
foreign domination. These countries now seek to re-establish their place in the global
distribution of economic power.
Milanovic highlights one characteristic that the two forms of capitalism share: inequality.
Inequality in today's liberal meritocratic capitalism differs from that of classical capitalism
in several features. Capital-rich individuals are also labor-rich, which reinforces the
inequality. Assortative mating leads to more marriages within income classes. The upper classes
use their money to control the political process to maintain their position of privilege.
Because of limited data on income distribution in many of the countries with political
capitalism, Milanovic focuses on inequality in China. He attributes its rise to the gap between
growth in the urban areas versus the rural, as well the difference in growth between the
maritime provinces and those in the western portion of the country. There is also a rising
share of income from capital , as well as a high concentration of capital income. In addition,
corruption has become systemic, as it was before the communist revolution.
The mobility of labor and capital allows capitalism to operate on a global basis.
Migrants from developing economies benefit when they move to advanced economies. But residents
in those countries often fear migration because of its potentially disruptive effect on
cultural norms, despite the positive spillover effects on the domestic economy. Milanovic
proposes granting migrants limited rights, such as a finite term of stay, in order to
facilitate their acceptance. He points out, however, the potential downside of the creation of
an underclass.
Multinational firms have organized global supply chains that give the parent units in their
home countries the ability to coordinate production in different subsidiary units and their
suppliers in their host nations. Consequently, the governments of home countries seek to limit
the transfer of technology to the periphery nations to avoid losing innovation rents. The host
countries, on the other hand, hope to use technology to jump ahead in the development
process.
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within the U.S.
Government officials are planning to limit the
export of certain technologies while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of
domestic firms in tech-related areas. New
restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority to a
merit-based system. Moreover, the
concerns over migration are not unique to the U.S.
Milanovic ends with some provocative thoughts about the future of capitalism. One path would
be to a "people's capitalism," in which everyone has an approximately equal share of both
capital and labor income. This would require tax advantages for the middle class combined with
increased taxes on the rich, improvements in the quality of public education, and public
funding of political campaigns. But it is also feasible that there will be a move of liberal
capitalism toward a form of political capitalism based on the rise of the new elite, who wish
to retain their position within society.
Milanovic's book offers a wide-ranging review of many of the features of contemporary
capitalism. He is particularly insightful about the role of corruption in both liberal and
political capitalism. Whether or not it is feasible to reform capitalism in order to serve a
wider range of interests is one of the most important issues of our time.
==quote==
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within
the U.S. Government officials are planning to limit the export of certain technologies
while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of domestic firms in tech-related
areas. New restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority
to a merit-based system. Moreover, the concerns over migration are not unique to the
U.S.
== end ==
In plain language that means the collapse of neoliberal globalization.
When Liberal governments fail to provide answers for economic despair the road is paved for
strong-armed, bloviating fascists. And the more desperate things become fascism will only get
stronger if history is any indication.
ban nock on Fri,
12/13/2019 - 6:18am and the analogies with Sanders and the US only go so far.
Politics in the US, Britain, and Europe in general are being upended, I'd caution against
pigeon holing things into the old left/right, Dem/Repub, Tory/Labor, scenario.
Britain's Labor similar to America's Democratic Party has lost lots of it's legitimacy with
working people. Globalisation has decimated cities like Liverpool and Manchester. Labor didn't
support Brexit, the biggest issue in politics in Britain. Being a part of the EU allowed
workers from Eastern Europe to enter England and directly compete for low skilled jobs.
Labor in England also included upper middle class woke culture, which is very pro EU and
anti Brexit. It's impossible to imagine a pro Brexit leader in Labor just as much as it is
impossible to imagine working class people in England supporting the loss of their jobs via
Remain. People voted for their economic self interests, can you blame them? As in the US there
are more working class voters than there are upper middle class intellectuals.
Boris Johnson promised increased funding for the National Health Service, not tearing it
down as many seem to suggest. Whether he does so is yet to be seen, but I wouldn't read his win
as a rejection of the social safety net. Socialism is for many some kind of intellectual game,
the working class is much less interested in ideas, and much more interested in health care,
higher wages, and better conditions overall.
Ever since I watched Bernie Sanders' rise in the primaries in 16 I've felt he would be a
much stronger general election candidate than he is in the primaries. As contrary as Trump
might seem to hard core political junkies, Trump did steal many of Sander's memes and use them
in the general election. Most wage earners actually do feel powerless in the face of the
corporate overclass, they feel things getting worse not better.
To have even a snowball's chance in the pre primaries, the endless positioning and twitter
wars that have occurred for months prior to even our first primary, Sanders is now committed to
many of the same positions as the woke side of the Democratic Party. There might well be a big
enough drop off of Hispanics, African Americans, and Working Class Dems of all hues to lose
this thing again, even if Sanders wins the primary. The Democratic Party has lost working
people even as it has gained Country Club Republicans from the suburbs.
Last night as the results were obvious I watched the old DK, the NYT, and other web sites.
Stunned Silence. It's as if they didn't realize 2016 happened and were surprised all over
again.
A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on
Brexit. The left were supposed to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join
battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which would have benefited
the people.
Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to
globalist mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them.
Thing is, this destroys the left in Britain. The right in Labour had been in control since
the early 1980s, and Corbyn's leadership victory was an accident which will not be given a
second chance. Now what will replace Corbyn will not be Blairism, it will be something well
to the right of Blairism, something much more like the DNC in the United States.
In other words, this is not a defeat of a party, it is a catastrophe for anyone seeking to
struggle against the triumph of neoliberal barbarism. Oh, and it makes the probability of the
end of the world through environmental catastrophe or nuclear war much higher. So apart from
the ideological catastrophe it's also a human calamity.
Corbyn destroyed hismelf. He performed quite well, unexpectedly so, in 2017 because he said
that he would honour the result of the 2016 referendum. Yesterday the electors punished him
for reneging on that and telling 17.4 million voters that they were wrong.
It was the less well off who voted to Leave, and it was the less well off who yesterday
deserted Labour in droves. They have had enough of being told that they are in the wrong by a
middle class elite who would be repelled if they ever actually met someone from the working
class.
I am no expert on UK politics, but it does look like Brexit was the issue that Boris won
on. Everybody is sick of it and wants if over with.
I am no expert on UK politics either, but from my point of view in Norway the main issue
to be resolved is dismantling the EU, and it looks like the Brexit vote and this election
confirms that many in the UK see it the same way. Whether it will happen is another
question.
I voted NO in the 1994 Norwegian referendum on the question of becoming member of
"European Community". One of the arguments in the debate at that time was that the "European
Community" was aiming to become a union and a superstate. Those who argued that way were
called lots of things, including conspiracy theorists. Today we are not members of the EU,
but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The EU is a non-democratic nightmare
that must be demolished.
I don't expect much good from the Tories, I don't exclude another betrayal of the Brexit
cause, but we shall see. Corbyn lost on his betrayal of Brexit, that is for sure. I
sympathize with Corbyn, but betraying the Brexit referendum is a no-no.
What the UK needs is real progressives that see the EU as the globalist project it is. It
also means that the "climate crisis" must be recognised as a political tool created by the
same forces. Corbyn failed on both accounts and therefore he lost.
Now that the official results are out, I'll comment on the British elections.
If Corbyn had won and taken us out of the EU we would have gone all Venezuela. If he'd won
and kept us in the EU we'd have gone all Greece. The result is the best of the bad options
available.
This comment on The Guardian encapsulates the average Conservative voter for these 2019
elections.
The UK is really at a crossroads: it is too tiny and poor in natural resources to
implement socialism, but it is declining as a capitalist power.
I don't think the average British really thinks Venezuela is socialist or that Corbyn's
policies would make them very poor, but I think they are afraid of the sanctions and
embargoes they would suffer from the USA if they dared to try to go back to
social-democracy.
This defeat may also be historic: this could go to History as the end of social-democracy.
Social-democracy was already dead as an effective political force after the oil crisis of
1974-5, but at least it was able to polarize with neoliberalism in the ideological field and
had some prestige that far outlived itself (to the point it was the main propaganda weapon
that ultimately convinced Gorbachev to destroy the USSR, and to the point it was able to
convince historians like Hobsbawn that it had actually "won the war" after 2008). Now it
isn't considered even credible by half of the population of one of the few countries it was
able to govern and fully influence in the post-war period.
In Rosa Luxemburg's last article (a few days before she was executed), she finally
admitted defeat to the Bolsheviks. "We must separate the essential from the non-essential",
she wrote. And the essential, she completed, was the fact that the Bolsheviks were right and
the German Social-Democrats were wrong. It happened again, almost 100 years later.
(Brexit anger is about wage inequality - like US Trump support. 35 years, GDP doubled,
median earnings up 10% in UK, 0% in US. If the media wrote about basic economics everyone
would know this. Instead the bottom 75% have plain unfocussed anger with Trump/Brexit being
lightening rods to direct it).
It might be wise to be careful here about assumptions used. First off, cognisance of
population changes will not automatically translate into employed working sector changes,
many factors intervene preventing a direct relationship. Secondly, having a accurate GDP
measure from beginning to end of the period observed is crucial (to avoid apples vs. oranges
comparisons) so that changes in productive sources (and their employed numbers) are accounted
for (law offices rarely employ as many as heavy industrial firms). The history of price/wage
inflation or loss of exchange value of currency will affect reported GDP statistics as well.
Thirdly is measuring the general education and skill level of those employed, as those
decrease so do earnings/salaries/wages. Fourthly, look at the change in social protections
provided to the population in question, these protections have a cost that must be met, their
absence has an even greater cost to income obtained but rarely appearing on the economic
balance sheets. Regulatory capture by monopoly, sovereign & trust-fund management removes
business restrictions and passes those costs to those employed. Try putting this on a
bumper-sticker for your car.
In the U.S. the population had increased in double digits from the census of 1950 (150.9
millions) to 2010 (308.7 millions). Working income had not significantly increased from
1970's, Purchasing Power Parity of 1970 dollar and 2019 dollar is unobtainable information.
GDP statistics are of the nature of apples vs. oranges, measuring unrelated economic
production; it can be done but isn't (for reasons political) [an income of US$400,000 in 1915
would translate into a 1980's income of about US$ 8.5 millions; the economies were still
roughly speaking nearly the same still and comparable, as wealth distributions were becoming
again].
The take away quotes
"
...... the FT reports that Beijing has ordered all government offices and public institutions
to remove foreign computer equipment and software within three years.
..........
The take home message here is that US PC and software giants are about to lose billions in
sale to Chinese customers, a move that will infuriate Trump who will, correctly, see such
attempts to isolate the Chinese PC market from US vendors.
"
This is going to be difficult for China but they have a domestic OS, the Kylin OS, that is
Unix/Linux based, so much Open Source software is available to replace the Microsoft/Apple
software they currently use until they develop their own.
This speaks to Trump saying he can wait for a trade deal until after the (s)election but
it seems obvious that his negotiating position is going to get weaker by the day.
-------------------------------
Another aspect of the tech war that is financial also is that I am reading the China is on
the cusp of releasing a digital fiat RMD currency. This will have serious disintermediation
effects on the BIS, City of London Corp and others doing currency exchange if any can do such
on their phones. I am reading about digital currencies needing a blockchain underpinning but
if the US dollar can exist without one currently then what are the show stoppers except the
private finance dead weight in the middle?
Yes, I know, pilgrims, the Haredim have a right to live however they please, just as Mormon
schismatics, cloistered monks and the Amish/Mennonites do, but it is nevertheless interesting
that this woman and those like her emerge into the "light" of the 21st Century as though they
had just come from the womb.
As many of you know I was the chief intelligence liaison from DIA to the IDF General Staff
intelligence service for seven years. Because of that I spent a lot of time in Israel wandering
around when not working and talking to IDF people about the Haredim among other things.
I don't think I ever ran into an IDF officer who had other than disdain for the Haredim. A
lot of the IDF were kibbutzniks, products of structured life on a collective farm in a
socialist secular setting. They thought the Haredim were ignorant freeloaders who used their
cultist beliefs to hide out from the draft while collecting comfortable stipends from the
government as "religious scholars."
In some Haredi groups the women shave their whole bodies and when out in public accompanied
by a male relative wear funny looking curly synthetic hair wigs. This was interesting.
Chacun a son gout the old maid said as she kissed the cow. pl
There are many of these groups in Quebec, I think the most radical of them congregate there
because of laws protecting them from sending their children to normal schools or integrating
them in any way into normal life, most prominently and infamously the Lev Tahor group. There
is a particularly radical community of 3000 of them right outside of Montreal, formed in the
60s. I always found the wig thing interesting, as a connection to the Islamic practice of
hijab. Very semitic. Ever heard of the "Haredi Burqa Sect"?
They had a village outside of Monroe NY, where I grew up for a while. The women did indeed
wear weird synthetic wigs, I used to see them at the grocery store. I remember they refused
to pay taxes for public services. They weren't particularly well liked but then they weren't
a part of the community, just adjacent. The Hasid community itself looked like a bombed out
wasteland the few times I passed through it. They didn't care for outsiders. That whole area
of NY is weird, so they fit in a way.
"... When you factor in reelection worries, Trump needs to find a mutually agreeable solution to at least pause the trade war. Such a move will surely revive economic growth hurt by sanctions and ensure the smoothest possible path toward a second term. People vote with their wallets, and Trump gets that. ..."
"... Nothing could be worse for Xi than the markets concluding that China is in a recession with one of its prime economic centers now in open revolt. Just as quickly as China was dubbed the next rising superpower, her economic and political obituary could be written. ..."
"... Here is where a so-called Phase One trade deal could help patch up the relationship and give both sides the short-term domestic boost their leaderships are looking for. ..."
"... But there are reasons to worry. A recent report in Axios claims that China is quite angry over Trump's decision to sign the Hong Kong bill, and as a result talks between the two nations have "stalled." Still, both sides have ample reasons to get a trade deal done. However, if Trump does indeed get reelected and China feels stable domestically once again, the pull of history -- specifically, which nation will dominate geopolitics in the 21st century -- may be too strong to resist. ..."
Consider America's position. President Trump surely has incentives to push for what I would
call a strategic pause in his quest to contain a rising China through tough trade moves. At the
moment, staring down a possible vote on articles of impeachment and a Senate trial, rising
trade tensions, which could reignite fears of a recession, are the last thing the president
needs. When you factor in reelection worries, Trump needs to find a mutually agreeable
solution to at least pause the trade war. Such a move will surely revive economic growth hurt
by sanctions and ensure the smoothest possible path toward a second term. People vote with
their wallets, and Trump gets that.
Chinese president Xi Jinping, meanwhile, has similar concerns. China's 6 percent economic
growth, something Washington can only dream of, is likely a number that exists only on paper,
for Beijing is known to cook their books. With growth more than likely just barely in positive
territory, thanks in large part to U.S. trade tariffs, and the challenges in Hong Kong not
looking as if they will subside anytime soon, Xi needs to deliver what he can claim is a
victory that also revives economic growth, at least for the time being. This will help
stabilize China domestically, plus give Xi time to allow Hong Kong's protests to burn out while
not having to worry about economic troubles at the same time.
Nothing could be worse for Xi than the markets concluding that China is in a recession
with one of its prime economic centers now in open revolt. Just as quickly as China was dubbed
the next rising superpower, her economic and political obituary could be written.
Here is where a so-called Phase One trade deal could help patch up the relationship and
give both sides the short-term domestic boost their leaderships are looking for. A
potential deal could involve China rolling back tariffs on all U.S. goods, agreeing to a large
purchase of American agricultural goods, and providing basic protections on all U.S.
intellectual property involving high-technology goods (think 5G, computers, and robotics). In
turn, America would roll back all tariffs -- something China wants very badly --
including, and most importantly, agreeing not to launch the scheduled new round of massive
tariffs on December 15, which are viewed as potentially the most damaging to date. While such
an interim deal is far from perfect -- China hawks will surely go ballistic, calling the deal
nothing more than appeasement or select your other favorite neocon smear -- Xi and Trump are
pragmatic enough to see that a deal is in both sides' interests.
But there are reasons to worry. A recent report in Axios claims that China is
quite angry over Trump's decision to sign the Hong Kong bill, and as a result talks between the
two nations have "stalled." Still, both sides have ample reasons to get a trade deal done.
However, if Trump does indeed get reelected and China feels stable domestically once again, the
pull of history -- specifically, which nation will dominate geopolitics in the 21st century --
may be too strong to resist.
Harry J. Kazianis is a senior director at the Center for the National Interest and the
executive editor of The National Interest magazine.
By offering Hong Kong official tools of support, President Trump has broadened the trade
dispute...
Throughout negotiations, the Chinese have been reluctant to get a deal over the line,
walking away from agreed upon terms several times. By supporting Hong Kong, President Trump is
showing the Chinese Communist Party that he will not sit idly by while they jerk trade
negotiations around.
American tech companies are
getting the go-ahead to resume business with Chinese smartphone giant Huawei Technologies
Co., but it may be too late: It is now building smartphones without U.S. chips.
Huawei's latest phone,
which it unveiled in September -- the Mate 30 with a curved display and wide-angle
cameras that competes with Apple
Inc.'s iPhone 11 -- contained no U.S. parts, according to an analysis by UBS and Fomalhaut Techno Solutions, a Japanese
technology lab that took the device apart to inspect its insides.
In May, the Trump administration banned U.S. shipments to Huawei as trade tensions with
Beijing escalated. That move stopped companies like Qualcomm Inc. and Intel Corp. from exporting chips to the company, though
some shipments of parts resumed over the summer after companies determined they weren't
affected by the ban.
Meanwhile, Huawei has made significant strides in shedding its dependence on parts from
U.S. companies. (At issue are chips from U.S.-based companies, not those necessarily made in
America; many U.S. chip companies make their semiconductors abroad.)
Huawei long relied on suppliers like Qorvo Inc., the North Carolina maker of chips that are used
to connect smartphones with cell towers, and Skyworks Solutions Inc., a Woburn, Mass.-based company that
makes similar chips. It also used parts from Broadcom Inc., the San Jose-based maker of Bluetooth and
Wi-Fi chips, and Cirrus Logic Inc.,
an Austin, Texas-based company that makes chips for producing sound.
Yet Another Trump Trade Win
Trump cut off supplies so China looked elsewhere.
Trump changed his mind.
This is what constitutes a win.
"When Huawei came out with this high-end phone -- and this is its flagship -- with no U.S.
content, that made a pretty big statement," said Christopher Rolland, a semiconductor analyst
at Susquehanna International Group.
Huawei executives told Rolland that the company was moving away from American parts, but it
was still surprising how quickly it happened.
This was likely going to happen anyway, but Trump escalated the speed at which it
happened.
The trade war is the first act in the much larger game of hegemony.
Both sides are disentangling.
Apple finished their Indian plant.
Huawei went ex-US (but almost certainly not US IP)
Europe is already muttering about human rights in Hong Kong and Xiangjang.
We're nearly ready for act 2. That's when Europe joins in on squeezing trade, and the rest
of the democratic world and a few others is bullied and bribed to follow.
Do you know why Russia still sells rocket engines to US after being hit US sanctions?
Don't tell me they need US dollar.
Do you know that China is facing US embargo under the pretext of national security from
1949 until now and things allowed to export to China mostly agriculture produce, gas and oil?
This is the reason they develop their own technologies which the media told me stolen from
the US even that the US doesn't have like 5G, quantum satellite, hypersonic weapons just to
name a few.
russia needs to stop selling those engines to merica and cut them out of space... what a
dumb move... russia always trying to be friends with evil merica
Plainly, China will never buy the same amount of soybeans or chips than before as Russia
will never accumulate US dollars in its Reserve. They have discovered than US is not a
reliable partner.
Those that think that China is only about ripping off US technology are going to be
surprised. Sure that was once China's main method as it was for the early USA to rip off
British textile secrets. Trump trying to take down China's biggest technology company has
been a real wake up call for them. Now, they will own all of the content and will dominate in
Asian markets, the middle east, etc. They already did it in solar panels and much else. They
have a plan. They build infrastructure, we let it ours decay. They invest in education, we
leave out students in debt up to their eyeballs and then give them Starbucks jobs. They have
high speed trains everywhere, we have Amtrak. They are looking outward, we are looking
inward. America first, rah rah. This will end badly - for the USA.
no average american benefits from international trade unless the product is unattainable
state side. if we can grow it, we should. if we can make it, we should. excess can be sold
outside the nation but since everything has been weaponized, we are the ones caught in the
middle who suffer.
tariffs are good and we should use them to protect our industries. the problem is that our
industry was destroyed before implementing tarrifs.. that part doesn't make sense and all of
our major corporations have sold out anyways, further screwing john q public because lets be
real, companies are out for profit and shareholder return, not protecting employees and
consumers. so they could care less where its being made / sold as long as they see their
bottom line increase, no worries.
problem is big business doesn't want to pay it. it has always been that way. when the
money system was put in place, business owners didn't like the idea of increased competition
(less slaves and more company owners) and therefore they were given the ability to claim you
for tax purposes, hence why anytime you take a job they want your SS#. investment in the past
happened because of things that were to come in the future. the future in america from her
current vantage is trans/post humanism with the idea of automation, human/machine integration
and that leaves little room or interest in building $100m slave factories for working class
people to grind away in
chips have been made consistently in Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea for the better part of
almost 25 years, not real sure how any of what you said is relative to current events. just
syncrhonicity and morons like you saying dumb ****.
Wow, the article is really insulting to the Chinese. Like building a smart phone for them
was like landing on the moon or something. They steal everything from everyone anyways, so
who cares what they build.......
This is why they are trying to ban Chinese hardware... not because they fear they are
spying on us but because their govt mandated backdoors aren't installed on Chinese hardware.
The US govt wants to ban their use because they can't spy on them... That is the real
reason.
US is losing the technology race against China. In the first phase China copied the tech,
now it is on par, and in five to ten years the murican chip manufacturers are out of
business.
The point is this: the muricans are lazy bastards, most of the brain power is imported.
They lived too long off the dollar reserve currency status, soon enough nobody will
interested in that toilet paper anymore.
Two years ago, Donald *** Trumptard on behalf of his handler, the US War State/Dark
State/Deep State , launched a world wide war against the Chinky company, Huawei, in order, to
kill it.
But that failed spectacularly. Not only is Huawei not dead, but its revenue actually grown
24% in 2019.
Now, its smart phones, and 5G cell tower equipments are totally free of US components.
WHY IS THE US DARK STATE SO TERRIFIED OF HUAWEI'S 5G WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY?
The US Dark State/War State/Deep State, that is the NSA/CIA/Pentagon/MIC/MSM . . . etc has
forced every western tech companies to install backdoors and malwares on their equipments,
except Huawei. They have tried to force Huawei to install those NSA backdoors and malwares,
in 2014, but the company categorically refused.
"The real issue is that nothing has changed since a 2014 report from The Register that
Huawei categorically refuses to install NSA backdoors into their hardware to allow unfettered
intelligence access to the data that crosses their networks.
All our emails, text messages, phone calls, internet searches, web browsing, library
records, . . . etc, are recorded and stored by NSA/CIA's vast servers farms.
Now, Huawei is not only the leading 5G wireless provider, but it is the only one, so far.
The other companies like Nokia and Ericsson are far behind.
5G is going to completely replace 4G and 3G. It is about 200 times faster than 4GLTE, in
download speed.
What this means is that if the world adopts the Huawei equipments and standards, it will
threaten to UNDO the US Dark State's vast global surveillance network.
This is what terrifies the US Dark State. Their vast Global Surveillance Network is the
basis of its power, and tools to enslave mankind.
There is a very good reason, why the American Founding Fathers , enacted every measures,
to protect our rights and privacy, so that we will not be controlled and enslaved by the
tyranny of totalitarian government, which is already upon us, in the form of US Dark
State/War State .
The US Dark State/Deep State/War State does not represent America. It is Un-American. It
is not the American Republic founded by our Founding Fathers, and enshrined in the US
Constitution.
Maybe so, Asoka. I think the Rothschild Clan plays both sides. They are in China. Some
purport the family carrying that lineage is named Li.
The U.S. is slowly but surely being isolated for The Great Fall...when we lose world
currency status. The Banking Cartel will evidently make huge money and gain enormous power
once the U.S. collapses. China already has the massive surveillance state, lack of privacy,
institutionalized social scoring, and workers' living cubes located on factory premises...so
the Rothshilds are in love. Sigh. So much control!! So much degradation!!! They're in
love!!!
"I think the Rothschild Clan plays both sides. They are in China. Some purport the family
carrying that lineage is named Li."
They are trying hard to infiltrate China. But the Chinese banks and financial service
firms are State Owned . They are hard penetrate. That is why they are using Donald *** Trump
to launch the Mother of All Great Trade War , to force the Chinese to open up their financial
sector for infiltration and plundering.
Plus, Chinese and westerner looks distinctively different. And so, they are trying the
inter-marriage trick with the rich and powerful Chinese families.
"... More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai. ..."
The theory behind this is one of strength reinforcing strength – the strengths of
ubiquitous data gathering and analysis reinforcing the strengths of authoritarian repression to
create an unstoppable juggernaut of nearly perfectly efficient oppression. Yet there is another
story to be told – of weakness reinforcing weakness. Authoritarian states were always
particularly prone to the deficiencies identified in James Scott's Seeing Like a State
– the desire to make citizens and their doings legible to the state, by
standardizing and categorizing them, and reorganizing collective life in simplified ways, for
example by remaking cities so that they were not organic structures that emerged from the
doings of their citizens, but instead grand chessboards
with ordered squares and boulevards, reducing all complexities to a
square of planed wood . The grand state bureaucracies that were built to carry out these
operations were responsible for multitudes of horrors, but also for the crumbling of the
Stalinist state into a Brezhnevian desuetude, where everyone pretended to be carrying on as
normal because everyone else was carrying on too. The deficiencies of state action, and its
need to reduce the world into something simpler that it could comprehend and act upon created a
kind of feedback loop, in which imperfections of vision and action repeatedly reinforced each
other.
So what might a similar analysis say about the marriage of authoritarianism and machine
learning? Something like the following, I think. There are two notable problems with machine
learning. One – that while it can do many extraordinary things, it is not nearly as
universally effective as the mythology suggests. The other is that it can serve as a magnifier
for already existing biases in the data. The patterns that it identifies may be the product of
the problematic data that goes in, which is (to the extent that it is accurate) often the
product of biased social processes. When this data is then used to make decisions that may
plausibly reinforce those processes (by singling e.g. particular groups that are regarded as
problematic out for particular police attention, leading them to be more liable to be arrested
and so on), the bias may feed upon itself.
This is a substantial problem in democratic societies, but it is a problem where there are
at least some counteracting tendencies. The great advantage of democracy is its openness to
contrary opinions and divergent perspectives . This opens up democracy to a specific set of
destabilizing attacks but it also means that there are countervailing tendencies to
self-reinforcing biases. When there are groups that are victimized by such biases, they may
mobilize against it (although they will find it harder to mobilize against algorithms than
overt discrimination). When there are obvious inefficiencies or social, political or economic
problems that result from biases, then there will be ways for people to point out these
inefficiencies or problems.
These correction tendencies will be weaker in authoritarian societies; in extreme versions
of authoritarianism, they may barely even exist. Groups that are discriminated against will
have no obvious recourse. Major mistakes may go uncorrected: they may be nearly invisible to a
state whose data is polluted both by the means employed to observe and classify it, and the
policies implemented on the basis of this data. A plausible feedback loop would see bias
leading to error leading to further bias, and no ready ways to correct it. This of course, will
be likely to be reinforced by the ordinary politics of authoritarianism, and the typical
reluctance to correct leaders, even when their policies are leading to disaster. The flawed
ideology of the leader (We must all study Comrade Xi thought to discover the truth!) and of the
algorithm (machine learning is magic!) may reinforce each other in highly unfortunate ways.
In short, there is a very plausible set of mechanisms under which machine learning and
related techniques may turn out to be a disaster for authoritarianism, reinforcing its
weaknesses rather than its strengths, by increasing its tendency to bad decision making, and
reducing further the possibility of negative feedback that could help correct against errors.
This disaster would unfold in two ways. The first will involve enormous human costs:
self-reinforcing bias will likely increase discrimination against out-groups, of the sort that
we are seeing against the Uighur today. The second will involve more ordinary self-ramifying
errors, that may lead to widespread planning disasters, which will differ from those described
in Scott's account of High Modernism in that they are not as immediately visible, but that may
also be more pernicious, and more damaging to the political health and viability of the regime
for just that reason.
So in short, this conjecture would suggest that the conjunction of AI and authoritarianism
(has someone coined the term 'aithoritarianism' yet? I'd really prefer not to take the blame),
will have more or less the opposite effects of what people expect. It will not be Singapore
writ large, and perhaps more brutal. Instead, it will be both more radically monstrous and more
radically unstable.
Like all monotheoretic accounts, you should treat this post with some skepticism –
political reality is always more complex and muddier than any abstraction. There are surely
other effects (another, particularly interesting one for big countries such as China, is to
relax the assumption that the state is a monolith, and to think about the intersection between
machine learning and warring bureaucratic factions within the center, and between the center
and periphery).Yet I think that it is plausible that it at least maps one significant set of
causal relationships, that may push (in combination with, or against, other structural forces)
towards very different outcomes than the conventional wisdom imagines. Comments, elaborations,
qualifications and disagreements welcome.
Ben 11.25.19 at 6:32 pm (no link)
This seems to equivocate between two meanings of bias. Bias might mean a flaw that leads to
empirically incorrect judgements and so to bad decisions, and it's true that that type of
bias could destabilize an authoritarian state. But what we usually worry about with machine
learning is that the system will find very real, but deeply unjust, patterns in the data, and
reinforce those pattern. If there's a particular ethnic group that really does produce a
disproportionate number of dissidents, and an algorithm leads to even-more-excessive
repression of that group -- I'm not sure why an authoritarian state would see a stability
threat in that tendency.
More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian
apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the
real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build
a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai.
I'd just like to point out (re: the tweet in the original post) that the "Uighur
face-matching AI" idea is bullshit invented by scaremongers, with no basis in fact and
traceable to a shoddy reddit thread. The Chinese government is not using facial recognition
to identify Uighur, and the facial recognition fears about the Chinese government are vastly
overstated.
Australia's border control facial recognition software is far more advanced than
China's, as is the UK's, and facial recognition is actually pretty common in democracies. See
e.g. the iPhone.
The main areas in which China uses facial recognition are in verifying ID for some high
cost functions (like buying high speed rail tickets), and it's quite easy to avoid these
functions by joining a queue and paying a human. The real intrusiveness of the Chinese
security state is in its constant bag searches and very human-centric abuses of power in
everyday life in connection with "security". Whether you get stopped and searched depends a
lot on very arbitrary and error prone judgments by bored security staff at railway stations,
in public squares, and on buses, not some evil intrusive state technology.
Conversely, the UK is a world leader in installing and using CCTV cameras, and has been
for a long time. Furthermore, these CCTV cameras are a huge boon to law-abiding citizens,
since they act as both excellent forms of crime prevention (I have had this experience
myself) and for finding serious criminals. The people responsible for the death of those 39
Vietnamese labourers in the ice truck were caught because of CCTV; so was the guy who
murdered that woman on the street in Melbourne a few years ago.
Finally to address another point that's already been raised (sadly): China no longer
harvests organs, and the 2019 report that says it does is a sham. The social credit system is
also largely a myth, and nobody from China even seems to know wtf it is.
If you're going to talk about how state's work, and the relative merits of autocratic vs.
democratic states and their interaction with technology, it's a really good idea to get the
basic facts right first.
Nathanael 11.26.19 at 6:10 am (no link)
I'll add that John Quiggin's point that Xi has already lost control of the provinces is
correct -- but it DOES threaten his position as dictator. Once the provincial governors know
they can act with impunity, it is absolutely standard for the next step to be getting rid of
that annoying guy who is pretending to be dictator. It may take a few years but Xi now has
dozens of powerful insiders who know that he's a weakling. They'll bide their time but when
he crosses too many of them they'll take him out. And if China doesn't shut down coal, he's
going to look like a weakling internationally too, in a couple of years. This will create a
new group of ambitious insiders with a different reason to take him out.
Xi broke the "technocratic consensus" which was present after Deng, of central committee
members who strove for competence and fact-based decision-making. That was a surprisingly
effective type of junta government which led to lots of thinkpieces about whether
authoritarian China would beat the democratic west. But it succumbed to the succession
problem, like all authoritarian systems; Xi made himself Premier-for-life and the country is
now exhibiting all the usual failures of authoritarian countries.
Hidari 11.26.19 at 9:08 am (no link)
@11 Yes it's strange that allegations of Chinese use of facial recognition software is
gaining so much traction at a time when the Trump regime is deliberately ratcheting up
tensions with China to pursue nakedly imperial goals, when the objective facts of Israeli use
of similar software, which the Israelis boast about (
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/why-did-microsoft-fund-israeli-firm-surveils-west-bank-palestinians-n1072116
) doesn't cause so much interest, at a time when the Trump regime has simple decreed that the
Israeli invasion/colonisation of Palestine is 'legal under international law'.
One of life's little mysteries I guess.
If we must talk about China could we at least bring it back to areas where we are
responsible and where, therefore, we can do something about it?
So in due course the trade war was replaced by the full scale cold war.
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing. ..."
"... The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy. ..."
"... The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP. ..."
"... In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications. ..."
"... The new law directs the US secretary of state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong Kong or in other countries is unacceptable." ..."
"... The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says. ..."
"... Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit that. ..."
Less than an hour after Trump once again paraded with yet another all-time high in the
S&P...
... and on day 510 of the trade war, it appears the president was confident enough that a
collapse in trade talks won't drag stocks too far lower, and moments after futures reopened at
6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy
protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader's Thanksgiving holiday was just
ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong.
They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong
will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity
for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no
choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating
Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
Trump's signing of the bill comes during a period of unprecedented unrest in Hong Kong,
where anti-government protests sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill proposal have
ballooned into broader calls for democratic reform and police accountability.
"The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong
Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong and directs
assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong," the White House said in a statement.
"Certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president's
constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States."
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers,
requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow
Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of
autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials
deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy.
The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without
opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else
suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
Trump also signed into law the PROTECT Hong Kong act, which will prohibit the sale of
US-made munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the city's authorities.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters
demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the
demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
The bill's author, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that with the legislation's
enactment, the US now had "new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference
from Beijing into Hong Kong's internal affairs."
In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a
report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading
status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual
use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications.
One other less discussed but notable provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights Act targets
media outlets affiliated with China's government. The new law directs the US secretary of
state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media
outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong
Kong or in other countries is unacceptable."
The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting
visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of
China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says.
* * *
In the days leading up to Trump's signature, China's foreign ministry had urged Trump to
prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China's
determination to defend its "sovereignty, security and development interests."
"If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,
" said China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On
Monday, China's Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry
Branstad to express "strong opposition" to what the country's government considers American
interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement. The new U.S.
law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward "phase-one" of deal to
ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic
uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing
the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that's borne the brunt of
retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China's Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the
Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was "cautiously optimistic" about reaching the
phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the
previous day's gains... Still, the generally modest pullback - the S&P was around 2,940
when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 - suggests that despite Trump's signature,
markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly
"hopeful" assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever
it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend's
landslide victory for the pro-Democracy camp which won in 17 of the city's 18
districts.
"Following last weekend's historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this
new law could not be more timely in showing strong US support for Hongkongers' long-cherished
freedoms," said Rubio
This is another attempt by the US to stop BRICS. They care NOTHING about HK, only its
usefulness in the US war on Chinas growing importance in world trade.
but no no no... trading with communists brings jobs to sell cheap crap. oh what was I
thinking.... cheap crap, jobs, and the richest of the rich get richer... my bad.
it ain’t like the commies are going to use the money to build up their military..
Of course the obvious solution is to just let people choose whatever or whomever they want
to associate with and be respected and left alone for their choice.
But no. We all have to live and abide by the wishes of other people bcuz of "unity" and
****.
Eh guys, you still do not understand that all this (not only China and Hong Kong) is a
very big "elite" performance for ordinary people to keep you (the rest of the boobies) in
subjection. It's like in boxing - contractual fights. Do you think world "elites" benefit
from peace and order? You are mistaken - these guys have the world as death (the death of
their Power and their Control). An example from the history of Europe - in the 18-19 and
early 20th century, Europe only did what it fought. But the funny thing is that the monarchs
(the real owners of Europe) were relatives among themselves. The First World War was
popularly called “The War of Three Cousins” (English monarch, German Kaiser and
Russian emperor). But the Europeans paid for the dismantling of relatives. Now the "monarchs"
are bankers and your position has not changed, you changed only the owners after 1918.
Problem with Hong Kong is, it is dependent on China to survive. That is not only true for
the most basic neccessities, but also as a port for international trade. However, in the last
25 years, Shenzhen and Guangzhou have built up their own trade hubs, which has pulled trade
away from being concentrated in Hong Kong, and consequently more dependent on China. Our
ideas of Hong Kong remaining an independent island nation isn't going to work for three
reasons:
1. Without being a doorway to China, there is no other reason for its existence.
2. Hong Kong is indeed Chinese sovereign territory, that was taken away from it to be made
into a trade colony by the British in 1841, under the Treaty of Nanking. The British gave up
Hong Kong in 1997, under the 1984 signed Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain
agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself. China
promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong
Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the
mainland. So, when the year 2047 comes around, Hong Kong will be fully absorbed and
integrated in a One Country, One system Chinese regime. In otherwords, Hong Kong's fate was
already sealed in 1984, and there is nothing America can legally do about it.
3. Hong Kong still needs the basic neccessities from China to survive. Don't count on
either the British or the Americans to provide it.
Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure
they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit
that.
Xi Jinping tells that bullshit little story about China's 5,000 year History, but the truth
is really much more pragmatic: China doesn't aim to be an empire for the simple reason it
learned from America's mistakes.
The CCP already knows that being the sole superpower is unsustainable and, in the medium
term, goes even against its main objective, which is to establish a "moderately prosperous
society" in China until 2030 (they consider the 2000s Belgium as the standard for "moderately
prosperous").
Socialist China has shown, so far, an incredible capacity of learning from other nations'
mistakes:
1) It correctly read the historical conjuncture of the late 1960s, by concluding that the
historical cycle of socialist revolutions was over, and moved on to try to break the Cold War
embargo in order to initiate a cycle of wealth production. They achieved that in 1972. This was
when Mao Zedong was still alive and commanding China with absolute authority, so it's a myth
China "freed itself" only when and because Mao died (1976);
2) It learned from the failed experiment of the Brazilian liberal dictatorship, by doing
exactly the opposite of the Zona Franca de Manaus . The result was the creation of the
Special Economic Zones, which allowed capitalist investment from abroad to come to China but in
quarentene, and with technological transfer.
3) It learned from the trap the USSR fell, and used a peaceful geopolitical strategy. It
avoided an arms race and was able to expand its allied nations portfolio and slowly tightened
its grip over the American economy.
4) It learned from the the failure of Soviet socialism in producing very good quality
consumer goods. It solved this problem by "opening up" for capitalist exploitation the sectors
which produced and distributed consumer goods, without affecting the strategic sectors
(defense, finance, natural resources, etc.).
5) It learned from the failure of the American empire of maintaining its status as the
world's "lonely superpower" by not adopting a war culture in China and by being more tolerant
with its neighbors. But that didn't mean they didn't consolidated position: military spending
continues to go up and the Armed Forces continues to be modernized and under firm CCP control.
The South China Sea is a "corridor of life" for the Chinese, so the CCP quickly, but in a
peaceful manner, took control of it, very aware that it would probably cost the Vietnamese
friendship. But that was the exception that proves the rule, an exceptional situation where the
benefits were greater than the costs.
This isn't the only
article I've read over the past several days suggesting China won't agree to a trade deal
anytime soon. The following are amongst the reasons why:
"China's trade has gradually steadied as the nation moves to explore third markets. 'A
substantial decline in trade and a drastic fall in economic growth which some international
observers were worried about didn't occur, pointing to the potential and resilience of the
Chinese economy,' he went on to say.
"The US, for its part, has seen its current account deficit as a percentage of GDP shoot
up from 2.9 percent to 3.2 percent. This suggests the trade war is failing to address the
issue of the US' current account deficit, stressed Zhu, who is currently the Chairman of the
National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University. He added that, more
worryingly, tariffs mean additional costs are put on US companies and consumers."
Evil Outlaw US Empire planners in their hubristic zeal to decouple from China's economy
erred massively in thinking China would be the one harmed and come begging for a trade deal.
Instead, China's geoeconomic strategy is clearly working and is more potent than what the
Empire can bring to the table--Oops! China can now play Trump.
psychohistorian 63
I see Trump's envoy Kissinger is standing next to Xi. Seems like Trump is trying to cook
something up with Kissinger regularly on the scene when it comes to Russia and China.
Interesting that Kissinger is there . Steve Pieczenik takes the very strong view
that Pompeo is a dead man walking. Worth every second of his five minute discourse . What I like
about Steve and his various takes on people of note is that he assassinates them immediately
and intensely with a quick turn of phrase.
Kissinger was also Nixon's envoy. He engineered the split between China and the Soviet
Union amongst other things. China and Russia's current leadership though may be above
Kissinger's pay grade.
Numbers show joke is on the US, not Huawei US ban lit a fire under Huawei, seen
taking lead in smartphones and awash in cash as bonds trade at a premium
By Umesh Desai
Unlisted Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies was made an international
pariah by US regulators earlier this year after a ban on buying key parts and on access to
crucial markets.
You think that sounded the death knell for the company? Think again.
This week, Huawei announced a US$286 million
bonuses bonanza to its employees . Its bonds continue to trade above par, and its cash
balances are massive. Hardly the signs of a company struggling under sanctions.
The company has repeatedly denied US allegations that it is a front for the Chinese
government – the justification Washington cited for banning US companies from using
Huawei-manufactured gear.
Huawei is the world's biggest telecom equipment maker and it's the second biggest smartphone
maker.
According to data from International Data Corporation, smartphone shipments in the
July-September quarter rose 18.6% to 66.6 million, just behind global leader Samsung's 78.2
million.
"Huawei has been gaining market share in China and overseas despite US trade war frictions
and may become the leading smartphone maker in the next two quarters," said Nitin Soni,
director of corporate ratings at Fitch Ratings.
He said telcos across emerging markets, which are facing capital expenditure pressures
and limited 5G business viability in the short term, may be willing to buy Huawei's 5G
equipment given it is cheaper and has better technology than European counterparts.
It's not just Soni. Industry leaders also acknowledge Huawei's quality standards
.
Indian telco Bharti Enterprises' chairman Sunil Mittal said recently, for example, "I can
safely say their products in 3G and 4G that we have experienced are significantly superior to
Ericsson and Nokia. I use all three of them. "
Indeed, the bond-market performance of the unrated, unlisted company confirms Huawei's
strength. Its dollar-denominated bonds traded in global markets are changing hands at above
par, indicating bond investors are confident about the company's cash position and liquidity
situation.
Its bonds due 2025, which pay a coupon of 4.125%, are trading at a price of $104 while the
holder would only get $100 at maturity. The premium would be compensated by the annual coupon,
which would reduce the yield. The bonds are currently yielding 3.4% compared with the 4.25%
yield at the time of the issuance. In price terms the bonds have rallied from $99 in 2015 to
$104. Prices move inversely to yields.
The financial highlights also betray no signs of weakness. The company has a cash hoard of
$39 billion and generates $10 billion from operations each year.
So, in fact, the US ban on Huawei may be helping the company.
"A ban on US companies such as Google to supply software to Huawei may lead to faster
innovation by Huawei to develop its own operating system and chips," said Soni.
China Communist Party to the extent it is a theocratic state generates its special flavor of corruption typical for theocratic states
where high priests of the cult enjoy virtual impunity. It is the same type of corruption that doomed the USSR. So it is institutional
Notable quotes:
"... In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption. ..."
"... In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece. ..."
"... The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically. Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this. ..."
"... What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example, to further one's own career. ..."
"... I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard. He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have done so, like Bo Xilai did. ..."
"... I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here ..."
"... This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable. Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it. ..."
"... Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying, they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground. ..."
"... If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to let its accomplishments speak for themselves. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself, was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences: ..."
"... The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest, competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned everyone's trust by doing that consistently. ..."
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains" the widest possible array of empirical facts. ..."
"... Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will. ..."
"... This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule of (((lawyers))). ..."
The men of Qi presented the government of Lu with a troupe of singing girls. Ji Huanzi accepted them and for three days
failed to appear at court. Confucius left the state . Analects
Everywhere, since ancient times, peole have feared government corruption for, unlike war or fraud, corrupt policies cripple nations
for centuries. No society has suffered more grievously from–nor waged more protracted war against–official corruption than the Chinese.
Today however, though the story not over, it is nearing a goal that could make them the envy of the world and, like most Chinese
stories, theirs is a long one.
Corruption–nepotistic, pecuniary, blatant, discreet, major and minor–has been subverting governments since governments were invented.
Roman politicians were scandalously corrupt, Christianity failed to improve them, and their legacy of official impunity, bribery,
influence peddling, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, unholy alliances, and involvement
with organized crime afflicts us today and we have become numb to it.
Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand
men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government
knew how wicked they were, so everyone said my punishments were harsh, for they saw only the severity of the law and didn't know
that these villains had used the government's good name to engage in evil practices. In the morning I punished a few and, by evening,
others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the
corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the
punishment, the more violations. I didn't know what to do, but I couldn't rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order
deteriorated, people thought me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them, others regarded me as a tyrant.
How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, my situation was dreadful.
Confucians fought corruption more effectively than the Romans, partly because of public participation. The people retained the
right to withdraw the Mandate of Heaven–and, according to the constitution, still do–and many governments met grisly ends when they
failed to honor the Four Principles–propriety, justice, honesty, and honor–or their officials lacked the Eight Virtues–loyalty, filial
piety, benevolence, love, integrity, righteousness, harmony and peace.
From the earliest days, officials transferred to provinces were forbidden to bring their parents lest their needs conflict with
the Emperor's. They were rotated every three years and, after each rotation, their successors were encouraged to report discrepancies
for fear that they be blamed for them. Palace officials were regularly moved between departments and the seriously corrupt were strangled
and their families sold into slavery.
Every Chinese, from humble farmers to eminent politicians, knows this history and understands that promoting honest men to leadership
is the way to prevent corruption. Many still living saw how a century of chaos devastated public morality, as Mao observed during
a 1950 anti-corruption drive, "Today, you can buy a branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter
to him." Mao's slogan, "The masses have sharp eyes," encouraged people to report wrongdoing and corruption fell dramatically. His
insistence on merely shaming corrupt officials worked because, says Sydney Rittenberg
[3] An old friend of the party assesses China's
new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012 . "Nobody locked their doors. The banks–there was a local bank branch
on many, many corners–the door was wide open, the currency was stacked up on the table in plain sight of the door, there were no
guards and they never had a bank robbery, ever."
As its accomplishments demonstrate, postwar China was free of corruption at the policy-making level but, especially during the
forty year Reform and Opening, lower level corruption flourished. Anticipating this in 1980, planners redesigned officials' incentives
so that bribers would effectively be rewarding them for expediting the plan, says Yukon Huang
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's Director
for China. The Diplomat , "The system countered the growth‐inhibiting aspects of corruption by setting investment and production
targets that gave local officials incentives to promote expansion. It fostered a unity of purpose so that, even when corruption flourished,
the collaborators still made growth the guiding principle of their actions. This was reinforced by competition between localities
to meet targets and support productivity‐enhancing economic reforms. The competitive element helped curb waste and ensured a modicum
of efficiency despite the high degree of state intervention in commercial activities." Sometimes though, as throughout Chinese history,
things got out of hand.
Acting on a tipoff about smuggling, Beijing secretly sent detectives to Xiamen Port in 1999 but the smugglers, tipped off, set
fire to the investigators' hotel and killed them as they slept. On national television the next day, Premier Zhu Rongji declared
war and ordered a hundred coffins, "Ninety-nine for the crooks and one for me." Detectives from across the country converged on the
city and what they found staggered them: four million tons of imported diesel fuel had bypassed customs in just two years. They tracked
hundreds of suspects, locked escapees in a local hotel with armed guards on each floor, and spent three years unravelling a case
so complex that the customs files alone would be higher than a ten-story building. The gang had bribed the vice-minister of Public
Security, Li Jizhou, through his wife and daughter, and Li and thirteen others were sentenced to death, his wife to thirty months
in prison and three hundred officials were tried for aiding or abetting the criminals. The ringleader, farmer-turned-smuggler Lai
Changxing, fled to Canada, was extradited, and jailed for life in 2009.
In 1985 Bo Xilai, son of a Revolutionary Immortal and Xi Jinping's schoolmate, had ignored his father's pleas to stay out of politics,
"You know nothing of the sufferings of ordinary people and just want to capitalize on my name." Xilai cultivated a charismatic image,
was named one of Time's Most Influential People, rose rapidly to provincial governor and publicly campaigned for a cabinet position.
But, as conservative scholar Cheng Li said at the time, "Nobody really trusts him. A lot of people are scared of him, including several
princelings who are supposed to be his power base." Michael Wines wrote that, though he possessed prodigious charisma and deep intelligence,
"He possessed a studied indifference to the wrecked lives that littered his path to power Mr. Bo's ruthlessness stood out." With
the help of Justice Minister Zhou Yongkang, Bo had even wiretapped President Hu.
Despite considerable internal resistance, Vice Premier Wu Yi, the nation's highest woman official, demanded an open investigation
and a 2012 trial revealed that Bo owned expensive properties around the world and that his wife had murdered a British agent. They
were jailed for life and joined a long line of disgraced elites like the grandson of China's Head of State and founder of the Red
Army, Zhu De, who was executed for rape, and Yan Jianhong, wife of Guizhou's powerful Party Secretary, who was executed for corruption.
With prosperity assured, and elite corruption confronted, Congress anointed Xi Jinping, the most honest, competent official of
his generation, to succeed President Hu. In its first year, Xi's anti-corruption campaign saw ten thousand officials passed over
for promotion for concealing information and one-hundred thirty-thousand demoted or disciplined for making false declarations. By
2016, prosecutors had charged sixty-three senior officials and ministers with corruption, released confessions from fifty-seven thousand
Party members who made restitution and accepted demotions and seen Yunnan's corrupt Party Secretary, Bai Enpei, sentenced to death.
By 2018, anti-corruption squads had investigated 1.3 million bureaucrats, filed a million court cases, issued one hundred thousand
indictments, captured thousands of overseas fugitives and jailed or executed one-hundred twenty high-ranking officials–including
five national leaders, twelve generals, a dozen CEOs and Sun Zhengcai, former Chongqing Party chief, who was sentenced to life in
prison for taking huge bribes. After a 2019 industrial explosion in Tianjin killed one-hundred sixty-five people, the magistrate
found that petty bribery had led to weak code enforcement, sentenced the responsible official to death, and jailed forty-nine of
his colleagues.
Graft investigators unannounced inspections now resemble elite athletes' doping tests. An Anhui inspection team telephoned an
official four times between 7:31-7:35 one evening about his poverty alleviation efforts. He was showering and, when he failed to
answer, they reported him for obstruction and moved to dismiss him. Happily, through social media, the public came to his defense
and he was exonerated.
Knowing that that ten percent of their statements will be audited, even deputy county officials now report their marital status,
overseas travel, criminal record, wages, other earnings, family properties, stocks, funds, insurance and investments. If they refuse
to answer questions, or collude with, or protect accomplices, they are detained immediately.
Bureaucrats–especially those with leadership ambitions–endure increasing scrutiny as they advance, says Zhao Bing Bing
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China
Model. , "The selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter should be prioritized
[7] The same wording as the Chief Censor used
in the Tang Dynasty. .'" Midlevel officials must report their own assets and those of their parents, wives, children, children's
spouses and cousins, children from previous marriages, children born out of wedlock and foster children. They must report their income,
savings, real estate, stock portfolios, insurance policies, unit trusts, bonds, assets in overseas accounts and, "Income shall include
salary and various bonuses, allowances, subsidies, and payment you receive from lectures, writing, consultation, reviewing, painting
and calligraphy." Says a scion of a prominent family:
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing after
he came to power. A relative of mine works for the government as a vital governor in my city Chengdu (which is a big city like
BeiJing or ShangHai), then all my family people are like in the hierarchy of privilege. We pay nothing when go out for dinner,
the Party pays. We pay nothing for filling in oil, the Party pays. It seems like we don't need to pay for anything with our salaries,
cause either the Party pays, or someone will pay for us (who wants to flatter us). I smoke the best, I drink the best, sometimes
I even drive without license when drunk, because I fear no one.
In past times, yes we did have privilege everywhere, I felt so arrogant to be superior to others that's also true. But the
problem is, there is a tradeoff. We drank quite a lot of alcohol to show respect to others, we had to accept bribes even we know
it's risky, cause we have to consider about our clan (like the interest of my boss). We had to do some many things we don't want
to do, that's the rule of living in Party, care about the interest of Clan more than your own. That's how we united. We have to
fear a lot of threats from ordinary people, colleagues, and bosses. We cannot keep our own passports, Party keeps it in case of
we flee.
But life changed after Xi came to power, he did real things on anti-corruption. No one dare to present gifts to governors and
the abuse of public funds is strictly monitored. The Party took back the public cars from my family and even we have to pay for
the parking fee now! But..my family and I are actually happy with this, we are thankful to President Xi. Cause he seems like dragging
China to a healthier future. My relatives don't need to go out for dinner with other governors as social intercourse daily, they
don't need to drink so much on the table. And they start to learn to pay for the bill by turns, cause the Party will no longer
do this for them. They start to learn how to take bus or metro. That's good, actually. People start to think about what kind of
lifestyle is called 'healthy,' they are more like human now, no longer some conceited stupid with expanding power. That's how
our life changed after Xi came.
Senior ministers' lives have become excruciatingly transparent. Their private activities are scrutinized and their children must
adopt assumed names to avoid influence-seekers. Their meetings must have third-party observers as one-on-one appointments are taken
as evidence of impropriety. A record of excessive, or poor quality, government debts is treated as prima facie evidence of corruption
and automatically investigated. Senior officials are audited annually after retirement, remain responsible for the consequences of
all their decisions until the day they die and, even then, clawback provisions apply.
Xi invited amateur corruption fighters to join the campaign and Beijing publishes a monthly scoresheet. Citizens text tips and
complaints to the Rules and Discipline Committee (founded in the Tang Dynasty) at #12388 and often post accusations and photographs
of evidence on social media and request additional witnesses. Social media have made the masses' eyes sharper. Netizens scrutinizing
a news photograph noticed the work safety boss of Shaanxi province grinning broadly as he assessed the twisted wreckage of a bus
and a methanol tanker following an accident that left 36 people dead. They spotted his expensive timepiece and their tipoff and subsequent
investigation sent Yang Dacai, Brother Watch, to jail for fourteen years for taking a million dollars in bribes.
Today visitors burn incense at the shrines of great corruption fighters, the battle with official corruption still accounts for
half of all Chinese dramas, and millions watch TV dramas about 'Justice Bao' Zheng, the incorruptible Prefect of the Capital in 1000
AD. A popular TV series, 'In the Name of People,' depicts current-day intra-Party power struggles in the fictional city of Jingzhou.
There a prosecutor and a handful of honest local officials help laid-off workers protest a corrupt land deal, foil corrupt bureaucrats
sabotaging an arrest warrant, and stop fake police bulldozing honest citizens' homes. The show's writers say they have no shortage
of material.
Until 2018, anti-corruption work was shared by the National Bureau of Corruption Prevention, which recommended anti-corruption
policies and handled international anti-corruption coordination. The Supreme People's Procuratorate investigated various kinds of
malfeasance. The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection enforced party loyalty, anti-graft, ethical and Party lifestyle requirements
among civil servants and leading officials who are Party members, but turned criminal evidence over to the state for prosecution.
The Ministry of Supervision, MOS, supervised civil servants who were non-Party members, investigated graft, misappropriation of public
funds and other duty-related violations.
The Commission subsumes their functions into an independent, fourth arm of government that ranks with the Supreme Court and the
Department of Justice. As the most powerful such agency on earth, it employs legislation, digital technology (including face recognition
and AI), the sharp eyes of the people, and great investigative powers. With the goal of making corruption impossible, it centralizes
all anti-corruption processes and exercises authority over all civil servants within and outside the Party, the government, the People's
Congresses, the local supervisory commissions, the people's courts and procuracy, the People's Congresses, the eight democratic parties,
federations of industry and commerce, and everyone who works in, or consults for, organizations managing public affairs. With extensive
powers to interrogate, search, wiretap, detain suspects and freeze their assets, its writ extends to managers of state owned enterprises,
state educational, scientific, research, cultural, health care, sports, and similar agencies, think tanks, village and urban residents
committees, and 'all other personnel who perform public duties' and oversees provincial, city, and county level anti-corruption agencies.
Congress appoints the Commission's senior staff and Yang Xiaodu, its first director was, like Xi, a sent-down youth who performed
manual labour in Anhui province during the Cultural Revolution. Staff need not be Party members but they can never work in another
arm of government for the rest of their lives. The Commission is a political, not administrative body, and is exempt from the extensive
procedural and substantive constraints on administrative organs like the police. Though the law requires staff to pay compensation
'in accordance with law' for infringing people's lawful rights and interests, it does not provide a right of further recourse through
the courts, but does permit targets to appeal to higher-level organs for re-examination of the Commission's decisions and to challenge
unlawful conduct like prolonged detention.
If the Commission comes even close to its goal of making corruption impossible, grateful citizens will credit Confucius and the
First Emperor for limiting political power to a single lifetime and confining it to those who demonstrate both honesty and intelligence.
They will credit the present dynasty for testing officials in the wilderness and imposing extraordinary transparency, themselves
for their unwillingness to tolerate corruption, and Xi Jinping for creating the most powerful corruption-fighting agency in history.
Looking back only ten years, it is difficult to believe that corruption in China is on track to rival Singapore's by 2021.
* Corruption in Eighteenth-Century China. Nancy E. Park. The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 56, no. 4, 1997.
Notes
[1] Qu Yuan, 340-278 BC, was a Chu
kingdom official and government minister who wrote some of the greatest poetry in Chinese history.
[2] From Huáng-Míng Zǔxùn (Instructions
of the Ancestor of the August Ming), admonitions left to his descendants by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, founder of the Ming
dynasty (1368 to 1644).
[3] An old friend of the party assesses
China's new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's
Director for China. The Diplomat
[5] China's Meritocratic Examinations
and the Ideal of Virtuous Talents. Xiao, H., & Li, C. (2013). In D. Bell & C. Li (Eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy:
Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing,
The China Model.
[7] The same wording as the Chief
Censor used in the Tang Dynasty.
[8] The National Supervision Commission was
formed at the first session of the 13th National People's Congress in 2018 and absorbed the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
of the Communist Party of China.
One salient difference between the Chinese and the Western concept of corruption is the role of laws. For people in the west,
the definition of corruption is strongly tied to, and in fact mostly defined through laws. To put it very crudely: anything legal
is not corruption, and vice versa (i.e. all corruption is illegal).
In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even
if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a
speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly
legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption.
There is really no right or wrong in either approaches. Both contains their pros and cons. The Western way has the advantage
of transparency that make it easier to follow. But it favors the rich and powerful people who can find loopholes and workarounds
to the laws. It also has the disadvantage of difficulty in keeping abreast with advances and changes of society and technologies
. The Chinese way has the advantage of flexibility to meeting the moral standard and demands from the people, but may become confusing
and uncertain for many people like businessmen or foreigners.
In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the
Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece.
The stilted prose and logic is evident. His stuff is full of charts and graphs which magically appear on his computer, unlike
yours or mine. Much of that might be "true" in the sense of basic historical writings, but selectively edited. Current Chinese
leader Xi here is extolled as chasing "corruption" away. Ha!
The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all
such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the
message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly
unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically.
Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this.
Meanwhile Mr. "Roberts" probably earns a very nice salary doing this work. Maybe even teaches English and propaganda messaging
part time. Billions are spent censoring the Internet there and creating rosy statistics. Some gullible foreigners buy into that.
Fair enough. Every State has its hired liars and propaganda artists. But China has really set the mark for its effort.
Just avoid going there and saying anything negative. Their prisons are not like ours.
What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example,
to further one's own career.
I thought Bo Xilai was a maoist and so was Zhou Yongkang, both also had countryside experiences similar to Xi Jinping, and Bo
Xilai as mayor of Chongqing was very much aligned with Maoists and worked on rehabilitating the memory of the cultural revolution.
I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard.
He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have
done so, like Bo Xilai did.
Xi Jinping isn't anywhere near the leftist Bo Xilai was.
Godfree did you communicate with Chinese who lived in Chongqing under Bo Xilai's mayorship, what did they say then? I recall
the corrupt wealthy hating him and the poor loving him. let's not forget Bo Xilai also had anti-corruption anti-gang campaigns.
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing
after he came to power
I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that
people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi
can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here.
This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable.
Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it.
Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying,
they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground.
@Muggles I am a US expat, and happen
to live in the China Mainland, and my impression is that most Chinese believe Xi Jinping is doing a great job. What do you care
really? Do you have any dogs in this race?
Talk about propaganda. Tell me then whom are the following:
Falun Gong
Shen Yun
Epoch Times
New Tang Dynasty
China Uncensored
There is no doubt in my mind China is a threat to the hegemony of the West. I definitely prefer Western civilization. But if
forced to choose between Chung Kuo and Babel 2.0, I'll take the former every time.
@Muggles It's not often someone
gets so many things wrong in such a tight space. Congratulations.
I've published at least six books, none about China, my bio is all over the place, and I run a business in under my own name.
If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie
about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to
let its accomplishments speak for themselves.
I estimate that, since 1950, we taxpayers have spent $100 billion creating and disseminating lies about China–$1.5 billion
annually. Money well spent, if you're in the top 1%, because it convinces the masses that, in Margaret Thatcher's words, there
is no alternative to our failing system.
CIA Director William Casey[1] confirmed this when he told President Reagan in 1981, "We'll know our disinformation campaign
has worked when everything the American public believes is false." Carl Bernstein[2], of Watergate fame, revealed that four hundred
journalists had 'secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.' All major US media outlets cooperated,
he said, including ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst, the Miami Herald, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself,
was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences:
The Philippines press enjoys all the freedoms of the US system but fails the people: a wildly partisan press helped Philippines
politicians flood the marketplace of ideas with junk and confuse and befuddle the people so that they could not see what their
vital interests were in a developing country. And, because vital issues like economic growth and equitable distribution were
seldom discussed, they were never tackled and the democratic system malfunctioned. Look at Taiwan and South Korea: their free
press runs rampant and corruption runs riot. The critic itself is corrupt yet the theory is, if you have a free press, corruption
disappears. Now I'm telling you, that's not true. Freedom of the press, freedom of news critics, must be subordinated to the
overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.
Says Ann Lee[5], "
A reporter and friend of Michael Massing[6] who worked at the Beijing office of The Wall Street Journal told him that the
editors in Washington regularly changed material information and opinions in his articles. Given the twelve-hour time difference,
by the time his stories went to press in the West, the editors had replaced all the Chinese interviews with statements from
American talking heads who work at think tanks promoting anti-China perspectives."
The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China, the Chinese
were busy eating our lunch, and now it's too late. By 2021 every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe
streets, health- and old age care. 300,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American,
their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years
ahead of American kids and live longer, healthier lives and there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless,
poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.
What's more, they'll be ahead of us in science and technology–they're already ahead in math, chemistry, engineering and computer
science–because they have 10x more geniuses and spend 3x more on R&D than we do.
They pulled it off because rubes like you believed the bs you read in our media and insulted anyone who tried to tell you the
truth. Congratulations.
____________________________________________________________
[1] A direct quote, provided and authenticated by Barbara Honegger, White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant
to the President for Domestic Policy in the first Reagan Administration, 1981–83, who was present at the briefing and confirmed
it with other witnesses.
[2] "The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and
Why the Church Committee Covered It Up." Carl Bernstein. Rolling Stone, 1977.
[3] Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists), Udo Ulfkotte. Kopp Verlag. 2014. The English language edition, Journalists For
Hire: How The CIA Buys The News, has been suppressed.
[4] A Third World Perspective on the Press. RH Lee Kwan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore. C-SPAN, APRIL 14, 1988
[5] What the U.S. Can Learn from China: An Open-Minded Guide to Treating Our Greatest Competitor as Our Greatest Teacher, by Ann
Lee, 2012
[6] Editor of The Columbia Journalism Review.
The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest,
competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned
everyone's trust by doing that consistently.
The next step is making the process transparent: publish the rules, put an accountable person in charge of the process–someone
with a great deal to lose if they're perceived as being unfair or dishonest (interestingly, Rome's Chief Censor was also such
a person) and China's current censor is one of the most admired people in the country.
Then, have a transparent appeals process so that everyone can watch issues being thrashed out.
It's a human and therefore, imperfect, process but people don't expect perfection of their leaders, just best efforts–and that's
what the PRC delivers.
@Anonymous Bo was very popular in
Chongqing and people still point to the trees he planted and to the rapid progress they made under his administration.
But that is a sine qua non in Chinese government. Even someone as high born as Bo can only hope for advancement if they
show dramatic, tangible progress in their area of responsibility.
I suspect from his profile that Bo was a high functioning sociopath whose birth allowed him to bypass many of the filters in
the system.
He is often spoken of as a 'rival' of Xi Jinping, but that is simply a Western projection. China's elite knew about Bo's liabilities
for decades and one of the reasons Xi got the nod was that he ranked as high as Bo socially. Do you remember how Xi 'disappeared'
for ten days following his promotion to the Peacock Throne? He was meeting with his and Bo's peers–their age cohort–to get their
blessing on the cleanup he had planned.
@Tusk Nobody has suffered from calling
Xi a steamed bun.
However, Chinese don't call their leaders names because their relationship to officials is entirely different from our (Roman)
relationship. Martin Jacques explains it well:
The Chinese state enjoys much greater legitimacy than any Western state. The Chinese treat the state with a reverence and
respect that is more or less unknown in the West; and the reason clearly has nothing to do with democracy. In other words,
a state's legitimacy cannot be reduced to the existence or otherwise of democracy: on the contrary, democracy is not necessarily
the most important factor in a state's legitimacy and may, as in the case of China, be relatively unimportant. The underlying
reason for the legitimacy of the Chinese state is that, as discussed earlier, it is seen by the people as the embodiment and
guardian of Chinese civilization, enjoying, as a consequence, something akin to a spiritual significance. It follows that what
would undermine the legitimacy of a government, the present one included, is a threat to the country's unity. The attitude
of the Chinese towards the state, thus, is very different to that of Westerners. For the latter, the state is an outsider,
a stranger, even an interloper, whose presence should, as far as possible, be limited and confined. This is most obviously
the case in the United States, with those who identify with the Tea Party, for example, regarding the state as an alien body,
but even in Europe it is viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. In China, in contrast, the state and society are seen as
on the same side and part of the same endeavour: the state enjoys the status of an intimate and is treated like a member of
the family, not just any member but the head of the family – the patriarch himself. We can only understand the immense authority
of the Chinese state in these terms, an authority which has been reinforced by the fact that, unlike in the West, it has had
no serious rivals for over a millennium.
"The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too
smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast
can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here is a good
analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I wish they have objective comments about China
or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget
that they should bear false witness
Are you sharing the 10′ of 1″ pipe through which you view the world with Muggles? Are you aware that Muggles did nothing but
add a few more feet to it?
People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains"
the widest possible array of empirical facts. Muggles' ignores the vast majority – perhaps even all – of the facts.
Ergo, it renders neither yourself nor your readers any value to champion it. Why make the effort to propagate such an obvious
failure? Have you never wondered why you lack the dignity and common sense to desist from promoting something whereof you would
more usefully remain silent? Are you even aware of the shortfall?
Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay
Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per
capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and
China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt
factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures
with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will.
They are bribing the US congress to end the per country cap on EB5 visas, where 80% of applicants are corrupt Chinese. The
House passed the HR 1044 bill a few months ago scrapping the H1b cap for India and EB5 cap for China. Now Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
is trying to get the same bill passed in the Senate. Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein tried to kill off the EB5 a few times,
but Trump and SIL wouldn't let them. The Kushner family relies on EB5 money for their real estate development.
EB5 is the #1 get out of jail on the cheap card for corrupt Chinese. Many are now buying homes in the US and letting their
high school and college age children live in those houses, sometimes 16 year olds who could barely speak English living in million
dollar homes by themselves, attending our local high schools for free.
I know of a woman from China in my area who works for JP Morgan, who handles all rich clients from China. It wouldn't surprise
me one bit if the FBI shows up at her house one day and walks her out in handcuffs, for helping rich Chinese launder their money
in the US. The US needs to deport every single last one of these disgusting corrupt pigs to let them go back to China and face
trial.
Curious to see the author responding 6 times now (in only 20 posts) to commentors. Aren't the new site rules against this? It's
a little off-putting to see an article author respond at all, not to mention that it buttresses Muggles's assertions.
I have no reason to doubt Roberts.
Years ago I read a news report on the execution of a Chinese manufacturing official who was bribed into buying some cheaper ingredient,
I think it was, that turned out to sicken or poison people.
Maybe Roberts remembers that.
Some executions or long prison terms for the corrupt in the US would be a good thing.
@d dan You are right the US is also
very corrupt. The book Tailspin – The People and Forces Behind America's Fifty Year Fall by Steven Brill is a great read.
America is destroyed by its effed up laws, mostly crafted by Jewish lawyers, who basically built corruption into laws sanctioned
by the Supreme Court through cases like Citizens United and Super PAC.
This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule
of (((lawyers))).
Germany and the Scandinavian countries would consider our campaign financing and lobbying industry as corruption on a mass
scale. Hitler lost the battle of WWII but won the war for Germany by ridding them of the Jews, until Merkel the idiot came along
but that's another story.
United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, that is.
As
.The United Front, which is supported by considerable resources and a vast bureaucratic operation, was called one of his
"magical weapons" by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September 2014. One of the objectives is to co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals
and organizations in foreign countries
and
.Xi has delivered multiple speeches and made it formal policy to demand loyalty and commitment from diasporas who the Party
refers to as the "sons and daughters" of China. The United Front is the apparatus of choice.
and
.In Australia, the majority of Chinese-language press are owned by entities with at least partial links to Beijing.
Now, that line of thought could go even further in this pub . but, let's skip that, for the moment.
I had a roommate in college who was from China. He pretty much said that if you know people in the government or have money you
could get away with a lot. One of his parents was a customs official, and so he would talk about different things he planned on
smuggling to China when he returned with no worries. This was in the late 90's, though.
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart
for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
Exactly right.
And speaking of media bias, Gordon Chang is one of the worst US anti-China propagandist there is he is never right.
The naivete displayed in this article concerning the unavoidable, true, core, fundamental nature of all governments everywhere,[past
present, or future], is, sadly, very, very common in both East, West and all points between.
Reality fact: All governments are 100% corrupt, all the time.
Its impossible for them to be anything else, given the sources of their entirely unearned income.[see first quote below].
To make an exception in the case of modern China succeeds only in highlighting the extreme naivete and gullibility of the articles
author. Either that [naivete/gullibility], or the author is just another communist party hack who has no idea [or doesn't care]
about the extreme danger to all humanity that the communist "ideology" represents, and in particular, has zero idea about how
centralized, top down economic systems all inevitably must "work", and what inevitably must/will happen to majority of the population
in a country that enforces the idiotic, anti- free market, top-down economic policies of any of the various brands of collectivism,
be those policies be labelled "communism", "fascism" ,"nationalism", "democratic socialism", or whatever. Hint: it's called "extreme
poverty and enslavement".
Even the historical record of the 20th century vis a vis all forms of collectivism, [including that of Chinas' "great leap
forward", is consistently ignored/ covered up.[ "That was then, this is now"!]
In "defense" of this author, I'll just remind myself that the very same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all
governments are at the core of almost every Unz.com article I've read here in the last 6 months since I started reading this site.
Indeed, the exact same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all governments are consistently evident in the articles
by the sites owner, Ron Unz. Recently, I even experienced the pleasure of being banned by one author here [A. Karlin], for pointing
out that his own revered "nationalism" was just another brand of socialism.
And so it goes .. :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank
monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved",
nor "limited" in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities
of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For that is what one does when one votes.
If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that
it might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you cannot clean up a brothel
and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank
Chodorov, Out of Step (1962)
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Robert LeFevre
@d dan " ..media biased Hong Kong
reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony but there would be no need for a trial
just a coroner.
@Godfree Robertson, What do you think the Chinese diaspora especially in Canada, U.S., and Australia do? The ones that hold foreign
passports I mean. And my experience with Chinese people is they largely dislike the government, but have an extreme aggressive
nationalism for their country which only manifests when a 外国人 says something. Because as far as I can tell Chinese rush to get
out of China and you yourself don't seem to live there either. I personally don't doubt your claims that China will be better
off than America, but why is there still a lot of emigration? Another question are you aware of any attempts or plans to fix the
massive pollution problem? look forward from hearing back from you.
My former employer had no use for corruption, even a paperclip was accounted for due to the office spy. We had only 20 employees
and nobody dared badmouth the boss. My job was terminated when the office spy reported me taking home paper cups from the water
fountain. My boss received his jobs from the local government by bribing a few politicians. But he demanded honesty from his staff.
@onebornfree Reality fact: All you
(((LoLbertarians))) are 100% pedo, all the time.
"In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children ." -Murray
Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, a founder of lolbertarianism
@Tusk If propaganda is information,
especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view ,
then the PRC doesn't put much out. 80% of Chinese trust it, compared to the 30% of us who trust our media.
And remember, the Chinese are smarter, better educated and more widely traveled than us.
@FatPanda "What do you care really?
Do you have any dogs in this race?"
He is offering thoughts on an article posted on an American website. Perhaps as an expat living in China you've become too
accustomed to only viewing "approved" opinions.
Another drawn out piece from the guy who could not get rich in the capitalist usa and lives the good life in bang-cock thailand
on social. But, whatever, china is for the Chinese and not for the anglo saxons; he is not allowed in but worships from afar.
My 77 years as a participant observer tell me that corruption and criminality are endemic to any large human society so, therefore,
utopianism is a pipe dream.
America's misguided war on Chinese technology By Jeffrey D Sachs November 8,
2019
The worst foreign-policy decision by the United States of the last generation – and
perhaps longer – was the "war of choice" that it launched in Iraq in 2003 for the stated
purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction that did not, in fact, exist. Understanding
the illogic behind that disastrous decision has never been more relevant, because it is being
used to justify a similarly misguided US policy today.
The decision to invade Iraq followed the illogic of then-US vice-president Richard Cheney,
who declared that even if the risk of WMD falling into terrorist hands was tiny – say, 1%
– we should act as if that scenario would certainly occur.
Such reasoning is guaranteed to lead to wrong decisions more often than not. Yet the US and
some of its allies are now using the Cheney Doctrine to attack
Chinese technology. The US government argues that because we can't know with certainty that
Chinese technologies are safe, we should act as if they are certainly dangerous and bar
them.
Proper decision-making applies probability estimates to alternative actions. A generation
ago, US policymakers should have considered not only the (alleged) 1% risk of WMD falling into
terrorist hands, but also the 99% risk of a war based on flawed premises. By focusing only on
the 1% risk, Cheney (and many others) distracted the public's attention from the much greater
likelihood that the Iraq war lacked justification and that it would gravely destabilize the
Middle East and global politics.
The problem with the Cheney Doctrine is not only that it dictates taking actions predicated
on small risks without considering the potentially very high costs. Politicians are tempted to
whip up fears for ulterior purposes.
That is what US leaders are doing again: creating a panic over Chinese technology companies
by raising, and exaggerating, tiny risks. The most pertinent case (but not the only one) is the
US government attack on the wireless broadband company Huawei. The US is closing its markets to
the company and trying hard to shut down its business around the world. As with Iraq, the US
could end up creating a geopolitical disaster for no reason.
I have followed Huawei's technological advances and work in developing countries, as I
believe that fifth-generation (5G) and other digital technologies offer a huge boost to ending
poverty and other Sustainable Development Goals. I have similarly interacted with other telecom
companies and encouraged the industry to step up actions for the United Nations' SDGs. When I
wrote a short foreword (without compensation) for a
Huawei report on the topic, and was criticized by foes of China, I asked top industry and
government officials for evidence of wayward activities by Huawei. I heard repeatedly that
Huawei behaves no differently than trusted industry leaders.
The US government nonetheless argues that Huawei's 5G equipment could undermine global
security. A "back door" in Huawei's software or hardware, US officials claim, could enable the
Chinese government to engage in surveillance around the world. After all, US officials note,
China's laws require Chinese companies to cooperate with the government for purposes of
national security.
Given the technology's importance for their sustainable development, low-income economies
around the world would be foolhardy to reject an early 5G rollout. Yet despite providing no
evidence of back doors, the US is telling the world to stay away from Huawei
Now, the facts are these. Huawei's 5G equipment is low-cost and high-quality, currently
ahead of many competitors, and already rolling out. Its high performance results from years of
substantial spending on research and development, scale economies, and learning by doing in the
Chinese digital marketplace. Given the technology's importance for their sustainable
development, low-income economies around the world would be foolhardy to reject an early 5G
rollout.
Yet despite providing no evidence of back doors, the US is telling the world to stay away
from Huawei. The US claims are generic. As a US Federal Communications Commissioner
put it , "The country that owns 5G will own innovations and set the standards for the rest
of the world, and that country is currently not likely to be the United States." Other
countries, most notably the United Kingdom, have
found no back doors in Huawei's hardware and software. Even if back doors were discovered
later, they could almost surely be closed at that point.
The debate over Huawei rages in Germany, where the US government threatens to curtail
intelligence cooperation unless the authorities exclude Huawei's 5G technology. Perhaps as a
result of the US pressure, Germany's spy chief recently made a claim
tantamount to the Cheney Doctrine: "Infrastructure is not a suitable area for a group that
cannot be trusted fully." He offered no evidence of specific misdeeds. Chancellor Angela
Merkel, by contrast, is fighting
behind the scenes to leave the market open for Huawei.
Ironically, though predictably, the US complaints partly reflect America's
own surveillance activities at home and abroad. Chinese equipment might make secret
surveillance by the US government more difficult. But unwarranted surveillance by any
government should be ended. Independent UN monitoring to curtail such activities should become
part of the global telecommunications system. In short, we should choose diplomacy and
institutional safeguards, not a technology war.
The threat of US demands to blockade Huawei concerns more than the early rollout of the 5G
network. The risks to the rules-based trading system are profound. Now that the US is no longer
the world's undisputed technology leader, President Donald Trump and his advisers don't want to
compete according to a rules-based system. Their goal is to contain China's technological rise.
Their simultaneous attempt to neutralize the World Trade Organization by
disabling its dispute settlement system shows the same disdain for global rules.
If the Trump administration "succeeds" in dividing the world into separate technology camps,
the risks of future conflicts will multiply. The US championed open trade after World War II
not only to boost global efficiency and expand markets for American technology, but also to
reverse the collapse of international trade in the 1930s. That collapse stemmed in part from
protectionist tariffs imposed by the US under the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act , which
amplified the Great Depression, in turn contributing to the rise of Adolf Hitler and,
ultimately, the outbreak of World War II.
In international affairs, no less than in other domains, stoking fears and acting on them,
rather than on the evidence, is the path to ruin. Let's stick to rationality, evidence and
rules as the safest course of action. And let us create independent monitors to curtail the
threat of any country using global networks for surveillance of or cyberwarfare on others. That
way, the world can get on with the urgent task of harnessing breakthrough digital technologies
for the global good.
my grandfather's property in West Berlin was maybe 700 yards from the wall. With
binoculars, I could get a good view from my second floor bedroom. Of course the Berlin Wall
was a much more modest border than the inner German one.
Arguably, after upgrades were started in the late 60's, the inner German border became a
very effective barrier. One thing that made it effective (and mind you, it was a border
keeping people in more than a border keeping people out) was the exclusion zone extending 5km
from the border. Only people with special permits could live and work there.
In order to make the border more practical, entire villages were razed and parts of th
physical border were located back from the actual border to avoid difficult terrain. Throw in
the land mines, booby traps and 50,000 or so troops guarding about 870 miles of the inner
German border, and it came to an effective barrier.
So I don't want to say we can't "seal" the Mexican border. But I think the expense in land
seizures, manpower, and land mines is likely a lot higher for the 2000 miles of our southern
border than the 15-20 billion estimated for its construction.
Bismarck says that politics is the art of the possible. Given the huge demand, stamping out
drug running is impossible. For an adequate price, there will always be people willing to
meet the demand. At best, you drive up the price and make successful runners incredibly rich.
Dean Baker bruited this idea: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/a-trade-war-everyone-can-win
"The alternative is simple: Mexico could announce that it would no longer enforce U.S.
patents and copyrights on its soil. This would be a yuuge deal, as Trump would say."
I agree sealing the border would be exorbitantly expensive. This would include not just a
big,beautiful wall and the manpower to watch over that wall, but a massive surveillance and
security presence along the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The expense would be similar
to the cost imposed on the home front during WWII. It will require widespread sacrifice,
probably a progressive tax structure similar to what we had during WWII. Maybe even
rationing. Would that make America great and please the great deplorable mass?
Colonel Lang's idea of killing all the drug cartel leadership wherever we find them for an
extended period of time would definitely be a cheaper proposition. I would call it the
Rodrigo Duterte plan. I think making sure a lot of bankers end up sitting in their big
leather chairs with bullet holes in their heads would do much to hasten the success of this
plan.
The point of the article is that a strategy of leadership decapitation of an organization,
whether it be a drug cartel or a jihadist group, does not lead to the destruction of the
organization. The original decapitation strategy was based on the premise that the targeted
organization was strictly hierarchical and could not function without an intact hierarchy. In
fact, most of these target organizations evolved into more distributed organizations. We
weren't quick to see this because we are also wedded to the need for a robust hierarchy in
our organization. This is where the article ends, but the story continued.
Our strategy also evolved in Iraq and Afghanistan. JSOC strike missions became more than
checking faces off a static organizational chart as a hit list. Each strike became an
information gathering mission. That information was quickly analyzed into "actionable
intelligence" resulting in ensuing JSOC strikes and more information gathering. This evolved
into a rapid cycle with often several strikes in a night. This strategy struct at the enemy's
growing resiliency and distributed organization. This is the present state of the art in JSOC
operations.
Globalism sounds like such a nice thing for many, it even has a nice ring to it! At least to
the naïve, whom actually believe that if the world could just get together and work out
its problems under one big umbrella, all would be great. I think most people would agree that
true free trade, coupled with safeguards to protect American jobs would be fine. The corrupted
globalism that this world has become nearly immersed in is a mechanism that, in reality, is
intent on creating a one world corporate owned planet operated under a top-down, locked-down,
political and economic management system backed up by coercion. Whew! That is a mouthful I
agree! It will be run by a partnership of the top .001% of wealthiest elites and administered
by the United Nations. International rules and laws for every single decision will nearly all
come under the auspices the United Nations. This plan has been laid out in various United
Nations publications and official policy.
President Trump has vowed to, and succeeded in some ways, to buck these one world
globalists, not to say he hasn't treated them to overly generous tax breaks since he has been
in charge! Not withstanding the prior, these one world globalists include even some of the most
prominent lawmakers in Washington D.C. far too often. The entrenched snake sales people over at
the White House lawmaking division are far too often part of the plan to decimate America
whether they believe it or not. We can only hope that a large part of them are do not realize
what the end-game is of this globalist cabal. Perhaps this is of course why we so often shake
our heads in disbelief when they utter ideas and beliefs that sound so foreign to ears,
anti-American and even scary!
So far, Pres. Trump seems to have accomplished about as much as any one president ever could
accomplish when walking into a room of entrenched den of thieves! Washington is not going to be
a part of solving the problems of globalism, for they and the globalists are in bed together.
Part of the problem remains that the establishment agenda is overrun by statists who walk in
lock-step with their leaders and party platforms even if corrupted. It is just too profitable
for them to ignore. Yet, the truth is that statism has no sense of proportion. These sometimes
well-meaning politicians, once they are put into power, knowingly or unknowingly become slaves
to their corporate owners. This is corporatocracy, and it is unsustainable. The one world
corporate pirates, comprising a collection of the largest 100 or so family dynasties, do in
fact control approximately 90 percent of the wealth of the world, hidden inside a dark web of
very complex multi-structured organizations and corporate nameplates. Such makes it very
difficult, but not impossible to truly figure out who the real owners are behind the maze. This
is perhaps the reason why I contend that President Trump, an outsider with a new direction for
America, may be our last chance. Most of these types hate Trump because he is hitting them
where it hurts on most fronts and is slowing down the globalist agenda!
Corporate socialism IS globalism. It is a growing and controlled oligarchy. As such, it
affords both the supranational capitalists, world's governments and non-elected quasi
governmental agencies to profit together as a baseball team would. Yes, working together with
one unified grand vision for the profit and powers of both. Globalism is the name. We already
see how nearly everything around us is becoming part of the so-called global order. These,
creating quid-pro-quo systems of control over the entire world economies, whom create wars for
profit, create inflation to inadvertently benefit themselves and enact so-called "free-trade
partnerships" that portend to help creates jobs here at home, only succeed occasionally of
creating low wage service jobs in large part in the parts of the world that the globalists
venture with their self-serving con-game. Limiting competition, being on the inside, having
power over others, this is what the global government and one world monopolistic corporations
are all about. The free trade agreements offer all of its members to petition, (and usually
get) allowances to get around many of the safeguards and traditional legal rules that used to
be sacrosanct in world trade. Especially as to food processing. The move toward monopolization
is perhaps the biggest motivator these have for supporting globalist (un)free trade
agreements.
What the true elite globalists (who reside in both political parties in Washington and world
power centers in particular) want is unbridled control over nearly everything in order to unite
us into a global world of subservient slaves unto them. So, what's the answer?
It is easy to witness that the far leftists often do not divulge they are socialists at all.
In recent years, this is changing, now that millions of young voters have been convinced by
their colleges and mass media outlets that socialism IS the answer. In the past, no candidate
would utter the word socialism for fear of many lost votes. Today, a surprisingly large
percentage of politicians in government are onboard. We can easily spot them if we compare
their voting records. Then compare them to the promises made when running for election! So,
before you get too comfortable with politicians who come off as infectiously kind and
compassionate while often using the words 'fairness', "world community", "social equality",
"open borders", "free trade", "globalism", "social justice" and other such pleasantly
attractive bleeding heart politicians using such catch-phrases, be careful. Although Democrats
will more often than not fall into this category of unsung globalists, many on both sides of
the isle fit the bill as well. Some more than others knowingly use these kind sounding
platforms in order to garner votes from the gullible young in particular. History shows over
and over again how gullible citizens can be duped into voting for someone they thought was a
caring politician, then come to discover they voted for a hidden socialist or communist in
fact. Although we can all agree on the responsibilities of our government as spelled out in the
Constitution, our founding fathers warned the new country that we must beware of politicians
who promise more than that great document promises.
Government / corporate partnerships, whether formal or consensual, create insanely
profitable fortunes for their owners while too often screwing over not only Americans but the
worlds taxpaying citizens and their industrialized countries as well. Who do you think the
prime contractors are who build and supply trillions of dollars of military weapons to the
huge, high testosterone American military machine? These war factories are largely owned by
billion-dollar super elites whose huge goliath corporations very often operate under a
duplicity of names that largely hides the true identities of the owners behind them. These true
owners often use layers of sub-corporations operating under various, differing names and
locations providing legal and illegal tax havens around the world. Apple pays zero US taxes for
example using such a scheme. This is just one case amongst thousands. Often the tax havens are
claimed are justified by the existence of a foreign post office box. Seldom are these caught or
fined by our U.S. authorities. When they do occasionally get caught, the fines are typically
just a miniscule part of the total savings they have accumulated over the past years.
With a little research we can find many of the same board members appearing again and again
on the rosters of the quietly interconnected mega corporations. This creates the long-time
problem of immoral collusions that often allow shifting of profits to other tax havens,
allowing American profits to go untaxed and shifting the responsibility fully onto the American
worker. Does it not make sense that a corporation that makes ridiculous record profits such as
Apple and others do, that they should pay their share? This globalist mindset of the elites
creates record profits at the expense of American workers and their spending powers.
Within our public "screwling system" as I call it, students are increasingly taught that
"globalism" is a new religion of sorts, a "cure-all" for world discourse perhaps! Those with
enough power to create massive changes in culture are behind the politically correct culture,
the green movement and most other leftist power grabs. These are often the very same
supra-national corporations and political kingpins who wish to undermine the America we
remember, its legal system while creating a monopolistic economic and totalitarian one world
state. It is wise to remember the confirmed beliefs and admissions o f the godfathers of the
one world order. Of course I am speaking of the Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan and dozens more of
the wealthiest families of the world whom have for centuries verifiably acted upon and talked
of such plans. Their heirs, as well as the new titans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos (Amazon
fame), Elon Musk (Tesla) and other such billionaire or trillionaire types are nearly all on
board vocally with a one world order system of governance. I will cover this much more further
on.
For over 100 years, much of American education has been stealthily entrenched in
anti-Western "cultural Marxism" propaganda and other damaging indoctrinations (as I document
later). Public schools have long promoted the globalism lie, teaching such as the yellow brick
road towards acceptance of a one world order that delivers utopia. It is hard indeed to find a
young person today in America who still believes strongly in traditional values and ideas of
self-responsibility, detest government interference in their lives, loves the Constitution,
what it stands for and protects. They have been indoctrinated by our schools to the point that
common sense no longer matters, for honest discourse in discussions are heavily discouraged in
many a classroom. I prove further along that most of the liberal ideology being increasingly
touted by the left is borne out of a long dreamt of socialist utopia carried out by a
partnership between the corporate globalists, the U.N. and those elites who desire power over
the world. And I can guarantee to you that these are getting impatient. These, their
cohorts/devotees are those whom desire to make the choices as to everything you buy, eat,
drive, live, your job destiny, how much or how little you make, etc. etc. Most of this agenda
is not so hidden, contained already within the prime vehicle to bring about the one world order
with the United Nations Agenda 21 policies taking place around the world.
Considering that at least 50% of the world's wealth is verifiably controlled by the top 1%
consisting of only 67 of the world's wealthiest individuals (and shrinking), this is pretty
good evidence that we are essentially being controlled by a very small corporate global elite
club designed and run for the few. These stats are verified later. The pace of their
destruction is staggering.
Today, the top 200 corporations are bigger than the combined economies of 182 countries and
have twice the economic influence than 80 per cent of all humanity as I prove!
Globalism has come very far in rendering world with greatly reduced amounts of anything
amounting to a capitalistic system that comes with practical safeguards against abuses that
place too much harm to the hard working stiffs. Increasingly, we witness wage inequalities
worse than in the Great Depression. Truly, the top 10 percent earners have left everyone else
in the dust increasingly over the last 50 years. The top 1 percenters incomes during this time
has gone to the moon at the expense of the masses.
Globalism is the vehicle to achieve the elite globalist goals of a one world order,
separate, nationalistic and independent nations with their own borders must be eliminated,
which shouldn't be too much of a problem to accomplish in much of the world, especially in the
current socialist run countries in and around the European continent and America who largely
embrace socialism. What is ironic is that socialist Briton's have turn their backs on Brexit,
meant to centralize nearly all power to the elite globalists. Little did they realize that you
can't have both, at least in the long run.
The League of Nations was the precursor of the United Nations. From their beginnings, the
primary long-term reason for both of them had always been to be the primary central agency of
the world, an assemblage of the top global power brokers created to steer and carry out the new
world order which has been dreamt of for millennium. Its creation has not been, as it touts,
"to create a harmonious and peaceful world". No, the U.N.'s overarching goal has been to create
a one world government using the ploy of globalism. There are ample records dating back before
its very creation, direct from the U.N.'s own publications and top officers and founders to
support this statement which I document quite fully in order to prove that point. This UN has
with much ambition endorsed and sanctioned one world inspired leaders, corporations, groups,
agencies, NGO's and billionaires from countries all around the globe in a long term unified
vision of this new world order in order to further the one world agenda. The help that the UN
has supplied in the creation of most planned wars, coups and disruptions across the world is
well known by those who have done their homework on that subject. It is this cabal and others
that are the enemies of true freedoms, borders, sovereignty across the globe yet are completely
onboard with creating a one world government. Americanism or any other type of governance
besides their one world order. These are the a major part of the world's Deep State apparatus
who are in fact often hidden forces behind the worlds corporate powered global power
structure.
The global multinational corporatist leaders have pushed their un-free trade treaties, long
creating a horrid record of killing millions of good paying jobs across America and nearly
everywhere they venture. These stealing of good jobs have swelled the bank accounts and powers
of these globalist multinational corporations while boosting their wealth into the top 1%
largely at the expense of the masses who now work for far less. lowered wages.
The globalists new world order plan requires a complete breakdown of the required systems
that have historically allowed nation to prosper on its own merits. Sold by both parties is the
false belief that big government can fix everything. This long-running sales job actually
promotes self-interest above all, using deceptive techniques as I cover. Such a sales job
requires a break away from traditions that bind us with our neighbors and family. It requires a
growth in narcissism, self above God so much so that we can now even witiness the horrid
reality of pedophilia becoming more mainstream! Since President Trump's reign, thousands of
pedophilia people and groups have been arrested as never before! Thousand of killer gang
members have been arrested as never before, especially those inside of the MS-13 ruthless
group. This is just one of many actions by this President that leads to my belief that our new
President is holding up his end of the agreement. Like him or not, he at least is holding up
his promises.
History is replete with all the immense damages that the globalist movement has brought upon
the world. These have sold the lie that globalism is the answer to the inequalities between the
haves and the have nots. While the opposite is the real truth! The truth is now evident when
one looks at the condition of the world they have pushed upon all of us over the last many
years.
The elite new world order operatives have infiltrated all the major nations governmental
agencies, top positions of power. Led by the lure of power, connectedness, money, these are
often not aware that they are actually perpetuating a plan that is deadly for much of the world
if the globalist elites they serve should get their way. Unfortunately for these self serving
minions only are concerned with self promotion often. Yet the fact remains that political
expediency and promotions come with compliance. The heads of nearly every major country are
working together with this huge one world apparatus machine that is enclosed within the UN,
World Bank, IMF, European Union, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Family, the corporation called America, and hundreds of other governmental and non-governmental
centers of power. Many of these hide behind nice sounding, humanitarian nameplates. Nearly all
the crises we see play out are ones they actually create, (of which American hegemony around
the world is a large player). For these, the ends always justify the means.
Continual non-stop conflicts around the world, of which America is often at the forefront of
are exponentially increasing. I will explain why and how America's endless war policies has
been implemented over the last many years, but I cannot divulge my take on who and what is
behind much of the openly visible powers working behind much of the news we hear.
Explained will be real, actual reasons why America has spent over 15 years in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Libya with nothing to show besides disasters and deaths, while earning a bad
reputation around the world as a bully. Be assured that the elites and banking system have made
trillions of dollars from these three examples. And lives mean little. Psychopaths don't care
about anything beyond their own desires and powers, and many of these are psychopaths indeed.
They use false justifications as a passport to sell many of their warring's and destructions.
This is globalism.
I predict that the CIA, (a globalist arm of the U.S. Government and deep state), armed with
an unlimited budget and trillions of dollars derived from their years of secret under the radar
dirty operations, are likely to be an agency to be reviewed, revamped or remodeled within the
not so distant future. The truths behind this clandestine, above the law and corrupted agency
may finally be surfacing as well. Ever since the Trump Russian collusion witch hunt also with
an unlimited budget as well both of these conducted, likely during Pres. Trump's time as
president, we should expect to witness a firestorm of controversy and change more momentous
than anything in American history, hopefully.
President Donald Trump has his work cut out, but his years in office have shown he is no
typical deep state establishment fixture of either political party! What we are now witnessing
is perhaps the most important and fateful elections in America's entire history. The results
will either allow the Republican Party to prove itself to be the party of the people, or become
impotent, simply becoming water boys for the Democrat Party, thereafter having little real
power for decades perhaps. The results of the coming elections leading into 2020, (general and
mid-terms), will in fact be the determining factor for whether America and the world reject
conservativism or falls into the clutches of a highly touted, yet untruthful liberalism that
doesn't even resemble the old party of the people that dems used to own in the far past. So, we
must ask ourselves, how did this all come to such a historic moment as we are living in?
The world's worst negotiating strategy is to give the other side everything they want in
exchange for worthless empty promises, yet this is exactly what Trump and his trade team are doing.
All
the Chinese trade team has to do to get rid of tariffs and other U.S. bargaining chips is mutter
some empty phrase about "agreeing in principle" and the U.S. surrenders all its bargaining chips.
If the other side are such naive chumps that they give you everything you want without
actually committing to anything remotely consequential, why bother with a formal agreement?
Just
play the other side for the chumps they are: if they threaten to reinstate tariffs, just issue
another worthless press release about "progress has been made."
The other guaranteed losing strategy in negotiation is advertise your own fatal
weakness, which in Trump's case is his obsession with pushing the U.S. stock market to new highs.
There
is no greater gift he could hand the Chinese trade team than this monumental weakness, for all they
have to do is talk tough and the U.S. stock market promptly tanks, sending the Trump Team into a
panic of appeasement and empty claims of "progress."
The Chinese team has gotten their way for a year by playing Trump's team as chumps and
patsies, so why stop now?
The Chinese know they can get way without giving anything away
by continuing to play the American patsies and using the president's obsession with keeping U.S.
stocks lofting higher to their advantage: declare the talks stalled, U.S. stocks crater, the
American team panics and rushes to remove anything that might have enforcement teeth, reducing any
"trade deal" to nothing but empty promises.
Given their success at playing America's team, why do a deal at all? Just play the
chumps for another year,
and maybe Trump will be gone and a new set of even more naive
patsies enter the White House.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of the Chinese negotiators, we realize there's no need
to sign a deal at all:
the Trump team has gone out of its way to make it needless for
China to agree to anything remotely enforceable. All the Chinese have to do is issue some stern
talk that crushes U.S. stocks and the Trump Team scurries back, desperate to appease so another
rumor of a "trade deal" can be issued to send U.S. stocks higher.
It would be pathetic if it wasn't so foolish and consequential.
BUT – getting back to the real topic of this thread and –
"Meanwhile, the United States, which had been the primary promoter of the worldwide
rules-based WTO model, shifted its focus to one-on-one agreements unencumbered by rules, such
as the Australia-US FTA, where it could take advantage of its superior bargaining power".
and
"We're entering a world with few rules "
and
"To prepare for this likely outcome, the EU has set up structures that would allow it to
retaliate against the US on a far larger scale than WTO rules would allow".
"... Pompeo said the United States had long cherished its friendship with the Chinese people, adding the Communist government was not the same thing as the people of China. ..."
"... We are in a civilization war about the global social contract and whether sovereign public finance gets a chance to be compared against the Western centuries old private finance controlled world. ..."
"... The USA has been successful at bribing foreign leaders, taking them under their wing, and getting them to accept their place in the world order. They think they can do this with anybody. ..."
"... The US never really counts on foreign leaders taking their peoples interests at heart and standing up to the hegemon. As far as Pompeo goes this is classic projection. It is a sign they are losing and are worried about it. ..."
Below is a Reuters posting about Mike Pompeo presenting the public/private finance "dog
whistle" at a Hudson Institute think tank gala dinner....the pot calling the kettle
black.
"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday stepped up recent
U.S. rhetoric targeting China's ruling Communist Party, saying Beijing was focused on
international domination and needed to be confronted.
Pompeo made the remarks even as the Trump administration said it still expected to sign
the first phase of deal to end a damaging trade war with China next month, despite Chile's
withdrawal on Wednesday as the host of an APEC summit where U.S. officials had hoped this
would happen.
Pompeo said the United States had long cherished its friendship with the Chinese people,
adding the Communist government was not the same thing as the people of China.
"They are reaching for and using methods that have created challenges for the United
States and for the world and we collectively, all of us, need to confront these challenges
... head on," Pompeo said in an address to a gala dinner in New York of the conservative
Hudson Institute think tank.
"It is no longer realistic to ignore the fundamental differences between our two systems,
and the impact that the differences in those systems have on American national security."
"
I posted the above about 6 hours ago on the Weekly Open thread and now get up to read that
the financial markets are down and Trump is tweeting that it is the Fed's fault for not
lowering rates even further even though there are a couple of ZH postings that refer to
China's response to Pompeo's remarks as offensive and maybe a trade deal won't get
signed...
We are in a civilization war about the global social contract and whether sovereign public
finance gets a chance to be compared against the Western centuries old private finance
controlled world.
Haha. The fight is an old one. Who is to be master and who is to be slave. China was supposed to happily be the world's
cheap manufacturer and not get too big for its britches. The USA has been successful at bribing foreign leaders, taking
them under their wing, and getting them to accept their place in the world order. They think they can do this with anybody.
They think every leader is a budding Lenin Moreno or that they can arrange a coup and force into office another Lenin
Moreno. Russia, China, and India will not allow it.
All have at one time or another (Russia quite recently) been under the heel of Western empire. All have old and proud
civilizations.
The US never really counts on foreign leaders taking their peoples interests at heart and standing up to the hegemon.
As far as Pompeo goes this is classic projection. It is a sign they are losing and are worried about it.
A few years ago, in response to the notion of a resolution naming English as the country's
official language, a prominent Democratic politician said it wasn't necessary -- it's already
obvious.
Is it set to remain so?
As
noted by ConservativeReview.com, a report
by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates there's a whole lotta people speaking somethin'
else, at least at home.
Conservative Review submits an interesting proposal:
Imagine if the American people were told in 1980 that the non-English-speaking population
in America would triple and rise to a level that is greater than the population of
France.
That statement comes in response to CIS's implication
of 67.3 million people speaking a foreign language at home in America.
As per
numbers from the 2018 American Community Survey, that's roughly 21.9% of U.S. residents.
It's not just the sheer number of foreign language speakers that is shocking; it's the
trend. The number has tripled since 1980 and doubled since 1990. The foreign-born population
has grown seven times as fast as the native-born population since 1980. But even since 2010,
when the foreign population had already ballooned, it has still grown twice as fast as the
native-born population over the past eight years.
If you're curious about the distribution of ESL (or English as No Language)
residents, in nine states, the digits top 25%:
California 45%
Texas 36%
New Mexico 34%
New Jersey 32%
New York 31%
Nevada 31%
Florida 30%
Arizona 28%
Hawaii 28%
How do things fare in the five largest cities? The buncha peeps eschewing the ways of
America's motherland at home breaks down like this obtener una carga de LA Sorry -- I
mean, get a load of LA:
Los Angeles 59%
Houston 50%
New York City 49%
Phoenix 38%
Chicago 36%
Among foreign-language use, in terms of popularity, Spanish dominates like the Dream Team at
the 1992 Olympics: Español's
grown 12% since 2010, and it hits the boards with approx. 62%.
In fact, there are more Spanish-speakers in the U.S. than in any Latin American country --
short of Mexico, Argentina, and Columbia.
Chinese snags 2nd place, with 3.5 million moving mouths.
The fastest growing languages: those from India and Islamic countries.
Arabic speakers have grown 46% in only eight years.
Since 2000, they've doubled.
If all this signals a mere skyrocketing of bilingualism, then good for America: It's
becoming more sophisticated.
On the other hand, if it points to a cave-in of
inglés , that's quite a different trajectory.
And with 2020 Democrats wanting to do away with that quaint notion of protected borders,
we're not sure to have millions more mastering the King's any time soon.
It seems to me that language is one thing we need to share -- it's the way we connect, in
order to be One Nation Under God.
Presently, we're on our way to One Nation Under
Dios/bog/Déu/xudo/Deus/Bondye/Ilaah/Tanrı/ღმერთი/परमेश्वर/하나님/พระเจ้า/الله.
And while all those words are, of course, beautiful to know and use, that's gonna be one
big-a** dollar bill.
Chinese Patriotism: Huawei Smartphone Sales Jump 66% In China As Apple iPhone Sales Slump
by
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/30/2019 - 13:50
0
SHARES
We're starting to get first-hand knowledge of what we're coining as the
"
blowback
period
"
in the trade war. This is a point in time when Chinese consumers, downright
furious of President Trump's protectionist policies that targeted Chinese companies over the
summer, have collectively stood up to an aggressor (the US), and have
secretly fired back,
targeting US firms by abandoning their products for domestic ones, all in the name of patriotism.
Honestly, over time, the trade war, if solved next month or next year, or who knows at this point
when it'll be solved, will have devastating consequences for corporate America as their market
share in China will erode as patriotism forces consumers to gravitate towards domestic brands.
A new report from
Canalys
, an
independent research firm focused on technology, has linked patriotism in China for the jump in
Huawei smartphone sales in the third quarter.
Huawei's 3Q19 smartphone sales soared by 66% YoY in China
, compared with a 31%
increase in 2Q19.
Between 2Q-3Q, President Trump escalated the trade war to near full-blown, and also attacked
individual companies with economic sanctions and banned certain ones from doing business in the US.
Chinese consumers responded by
ditching American products, like Apple iPhones
, as
this is some of the first evidence we've seen of the blowback period, likely to worsen in 4Q19
through 1Q20.
As shown in the chart below, the July-September period of 2019 was a devastating quarter for
Huawei's top rivals, including Vivo, Oppo, Xiaomi (other Chinese brands), along with depressing
sales from Apple.
Smartphone shipments overall were 97.8 million, down 3% from 100.6 million for the same period
last year.
Apple's YoY slump gained momentum from -14% in 2Q to -28% for 3Q
.
Chinese patriotism
allowed Huawei's market share in the country to expand from
24.9% to 42.4% over the past year.
Canalys analyst Mo Jia said, "The U.S.-China trade war is also creating new opportunities,"
adding that, "
Huawei's retail partners are rolling out advertisements to link Huawei with
being the patriotic choice, to appeal to a growing demographic of Chinese consumers willing to take
political factors into account when making a purchase decision.
"
The blowback period has begun, and corporate America should be terrified that their market share
in China is about to evaporate.
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that
I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy
and obliterate the Economy of Turkey
(I've done before!)
"
Donald J. Trump
"China uses a host of monopolizing strategies to extend its geopolitical and commercial
power, everything from below cost pricing to grab market share, patent trolling,
espionage, mergers, and financial manipulation. In fact, the CCP is best understood as
a giant monopoly that also controls a nation of 1.4 billion people and a large military
apparatus...
China's biggest asset in gaining power was how most people in the West just didn't
realize that the CCP aimed to use it. Now China's cover is blown. The raw exercise of
power to censor a random Houston Rockets basketball executive has made millions of
people take notice. Everyone knows, the Chinese government isn't content to control its
own nation, it must have all bow down to its power and authority.
Matt overstates the headline I think. The empowerment of China may have gone into higher
gear with Bill Clinton perhaps, but has been fully supported by every President, both
parties, and especially the moneyed interests in the US, who place their short term greed
first and foremost.
Follow the money. China is certainly not alone among organizations, and even nations, in
playing on the personal greed, divided loyalties, and lust for power of our political and
financial class.
This in itself is nothing new. But the extent of it, and the fashionable acceptance of it
amongst our society's elites, the industrialization of political corruption and big money
in politics, has been breathtaking.
That looks like vast and generally incorrect exaggeration. While China mode substantial
progress in catching up with the West, the technology is still dominated by the West.
But as technological revolution is slowing down and in some areas coming to the end (die size
in semiconductors in one example; it is impossible to shrink it further; smartphones reached
saturation level, and hardware wise their capabilities are far above what a regular user needs or
wants) it is easier for other countries to catch up.
In any case, the main reason for trade war with China is to try to slow down its
ascendance.
The problem for China is that China converted to neoliberalism, and as such (like Russia) is
subject to all the ills the neoliberal society tend to bring into the country. Including a very
high level of inequality.
And while backlash against neoliberalism is growing and in the USA
neoliberalism entered a prolong crisis with secular stagnation as the "new normal" , the question
is what is that alternative ? And while backlash against neoliberalism is growing and in the USA
neoliberalism entered a prolong crisis with secular stagnation as the "new normal" , the question
is what is that alternative ?
Notable quotes:
"... Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means). ..."
"... Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world. ..."
"... China has more problems than the United States. Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, persecuting Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Indonesia and Malaysia because of Islam, Inner Mongolia separatists, Kashmir and India, USA trade pressure, Japan and South Korea are competitors. ..."
It is very popular these days to talk and write about the "trade war" between the United
States and China. But is there really one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a
clash of political and ideological systems : one being extremely successful and optimistic, the
other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?
In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one
should just look at the map of the globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the
United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents of natural resources,
holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as 'forced
labor', often bordering on slavery.
Under such conditions, it was very easy to be 'number one', to reign without competition,
and to toss around huge amounts of cash, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and
overseas 'subjects' on topics such as the 'glory' of capitalism, colonialism (open and hidden),
and Western-style 'democracy'.
It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and
that included the 'economic system) used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were
created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods. One only needs
recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and
famines. Or other genocides in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first
against France, later against the United States.
*
Times changed. But Western tactics haven't.
There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some
Communist, others socialist or even populist, are ready to defend their citizens, and to use
the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.
No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using
its well-established propaganda machinery. First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to
directly liquidate them.
As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is
punishable by death.
Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity,
only. It was constructed on fear, oppression and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly
been a monopoly.
*
Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to
survive, defending they own cultures, and advancing their philosophies.
To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.
With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a
forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily productive society. Its scientific research is
now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia, China
excels in many essential fields.
That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.
For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any
major country, which would set up its own set of rules and goals.
China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient,
ideologically, politically, economically and intellectually. Where it is not fully
self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly, located
outside the Western sphere.
*
Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.
It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its
socialist motherland (applying "socialism with the Chinese characteristics" model). It is
trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of its history
(BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the "New Silk Road").
Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is
producing, at a higher pace and often at higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the
United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.
This is where the 'problem' arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to
a country that creates things for the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian,
African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce, where and for how much
to sell the produce. Or else!
Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its
corporations) desired. It was forcing countries all over the world, to buy its products. If
they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway)
overthrown.
The most 'terrible' thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China,
and for its citizens.
That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!
*
In the process, China 'competes'. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly
well. The same can be said about Russia.
These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could
sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy of the entire West, within a week.
But they don't even think about it.
However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance
scientific research, and use the gains to improve the lives of ordinary people (they will be no
extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and
Washington.
Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply
better, than those which are reigning in the West and its colonies. And because they are
working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.
And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are
horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake up and see the reality. Which is actually
already happening: slowly but surely.
*
To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is
nothing so terrifying to London and Washington as the combination of these words: "Socialism/
Communism, Asian, success". The West invents new and newer 'opposition movements', it then
supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: "China is
fighting back, and it is violating human rights", when it defends itself and its citizens. This
tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and in Honk Kong.
Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes
and fragrances, and the United States, better airplanes. But the progress that China has
registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. Were it to be football, it is China 2:
West 1.
Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many
fields; catch up, and surpass the West. Side by side with Russia.
It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements,
even with the poorest of the poor countries in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.
The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing
the world from a clearly fundamentalist view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously
convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner of the globe.
It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will
testify: what is taking place there is not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western
governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard of living is
nose-diving.
China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society,
although you would never guess so, if you exclusively relied on Western statistics.
*
So, "trade war" slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that "China
is unfair", that it is "taking advantage" of the West. President Trump is "defending" the
United States against the Chinese 'Commies'. But the more he "defends them", the poorer they
get. Strange, isn't it?
While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, 'miraculously', getting
richer and richer. They are getting more and more optimistic.
For decades, the West used to preach 'free trade', and competition. That is, when it was in
charge, or let's say, 'the only kid on the block'.
In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and
millions of people killed.
And now?
What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?
Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US
President or perhaps British Prime Minister, before it makes any essential economic decision?
Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the economic tsars
in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist)
China will soon become the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.
There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on
purpose?
Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?
On September 7, 2019, AP reported:
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the
U.S. standoff with Russia during the Cold War
"The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it,"
he said.
Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with
Russia. He noted that he worked in the Reagan administration: "I remember President Reagan
waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union."
Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of
the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won,
because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other
means).
Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But
China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to
defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one
day soon, do the same for the rest of the world.
US is hemorrhaging around $1.7 trillion dollars(according to the bond king) a year with
the “greatest economy ever” and near zero interest rate. Clearly, this is not
sustainable and can’t last much longer. When the jig is up, whoever has the most
guns(not gold) will prevail. .
China has more problems than the United States. Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, persecuting
Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Indonesia and Malaysia because of Islam, Inner Mongolia separatists,
Kashmir and India, USA trade pressure, Japan and South Korea are competitors.
China has some bright spots with Pakistan, North Korea and a very open hand negotiated
with the African Union to colonize that continent etc. Russia is neutral but if it is to fall
it will probably be towards Europe not the East.
Vietnam is falling away leaving Myanmar and Cambodia. Thailand might already be a Western
proxy.
You've broken down nothing. China can sell somewhere else, since it makes all the stuff.
The US makes very little and will pay far more Chinese equivalent goods. Further, China's GDP
is now 80% domestically generated; of the remaining 20% export income, the US accounts for
only 30% of it, ie 6%. China can stand a loss of 6% easily. While the Americans, led the
Ape-in-Chief have been thumping their chests, the nimble Chinese have taken markets
everywhere, diversified their manufacturing bases and transportation systems. The US is
shouting at the Moon. Enjoy the tan...
'The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United
States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won,'
Really !!! have a read of Gulag Archipelago before you come out with anything this
stupid.
The author apparently has never been to China to know what their perspective is. Instead,
he is superimposing what western ideologs think it is. To Americans, it is political and
ideological struggle. To the Chinese, it's basic economics and the welfare of its people. The
Chinese know better than anyone else, what it was like being down in the gutter for almost
200 years, about the time the British showed up with their opium trade in the 1830's. The
Chinese have made great strides in the last 45 years to get their people out of poverty,
modernize, and build an industrialized economy that rivals any other economy in the world.
The truth is, it's a feat that Americans are tacitly envious of, and will do whatever it
takes to cut the Chinese down.
The problem is, America is not the shining example of success and exceptionalism it thinks
it is. It has fallen behind the power curve and isn't competitive any longer. Free trade is
far and away better in China than what you will find in America. Don't believe it? Go there
and see for yourself. Then ask yourself, why did the greater chunk of American manufacturing
left and went to China in the first place, (besides chasing cheap labor), If it wasn't for
free trade?
Many other countries don't share the same ideology or values with Americans either,
particularly when America can't provide for the welfare of its own people, so why would they
want to copy that model of decay?
attractive properties in shenzhen or any tier 1 chinese cities are in the millions or tens
of millions of dollars. not likely to jump higher anytime soon but whole lot of downside
potential. Vancouver is full up. why not seattle, DC or somewhere with "cheap" prices?
They have two alternatives to SWIFT - CIPS & NSPK. Further, both Russia and China are
using their own and local currencies in trade, bypassing not only SWIFT fees and delays, but
the USD exchange rate rip-off.
Frankly ZH readers are about 10 yrs behind the latest developments, hence the rednecks
ranting about their already lost cause. Do some research.
"So far, China has exercised restraint." ...because they don't want the world to see what
a truly monstrous regime runs that country...much like Israhell tries to silence and stifle
criticism of its monstrous racist and supremacist regime.
Meanwhile the West is on meds as it willingly takes the dagger someone is handing it to
enable it to commit suicide..
I wonder who is pulling strings in the background?
Canada and australia most certainly did NOT plunder the world, at anytime. We have all the
resources we will ever need,and we have never sought an empire. Don't try to drag us down
into your pit for company. It is your pit, along with Britain. Let the British keep you
company.
China "is ready to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of
misery"
China is very late to the game of "printing debt" It has taken the USA 100 years to
bankrupt itself. China with it's 350% of GDP has managed it in 30 years.
Our Response to the Next Crisis Must Tackle Consumerism Posted on
October 26, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. While one can
applaud the sentiments in this post, status competition is a strong feature of most societies.
Admittedly, some have revered accomplishment or sacrifice or exemplary behavior over having a
lot of toys. But so much of our behavior revolves around consumerism that it affects how we
tackle problems. For instance, one strong theme in Green New Deal programs is to build new
energy efficient housing. Yet the energy cost of a new house is roughly 10 years of operating a
not terribly energy efficient existing house of similar square footage.
Admittedly, this article focuses more on consumerism in terms of more mundane purchases like
clothing and devices, but "household formation" and moving almost always involve a buying
stuff. Even if your old goods work well in new digs, there's still always something to buy
curtains, a new lamp .while in the old days, people would inherit houses, furnished, and not
change them much (or if they did, gradually), or lived in rooming houses with very little.
By Rob Macquarie, a writer and researcher focusing on the financial system and its links
to inequality, democracy, and sustainability. He tweets @RJMacquarie. Originally published at
openDemocracy
If there is one way the
next economic crisis won't be the same as the last, it will have to do with the state of
our planet. In 2008, the
Copenhagen Accord hadn't been signed, let alone the Paris Agreement – or millions of
schoolchildren missing Friday lessons to protest the terrifying future they will inherit.
Now, economic transformation is widely viewed as a prerequisite for halting ecological
breakdown. Because of this, the next crisis is often presented by those who long for change as
a golden opportunity, envisaged with massive investment in energy systems, transport, and clean
industrial technology.
To be sure, these changes cannot come quickly enough. Yet they are not the only piece of the
economic, nor ecological, puzzle. The ruling elites of wealthy countries have a poor record in
undertaking ambitious public spending. Instead, they look to ordinary citizens –
recast
over decades as 'consumers' – to carry the load.
Household consumption on aggregate represents the largest chunk of economic activity in
most countries. Though often characterised as 'motor' or
'engine' of growth, as things stand a liferaft would be a
better metaphor . During recessions, household spending can remain relatively flat compared
to investment and therefore GDP more broadly. In the US, consumption, though battered by the
storm of the 2008 crisis,
supported employment in the face of declining business prospects.
Our economic dependency on consumerism is linked to changes afoot at the global level, both
secular and cyclical. On the one hand, the gradual march of (privatised) digital technology and
financialisation have undermined and disrupted investment in the real economy as a source of
stable prosperity. Listlesss productivity
in some G7 nations and a massive reduction in state spending under austerity regimes have
placed much of the burden on households.
In Britain, this sterling effort from the 'good old British
consumer' comes at a cost. Households have been taking on
net debt – in other words, running down their wealth – since 2016. Financial
pundits
present debt-led increases in household spending as a natural source of GDP growth despite
only having assumed such a prominent role following the 1980s' neoliberal turn.
On the other hand, present conditions have also sharpened our reliance on the household
consumer. This is by no means limited to the relatively financialised Anglophone economies.
Germany's mighty manufacturing sector, beset by difficulties from Brexit to global trade
disputes, is behind recent gloom in the
economic figures . Major infrastructure projects, if badly conceived, can lock in an
unhealthy incentive to keep the population spending – see the hapless development of
Berlin's Brandenburg
airport , dependent on retail for up to half of its profits. Meanwhile, the UK's
sickly retail sector , pressed on one side by trade uncertainty, strains under ever-larger
piles of corporate debt.
All of this has disastrous ecological consequences. In 2009, in the wake of the global
recession, Friends of the Earth Europe reported people in
rich countries consume up to 10 times more natural resources than those in the poorest
countries. As development raises standards of living for vast numbers of people living in the
Global South, especially in China and India, keeping material consumption and carbon emissions
from spiralling upwards will require a change of gear in resource efficiency and, simply put,
more frugal behaviour by Western consumers.
Last year an important paper in Nature found
that 'physical needs (that is, nutrition, sanitation, access to energy and elimination of
poverty below the US$1.90 line) could likely be met for 7 billion people at a level of resource
use that does not significantly transgress planetary boundaries'. Meeting 'more qualitative
goals (that is, life satisfaction, healthy life expectancy, secondary education, democratic
quality, social support and equality)' for people in all countries will require major changes
in 'provisioning systems' – that is, an overhaul of economic institutions. In other
words, unnecessary material goods valued by Western shoppers put at risk the attainment of even
more fundamental social and human rights for the majority of the world's population.
So the policy response to a fresh crisis must be viewed through an ecological lens. With
interest rates still at rock-bottom and quantitative easing
alive and kicking , the flow of easy money creates a powerful incentive to urge an anxious
public to 'keep calm and carry on spending'. The planet cannot afford such timidity, nor
complacency over a spontaneous rise in so-called conscious consumerism.
Instead, as well as supply-side measures clustered under a Green New Deal or Green
Industrial Revolution, the crisis toolkit must consider consumer demand. Policy can make a
consumption surge conditional on sustainability with policies like fiscal incentives for retail
companies to apply rigorous, sustainable standards. Electric vehicles already enjoy support
from governments in many countries – notwithstanding some
rowbacks . These schemes
can be designed to contribute to the fiscal 'automatic stabilisers' that push back against
a recession: for instance, by channeling money from penalties for emissions-intensive vehicles
into subsidies for EVs.
Alongside a shake-up of the energy mix, governments must promote the circular economy.
Investment can target projects aimed at reducing household and supply chain waste.
Right-to-repair schemes being pioneered by civil society deserve tax incentives or other
market-shaping assistance from the state. And across all industries, we must move away from
early obsolescence of consumer goods. A report prepared for the
European Commission in 2012 recommended a host of policies to target these issues, such as
grants for industry to initiatives to improve product lifetime or reduced VAT for more
efficient and durable products.
Thinkers pioneering a new economics are joining the dots between the demands of sound
economic management during a downturn, social justice, and the ecological crisis. Vocal
criticism of a decade of austerity laid the groundwork. Now progressives, eager to raise living
standards, must watch their messaging to promote sustainable consumption. Those sounding the
alarm about resource use are right that rich nations must not continue to overspend their
ecological budget.
When the next crisis arrives, parties arguing for a green transformation will have to prove
they understand that.
Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a "mess of pottage" (Genesis 25:27-34).
It's no exaggeration that the birthrights of many, many people are gone.
Were those birthrights sold for a mess of pottage (consumerism) or were they legally
stolen by a unjust economic system with consumerism as pitiful compensation?
Mash up with Facebook and such where people and their data, now improved with the 23
new DNA features , are the product to see how birthrights get sold, seemingly
voluntarily. Dark patterns are noticed popping up everywhere once they are pointed out.
Neo-liberalism needs a new modern name and a better publicist.
I've always suspected "Consumerism" to have been invented and used as a weapon against
unions. We must supply the consumer with inexpensive products, etc. IIRC consumerism didn't
start to enter the dialog until the 80s in any significant way. And then it was everywhere
all at once. Spontaneous realities like that are confusing. Just where did it come from? It
happened in Germany about the same time. They didn't crush their labor/unions like we did. We
were absolutely ruthless. And it was all justified by claiming we had to make sure the
consumer was well supplied. What a bunch of nonsense.
I not only applaud the sentiments but the ideas, many of them otherwise played in many
posts here such as the rigth to repair and a real turn to circular economies. Yet, i still
miss something that being politically very difficult, it is IMO a must: puting legally
binding limits to fossil fuel consumption.
Regarding status competition: I personally have cut my consumption by much in the last
decades although I was never a big spender. I don't think my personal living standard has
declined, on the contrary, I think my life is richer in many aspects. I don't try to sound
exemplary, I am not in many instances. I admit that a big reason for this Is that I have lost
income but lately It has been more a voluntary thing. I am a disastrous manager of
smartphones that too often are lost (I am famously lost-in-thougth in my environment), or
take them to swim with me, or fall and break when I am in a hurry because I forgot something
somewhere. For this reason I cannot afford too expensive smartphones though I don't feel the
need to have the latest. With more people like me, the rigth to repair and recycling of
smartphones is a must. I still consume too much meat, partly cos I like it, and partly
because members of my family with chronic iron defficiency ask for meat. Most importantly, I
have no longer empathy for those that feel the status competition and the impulse to own the
largest house, the fastest car, the latest tech thingy or having dinner in the most expensive
restaurant. I don't feel alone in my environment and a lot of people I know are on the same
page on this. Status competition can die and good riddance should I say.
about iron deficiency Ignacio, I read long ago and it proved true for me that if you take
a good B-complex every day (no problem bec. B is water soluble) it solves iron
deficiency.
Another note about B12. It is not well absorbed by those over 50 and so levels need to be
checked periodically. One of the symptoms of a deficiency is confusion.
I wonder how we could manage to implement potlatch -- where a person's wealth is judged by
what they can give away, rather than the amount that can't be pried away from them by any
possible means.
It may not be potlatch, but ANTI-status competition seems already to be catching on in
places like Sweden, with flight shaming, shaming over owning more than one of the same thing,
shaming over buying new stuff etc..
Subsidies for electric vehicles are unicorn farming. The materials required for a
transition to EVs simply don't exist, the grid can't support it and automobiles facilitate
sprawl, which is at the heart of western consumerism.
Unless you charge your EV with power from your solar cell, EV's are just transference;
from gasoline to fossil fueled power from the power plant.
In lieu of charging your EV with your own solar cell, the CO2 from the power plant needs
to be reduced by emission control to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 to the atmosphere. I
wonder if this will ever happen.
The only advantage for EVs environmentally would be that although it is still a fossil
fuel derivative, its emissions (at the power plant) could be captured and either reprocessed
or sequestered. Also EVs are lighter cars and so require less heavy manufacturing. One
solution no one ever mentions is logistical. Delivery trucks could deliver everything a
neighborhood needed/ordered and leave it at a neighborhood depot. In the walk-to spirit of
the old corner store. And everyone could walk or bike to pick up their orders.
Oh right .. I'm gonna lug that 200lb+ Ikea shelf (could be any large, unweldy item or
items) package on my back !! 2-4 blocks from the 'depot' to my house ?? Even using a bike
would be problematic .. even with the use of an E-bike .. on anything other than level
terrain .. and that is assuming your purchases aren't 'lifted' before you arrive to claim
them !
All this talk of walking or biking to achieve X doesn't take into consideration the multitude
of circumstances .. due to health or logistics, just to name a few .. among various
individuals that preclude such easy and flippant response !
If people were to resort to using draft animals, then perhaps that would work, but not
without adding in other 'externalities' into the mix.
Even when the power is generated using fossil fuels, electric vehicles usually, compared
to gasoline vehicles, show significant reductions in overall well-wheel global carbon
emissions due to the highly carbon-intensive production in mining, pumping, refining,
transportation and the efficiencies obtained with gasoline. This means that even if part of
the energy used to run an electric car comes from fossil fuels, electric cars will still
contribute to reduce CO
2 emissions, which is important since most countries' electricity is generated, at least in
part, by burning fossil fuels.[
Environmental aspects of the electric car That said, Yves has posted several articles
suggesting it is physically impossible to convert the world's fleet of POVs to EVs. If we are
going to continue to pack the planet with people, electrified mass transit is the obvious
choice. My question is what role do EVs play during the transition?
Electric vehicles are actually more efficient in their use of energy and so it's NOT just
transferring energy use from one place to another.
"EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the
wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored
in gasoline to power at the wheels"
Don't take this is an argument that electric vehicles don't have any problems, and these
aren't total lifecycle calculations, but thinking the energy use is merely transferred just
seems to be a misconception of how electric vehicles work.
When you charge an EV, where are you getting that electricity from? I think that is what
is being argued. If you are getting that energy from a coal plant, you aren't saving
anything, and plastic requires oil to manufacture. For that matter, what about all the heat
energy used to smelt the copper, etc?
The overall eficiency of a fossil fueled power plant using steam turbines to extract
energy is about 33% on the average. Even if EV's convert 60% of the electrical energy to
power at the wheels, 70% of the enegy is already lost at the power plant.
aye. status symbols mean nothing to me which is a big source of the "weird" label i so
proudly wear.
I'm usually rather filthy dirt and paint stains, holes from barbed wire -- i counter that it
means i work for a living, dammit haven't cut my hair in 15 years(except for the occasional
knot(whip out a pair of wire cutters at a wedding, and remove a knot,lol I'm almost
legendary) and don't even want, let alone need, a new used truck every other year(again, at a
wedding, I come through the dancing people with old milk jugs to get water for the steaming
radiator others are mortified, for some reason because we're all supposed to pretend that we
ain't po folks)
I'm locally notorious for coming out of the landfill complex with more than i go in with,lol
and my shamelessness is actually contributing to open discussion about such things.
i do not hide my contempt for all that pretentious posturing especially if it's people who
should know better .down nose looks at my clutter, when i've been to their house,lol, and
know!
emulating the rich is a cancer on our civilisation ."they're food, people!".
however, i think that globe encircling supply lines and built-to-be-replaced (foreign)
manufacturing are the bigger, if easily related, problem.
doesn't fit easily on a bumpersticker, but the local veggie grower can't compete head to head
with slave labor far away .and shouldn't be expected to global markets are not akin to
gravity or a thunderstorm: they are the products of human minds and human choices(just not
often our choices i don't decide how much plastic is in whatever necessary product i buy)
at the root of all this consumerism is media including the web.
since i took a copywriting class(as in ad copy) in college, i've been immunised against
advertising it just doesn't effect me.
but it sure does effect everyone else.
(i also realise that i am anomalous and unreplicatable in a lot of this i've always been a
weirdo outcast, and so never developed the clique-behaviour of my peers i don't have anything
to prove, because i learned early on not to care what the people around me thought since they
were, apparently, shallow and ignorant, overly concerned with what other mean and shallow
people thought. this might be a possible upside to being bullied/excluded -- given the right
circumstances, it builds independence of mind and a hard, spiny carapace. (this in no way
implies a fondness for bullying and exclusion.))
very similar here. I think the problem is simple greed as a form of addiction. The people
at the top want more. Therefore, sell more. They know the cost of everything and the value of
nothing. Older I get the more and more of my stuff is built in USA prior to 1950. The only
people who know the value of a buck is the ones thats had to work for it.
I got rid of all the crap over the years -- and thats another thing, ever notice how much
plastic crap there is? The car costs the same but its all plastic now and you can't fix it.
Thats another way they rip you off with crapification. Thats why I pulled out of that rat
race. I'm keeping my 30-yr old jeep on buckboard wagon springs.
When I think back to how life was lived in the 1950s to today, the first thing that comes
to mind is how much we as a society have moved away from real household goods of good
materials and quality to a more cheapish plastic throwaway lifestyle via furnishings,
appliances, clothing and plastic bags and bottles everywhere. Every time I see a Wayfair
commercial chills go through me for all the plastic garbage crap that is out there. Isn't
this the crux of the problem, always believing new stuff no matter the quality as long as it
is cheap is the way to life live in America? Get it and then throw it away. This is where the
reversal should happen, getting consumers to buy well made household goods and pay for it so
they can keep it for years and years. Buy quality. Believe in quality. A real wood table or a
real marble one. People have wanted to buy cheap garbagey stuff for too long already, items
no one wants so they get thrown away. I visit estate sales in the past couple years and some
of the furniture the oldsters among us lived with is exquisite, extremely well made. Now
compare to what is out there now. Or clothing, another category. If you buy real fabric like
wool or cotton or silk, your items will last forever. Beverages should be sold in glass
bottles again. Stop living a disposable lifestyle, How to drill that into people who don't
know any better is the trick. But this will be a way for people to stop some of their
nonsensical consumerism. Also an option is to buy used things. In New York many of us found
furniture on the street other people threw out to be great for furnishings. Recycling on a
larger scale.
One issue I have with this is that some elements of structures have improved
significantly. Case in point are windows. Energy efficient windows and glazing are a vast
improvement over that available in the 50s. That said, obtaining efficiency with retrofitting
older structures takes the input of a lot of energy and cost.
re: windows now better than windows 60 years ago.
when we moved back out here, we learned that wife's familia intended to demolish the 1950's
era house we were living in in town(it being an insulationless POS that drunk uncle had let
go to hell was a major factor in building our current house).
so i spent that winter removing all the old windows(and as much of the wood clapboard siding
and cedar interior one by's as i could) and storing them.
single pane and fragile as hell.
just look at them wrong and they break(better once installed).
i used those for the greenhouse attached to the house(passive heating!) but the difference
between those ancient aluminum framed things and the new "e-rated" windows in most of the
house is astounding. on a cold day, place a hand on them and the difference is apparent.
those old ones are sufficient for the greenhouse, though.
(i also used a bunch of even more ancient windows in parts of the house, that my family
had saved some from the teens. the glass is more robust and thicker than the 50's plate,and
the wood framing insulates a bit better than the aluminum but i still went to the trouble to
put shutters on them(some shutters still in progress))
i read a study just recently that said that older windows, repaired properly, are not less
efficient than modern windows. they passed the variety of blower tests.
now, as for e-coatings, triple panes and argon fillings i don't know. but it did say that
this was good news, because people can stop tossing out their historic windows in favor of
the new just for energy savings. it goes without saying that if you live in a place of energy
extremes, your windows shouldn't be huge anyway. the r-value is, even in the most expensive
window, only 1/3 that of the wall or less.
Some solid points here about buying goods based on quality and stuff to last. Why eat off
plastic plates when you can eat off plates made of porcelain? I still have plates given to me
by a girl when she was moving house back in the late 1970s that I constantly use. You cannot
say the same for a plastic plate. If we were forced to move back to a 1950s lifestyle but
with high-tech bolt-ons I do not think that people would mind in the long run. Smaller homes
versus McMansions? Yeah, I could buy into that.
The second half of the equation is that manufactures will have to be forced to make goods
that are built to last at a reasonable price and that are easily maintained & repaired.
We have an antiques furniture store near hear and it can be highly interesting wandering
around and looking at the common place items of past generations. The furniture is built well
and is made of beautiful wood but that does suggest something. When you look at the crap
furniture that is made these days, I seriously doubt that much of it will be found in antique
stores by the next generation as it simply will not last.
And that is the point. making things that last. As an example – light globes. They do
not last that long and they dim but what would it be like if they were manufactured to last
decades? There are currently light globes that were manufacture in the 1890s that are still
burning today with Livermore's Centennial Light Bulb being one example. Imagine if nearly
everything was built to last for years if not a few decades. What is that? Corporations could
not survive with that business model? You wonder then how they managed to make it work a
century ago then.
Planned obsolescence should have been our first clue. It had nothing to do with
competition, or the latest fashion – those were just advertising ploys. Planned
obsolescence was a necessity to keep capitalism going. Because, ironically, capitalism is a
very good supplier. Until demand runs out. Then capitalism has no where to go. Except to dive
deep into consumerism and denial. Which is one reason I keep hoping for an ingenious idea
that puts capitalism to work repairing the environment. I don't know why we can't have
reverse capitalism. It could be a great economic engine for centuries to come.
"Planned obsolescence should have been our first clue"
Many of the people shopping today do not know that a kettle should last 20 years or
blender should last 30. I have a 50 year old electric frypan for goodness sake and it still
works fine.
I know I clued in early and stopped buying from the stores, I look for old stuff at the
thrift stores and if I can't find it there I do without
I don't know if their are any companies around anymore who make quality .products at any
price
we still use by grandma's art deco blender, from the 50's(waring–replacement parts
are still available for pretty cheap, too)
heavy glass jar, steel housing. i replaced the cord(i have a pile of those,lol)
.and being a frequent landfill scavenger, it's crazy what people throw away even with the
recent local wall to wall about permitting a new landfill. lumber to cinder blocks to actual
bricks, boxes of natgeo and scifi mags going back to the 30's and of course, all the
structural steel and slightly bent metal roofing and gutters galore.
what's depressing like mentioned here, is the furniture and appliances not even worth trying
to repair or repurpose. particle board and staples for the former -- melts in the rain and
the cheapest plastic and pseudometal for the latter -- will never decompose.
like with the plastic packaging(which i think is a plot to make us nuts need tools to get
into the damned things), a lot of the "choice" is somewhere upstream of us, but still.
I'd never spend money on the "furniture" i see at the dump.
Enjoy your rant so (of course) I have to nitpick one thing:
>I still have plates given to me by a girl when she was moving house back in the late
1970s that I constantly use. You cannot say the same for a plastic plate.
Actually, you can. Plastic wouldn't have been so much of a problem if we had stuck to
making things like plates out of it. If you don't believe me, give me your china for a bit
(no DON'T seriously!) and see how long it takes my family to break it. The plastic stuff can
be dropped infinite times.
I used that example of the plates because last night I had to throw out a plastic plate as
its surface was 'bubbling'. By the same token, not all those china plates have lasted the
past forty years but more so than if they had been plastic.
we could be satisfied with our material goods a bit more than we are, if those goods were
made and designed properly.
case in point: clothing. there is no actual way to make clothing that is not
environmentally challenging. even back in the days when we did it for purely natural fibers,
dyeworks and processing plants were noxious.
but try to buy anything that isn't some kind of odd blend of plastics and barely-there
fiber now. try to buy something like a good linen shirt. for some of us, these things have
been priced beyond our reach. and a good linen shirt would probably last 5 years or more.
replicate that for every item of clothing you have (barring socks, underwear and shoes
which have to be replaced more often). i don't remember the last time i had something that i
wore regularly which lasted 5 years, but believe it was sometime during the 90s. sometimes it
doesn't last beyond the first wash without snags and oddities appearing. and i am not that
hard on anything, unlike a genuine "working man" who has a ton of muck that has to be washed
out of the clothing every week.
repeat for many household goods. in whose interests is it that we buy, and rebuy the same
crap every single year?
We had a neighbour from the mill-towns of England that brought out a lot of material from
where she worked. The stuff lasted for decades. Clothing was like that once and I have a copy
of an 1805 will in which it mentions what would happen to the clothing as it was rugged
enough that you could pass it along and so was worth mentioning in a will. I read too that in
medieval time a air of shoes would be passed down a family and would last about a century.
The manufacture of clothing that lasts a season is only a commercial decision which we are
all paying for.
One big difference between the way life was lived in the 1950s and today is that in 1950
people could stay in one place and work at the same job and retire. Nowdays, at least in my
line of work, it is difficult to find a job you can count on for more than a few years.
People used to stay married and could remain in the same house for most or all of their life.
I moved all over the country chasing work. I adopted a throwaway lifestyle for my furniture
because if I couldn't throw it away or take it apart somehow I couldn't move it by myself. If
I didn't move myself -- if I paid movers -- it cost more to move most of my stuff than it
cost to toss it -- even 'quality' furnature -- and replace it with more cheap junk I pick up
from the curb or buy at Goodwill Stores, good enough to last until my next move. As for "buy
quality" -- I value the quality of well made furniture efficiently constructed using
materials light in weight, comfortable, stable, and strong; furnature I can easily take apart
and reassemble, and move myself. What I have isn't exactly throwaway, nor is it the kind of
quality you value.
[Even friends have become throwaway in the same sense as my furniture. I write, and call,
and sometimes drive long distances to visit but invariably my friends and I grow apart and
they stop answering. The family I grew up with is scattered from coast-to-coast and much of
it grown as remote as old friends. The family I started has broken up and it too has
scattered in search of work and opportunity.]
Returning to "buy quality" -- where is that stuff sold? I can buy quality names at high
price but the old slogan "quality goes in before the name goes on" is just empty words.
you wouldn't have had to buy and replace or move furniture if we had high quality
built-in, nearly fully furnished apartments.
same goes for the much vaunted "smaller houses". the reason, at least i believe, people
started to go larger is because a smaller space has to be much more carefully designed and
thought out in advance, and furnished with versatile pieces in order to suit the variety of
living functions that the space will be used for. which is easier? getting a
nearly-custom-designed home capable of being used for everything, or adding another/more room
to the plan and putting in more furniture and appliances to suit the activity? most people
have no means to afford architects or interior designers, so simply go with the extra
rooms.
this most readily shows up in the often-repeated fact that you can buy a smaller home, but
finishing it to a decent level will cost you the same or more than a larger one. a lot can be
hidden in big rooms and extra rooms. faulty design, for one.
Jeremy, your comment is very matter-of-fact and very touching, especially the next to last
paragraph. That's where so many of us are. Inode Buddha and Diphtherio stress community. It's
hard to find and hard to make.
"Returning to "buy quality" -- where is that stuff sold? I can buy quality names at high
price but the old slogan "quality goes in before the name goes on" is just empty words."
Unfortunately, the Peoples Republik of NY does not allow trash picking from dumps, so I
resort to Craiglist and eBay. Or simply thrift shops, family, and friends. Yard sales and
estate sales are often gold mines. I *wish* we had boot sales in the USA.
Clothing is all natural BTW: leather, cotton, wool.
I hear you, having moved more than a few times across the country for jobs and
opportunities, something employers used to pay for but no longer. I learned how to streamline
my stuff which means I spend hours before a move to get rid of the nonsense. What does come
to mind though is how much better the furniture and appliances were made back then compared
to now, in other words the quality and workmanship is much higher. Used to buy from Ethan
Allan where actual American people would sign the pieces they made. Sigh. There is something
to be said about buying furniture from the actual person who makes the pieces. Natural
materials and high quality. Just one example.
As you indicated, lives are different now, without the security of family and life long
friends and neighbors. And steady employment. As a way to defeat consumerism it may be
worthwhile to really pay attention to what is being bought and to buy it with quality in mind
so it will endure. Again I have noticed a lot of furniture and art pieces and decorations
that are very high quality at estate sales where these types of items would never be made and
sold anywhere now. Unique pieces, very well made. The way things used to be. We lost that
sensitivity and now buy senselessly. Just to buy, just to fill a void. People don't really
need that many things.
I keep on thinking that economic incentives for refraining from having children would be
nice in order to emphasize how destructive our population has become in creating
anthropogenic global warming. However, it seems to me that it is hard to link social
responsibility to positive economic benefits and far easier to impose financial burdens.
Either way, though, population needs to be addresses or a "circular" economy will be
impossible.
Just what I was going to say
Consumerism goes hand in hand with the brainwashing that goes on.The reason we shop so much
is because it feels bad when we don't, I have actually had people ask me how I manage to not
shop or not watch TV I am now the "strange" old lady.
In my personal experience, I have seen how Poverty reframes and affects all personal
consumption choices.
Lots of compromises between what you would like to buy and what you can afford with the money
you have.
And of course there are strategies to offset that for the informed.
Not an excuse and we all could do better driving our demand to a better outcome–but
not to be ignored or underestimated–imo
Light globes = bulbs, could last very long if they were run with the tungsten filaments at
a lower voltage (cooler).
The trade off is that running the filament cooler causes the light output to drop, so the
electric bill is higher for the same light.
The new LED lamps, assuming they have quality and well-rated electronic components should
be able to last a long time and provide good light at a lower cost.
LED light bulbs should last a very long time. I saved a few of the LED light bulbs after
they failed and tore one apart. Inside there is tiny power supply board to convert the 120 V
alternating current to a level to drive the LEDs on a puck connected to the power supply. I
have a hunch that the LEDs are still working fine. I even wonder how many of the little power
supplies are still working just fine after taking a look at the wire connection between the
power supply and the base of the light bulb assembly. [I haven't tested out my hunch yet --
it's one of many projects part-way along that clutter the folding tables that furnish my
living room.]
Consumerism will be destroyed at the same time all nation/states are destroyed at
Armageddon. Until then Satans system runs the way it is. Greed will not allow humans to get
rid of it.
That looks like vast and generally incorrect exaggeration. While China mode substantial progress in catching up with the West, the
technology is still dominated by the West.
But as technological revolution is slowing down and in some areas coming to the end (die size in semiconductors in one example;
it is impossible to shrink it further; smartphones reached saturation level, and hardware wise their capabilities are far above what
a regular user needs or wants) it is easier for other countries to catch up.
In any case, the main reason for trade war with China is to try to slow down its ascendance.
The problem for China is that China converted to neoliberalism, and as such (like Russia) is subject to all the ills the neoliberal
society tend to bring into the country. Including a very high level of inequality.
Notable quotes:
"... Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means). ..."
"... Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world. ..."
It is very popular these days to talk and write about the "trade war" between the United States and China. But is there really
one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a clash of political and ideological systems : one being extremely successful
and optimistic, the other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?
In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one should just look at the map of the
globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents
of natural resources, holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as 'forced labor', often bordering
on slavery.
Under such conditions, it was very easy to be 'number one', to reign without competition, and to toss around huge amounts of cash,
for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and overseas 'subjects' on topics such as the 'glory' of capitalism, colonialism (open
and hidden), and Western-style 'democracy'.
It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and that included the 'economic system)
used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods.
One only needs recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and famines. Or other genocides
in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first against France, later against the United States.
*
Times changed. But Western tactics haven't.
There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some Communist, others socialist or even populist,
are ready to defend their citizens, and to use the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.
No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using its well-established propaganda machinery.
First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to directly liquidate them.
As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is punishable by death.
Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity, only. It was constructed on fear, oppression
and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly been a monopoly.
*
Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to survive, defending they own cultures,
and advancing their philosophies.
To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.
With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily
productive society. Its scientific research is now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia,
China excels in many essential fields.
That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.
For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any major country, which would set up
its own set of rules and goals.
China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient, ideologically, politically, economically
and intellectually. Where it is not fully self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly,
located outside the Western sphere.
*
Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.
It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its socialist motherland (applying "socialism
with the Chinese characteristics" model). It is trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of
its history (BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the "New Silk Road").
Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is producing, at a higher pace and often at
higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.
This is where the 'problem' arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to a country that creates things for
the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian, African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce,
where and for how much to sell the produce. Or else!
Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its corporations) desired. It was forcing countries
all over the world, to buy its products. If they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway)
overthrown.
The most 'terrible' thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China, and for its citizens.
That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!
*
In the process, China 'competes'. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly well. The same can be said about Russia.
These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy
of the entire West, within a week.
But they don't even think about it.
However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance scientific research, and use the gains to improve
the lives of ordinary people (they will be no extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and
Washington.
Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply better, than those which are reigning
in the West and its colonies. And because they are working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.
And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake
up and see the reality. Which is actually already happening: slowly but surely.
*
To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is nothing so terrifying to London and Washington
as the combination of these words: "Socialism/ Communism, Asian, success". The West invents new and newer 'opposition movements',
it then supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: "China is fighting back, and it is violating
human rights", when it defends itself and its citizens. This tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and
in Honk Kong.
Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes and fragrances, and the United States,
better airplanes. But the progress that China has registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. Were it to be football,
it is China 2: West 1.
Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many fields; catch up, and surpass the West.
Side by side with Russia.
It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements, even with the poorest of the poor countries
in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.
The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing the world from a clearly fundamentalist
view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner
of the globe.
It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will testify: what is taking place there is
not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard
of living is nose-diving.
China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society, although you would never guess so, if
you exclusively relied on Western statistics.
*
So, "trade war" slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that "China is unfair", that it is "taking advantage"
of the West. President Trump is "defending" the United States against the Chinese 'Commies'. But the more he "defends them", the
poorer they get. Strange, isn't it?
While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, 'miraculously', getting richer and richer. They are getting
more and more optimistic.
For decades, the West used to preach 'free trade', and competition. That is, when it was in charge, or let's say, 'the only kid
on the block'.
In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and millions of people killed.
And now?
What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?
Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US President or perhaps British Prime Minister,
before it makes any essential economic decision? Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the
economic tsars in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist) China will soon become
the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.
There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on purpose?
Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?
On September 7, 2019, AP reported:
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the U.S. standoff with Russia during
the Cold War
"The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it," he said.
Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with Russia. He noted that he worked
in the Reagan administration: "I remember President Reagan waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union."
Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological
battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other
means).
Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled
almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world.
"... Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear: "They genuinely believe we should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens." Baudet, however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe into "tremendous conflict," but also because they risk creating a "brain drain" from Africa and the Middle East. ..."
The leader of the Spanish Vox party, Santiago Abascal, argued that immigration is a
political euphemism for the trafficking of cheap labor into Europe so that multinational
companies and financial interests can increase their profits: "The establishment argues that
our system must be maintained in the face of an aging population, but mass immigration renders
work increasingly precarious." According to Abascal, the 2015 refugee crisis was used as a
pretext to further the economic ambitions of Brussels bureaucrats at the expense of Europe's
working population, especially its youth.
Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a
globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear: "They genuinely believe we
should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens." Baudet,
however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe
into "tremendous conflict," but also because they risk creating a "brain drain" from Africa and
the Middle East.
The solution to this problem, many of these conservative leaders say, is to provide
motivation and assistance to Europe's young people so they have their own children. Abascal
uses Hungary as a model,
where , under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, families that have three or more children
are given government grants to buy houses and no longer have to pay income tax. The state
finances free nurseries, allowing women to re-enter the workforce without having to worry about
childcare costs. In addition, Hungary has inscribed Christianity in its constitution to create
a strong religious identity, providing its youth with a sense of direction and meaning.
The problem of low birthrates ultimately lies internally, within Europe's culture and social
life. A young generation that doesn't aspire to have families and that's increasingly alienated
from any sense of community has driven much of the crisis. Whether Europe can be salvaged and
revived is yet to be seen.
Alessandra Bocchi is a freelance journalist focusing on foreign policy in North Africa,
Europe, and the U.S. She has been covering the protests in Hong Kong. Follow her on Twitter
@AlessaBocchi
.
@J. O.
Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
That said, as
Bloomberg
noted, Liu didn't address specifics about the trade talks in his speech. Instead, the
vice premier said China would expand investments in core technologies to ensure the economic
restructuring of the economy was stable, adding that economic activity in the year ahead is "very
bright."
"We're not worried about short-term economic volatility. We have every confidence in our
ability to meet macroeconomic targets for the year," he said.
As reported on Friday, ahead of the latest round of talks, President Trump's top economic
advisors and industry experts warned him of an economic downturn if a further escalation in the
trade war is seen by 2020. As such, it is likely that a lite trade deal could be on the table next
month.
But as our readers have recently learned, the trade war didn't start the synchronized global
downturn, which has been almost entirely a function of China's clogged up credit impulse...
... so any deal - lite or otherwise - won't result in an immediate acceleration of global
growth; indeed, as some speculate, failure to observe a substantial economic rebound following a
"deal" could well mark the point when central banks and governments finally throw in the towel, as
they finally usher in the final lap in the global race to
debase
destroy fiat currencies and
hyperinflate away the debt: MMT and Helicopter Money.
Trump's pathetic Trade war accomplished nothing. US exports down
18% globally. Farmer destroyed. US markets for all goods harmed.
The world is offloading any and all dependence on US products.
Impulsive stupid jerk. 45% of the world population on US
Sanctions, rising black markets, US supply chain disruptions, US
manufacturing in a recession.
Tariffs are tax deductible so they
do not accumulate any tax benefit to the US Treasury. They are
virtually all rolled over into the national debt. So while the
consumer may not notice a rising CPI, they are getting drown in
Trump Debt, the largest spending deficits in US history, largest
debt to GDP of over 110% and rising. Trump has the fastest
acceleration of US debt of any white house occupancy nearly 4
trillion in 2.7 years. It is obvious Trump is clueless in
virtually everything. Has no capacity to comprehend a thing.
Look at this scatterbrained Turkey Kurds fiasco. Impulsive,
thoughtless and accomplished nothing. US troops now guarding
Syrian oil. Astonishing. Everything this guy touches turned into a
burning crap filled dumpster fire.
'I will be so good at the military, your head will spin'
"When those 'gunds' start shooting they tend to do things"
Then there are no deals from the self-proclaimed "art of the
Deal"... nothing. Look at Iran. He has made negative progress
across the board. Thank to the orange stupid nations across the
globe are circumventing US Dollar Reserve. Each day the US
importance and more importantly reliability is diminished.
Look at Trump in high tech... Merck has developed an Ebola
vaccine in EUROPE not the USA. The USA hasn't even approved it
yet. What is Trump doing... ATTACKING BIG PHARMA. Trumptards love
seeing that. Yet it is the Trumptards that keep screaming to buy
Murica products but if they have to pay more for them, then
suddenly they demonize the US companies. Big Pharma will be the
next sector to joint Semiconductor to leave the USA.
Trump blacklist Big tech. Why? Tech products have a very short
shelf life. If the US doesn't sell tech product what do they have
that others want? COAL? Soy Beans? From smart to stupid. Look at
Intel and Microsoft. Trump band Intel Chip sales to China and
threatens Microsoft operating software. In one year China now has
RISC V chips from Alibaba, all open source and the Chinese
Military has switched to Linux and UNIX GNU. So who loses here?
The US tech businesses. Look at Micron dying on the vine, tossed
from China.
Meanwhile China has 5G and has replaced all US components in
its boards with the help of Hitachi and Panasonic who are doing
the same with all their electronics to avoid Trump Blacklist
compliance. Trump is low tech and dumb as dirt. The US Tech sector
is being carpet bombed under Trump... and without tech, what
products does the US have to sell that world markets want? Not a
god damn thing.
Let's remember that Trump didn't want a partial deal... Now he
will take anything to get him out of his self-made wreckage.
Meanwhile impeachment is coming... Mista no deals is going down in
flames.
Last year 300,000 us farmers grew soy
and had 110 mmt. This year there are 100,000 us Soy farmers
left and they grew 34 mmt... not enough to export.
...
Arbitrary and capricious meddling by US politicians in
commodity contracts renders all contracts voidable under
force majeure. I would have thought with your handle you
would have known this. Those markets will never come back.
They will forever be marginalized and smaller. Trump's
damage to US trade is permanent.
In other words, consolidation among large corp farmers,
decimation of the smaller family farmers? I am truly
asking, but seems to remind me of the trend since the
1980s.
Trump and China claimed "substantial progress" this past spring,
and it all fell apart within a couple months. The same thing will
happen on this "deal"....
Former World Leaders: The Trade War Threatens
the World's Economy https://nyti.ms/2MAFOTC
NYT - Kevin Rudd, Helen Clark and Carl Bildt - October 11
Despite an interim deal, global peace and prosperity
remain at risk if the United States and China do not
fully resolve their conflict.
(The authors are former prime ministers
of Australia, New Zealand and Sweden.)
This piece has been updated to reflect news developments.
The 18-month trade war between the United States and China represents the single greatest
threat to global economic growth.
President Trump announced on Friday a preliminary trade détente with China, saying
that the two countries have a verbal agreement for an initial phase of a deal. The agreement
reportedly includes concessions from China to protect American intellectual property, to
accept guidelines on managing its currency and to buy tens of billions worth of American
agricultural products. Washington, for its part, will not go through next month with placing
more tariffs on Chinese products.
This is an encouraging sign, but a verbal agreement is just a first step. A failure to
bring the trade war to a final conclusion significantly increases the risk of recession next
year in the United States, Europe, Japan and other developed and emerging economies. It would
also seriously undermine China's near-term growth prospects.
That's why, as representatives of a group of 10 former prime ministers and presidents from
center-left and center-right governments that have enjoyed close relations with both the
United States and China, we are writing to urge Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping to
reach a substantive trade agreement by year's end. It's time to bring this source of global
economic uncertainty to a close.
America's and China's prosperity have been built on global free trade. America has
profited immensely from access to global markets since its birth. China, since opening up 40
years ago, has lifted millions of its people out of poverty largely through global trade.
Indeed, much of the prosperity enjoyed by people across the world is anchored in our ability
to sell goods and services freely across national boundaries.
Now, however, we see global growth in trade lagging behind general economic growth for the
first time in decades. In part, this is the product of the expanding trade war between
America and China, the world's two largest economies. In part, it is because of a more
general outbreak of protectionism around the world. Both these factors threaten continued
global prosperity.
We recognize, as former leaders of countries with longstanding economic relationships with
China, the real difficulties regarding a number of Beijing's trade and economic practices. We
understand, for example, the challenges that arise from Chinese policies on intellectual
property and technology transfer, its restrictions on access to its markets, and its
subsidization of private and public companies that are active in the global marketplace. We
believe that these practices need to change in whichever countries may use them. But it is
particularly important in China, because it is the world's second-largest economy.
At the same time, as countries long committed to the principles of free trade, we do not
see the ever-widening tariff war, started by the United States, as an effective way to
resolve trade and economic disputes. Tariffs, by definition, are the enemy of free trade.
Their cumulative impact, particularly combined with the current resurgence of protectionism
worldwide, only depresses economic growth, employment and living standards. Tariffs raise the
cost of living for working families as consumer prices are driven up.
Stock markets rose on Friday with the news of the preliminary deal. The tariff war has
been creating economic uncertainty, depressing international investor confidence, compounding
downward pressure on growth and increasing the risk of recession. The disruption of global
supply chains is already profound, and it may continue until a final deal is reached.
We believe that the World Trade Organization, despite its limitations, is best positioned
to address China's trade practices. We also believe that the W.T.O. is the most appropriate
forum in which to resolve trade disputes. So we urge the United States and China to work with
other member states to strengthen the W.T.O.'s institutional capacity.
Our group of former prime ministers and presidents includes François Fillon of
France, Joe Clark of Canada, Enrico Letta of Italy, Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands,
Felipe Calderón and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Han Seung-soo of South Korea. Given
our collective experience, we are not naïve about the inherent complexities in
negotiating trade agreements. Many of us have negotiated free-trade pacts with both the
United States and China. We are deeply familiar with the concerns of each country, including
the domestic political constituencies that argue for continued protection.
Many of those domestic concerns have focused on the long-term enforcement of any
agreement. On this point, we argue that it is in China's own long-term economic interest to
ensure the effective implementation of any new trade deal -- whether involving intellectual
property, technology transfer, state subsidies or market access. Such policies would also
need to apply to all of China's trading partners, just as they would need to apply to its
relationship with the United States.
On the question of enforcement, China must be acutely aware that if it fails to comply
with the terms of the agreement, an already damaging trade war is likely to resume. A new
trade agreement should include strong enforcement provisions, along with strengthened W.T.O.
dispute-resolution mechanisms, to give greater confidence to both parties.
For these reasons, and given the gravity of the global economic outlook for 2020, we urge
both countries to exercise every effort to reach a substantive agreement this year. We also
urge the United States to withdraw the punitive tariffs it has imposed -- and that China do
the same with the reciprocal tariffs it has enacted.
Beyond trade, we are anxious about the wider strategic impact of any further decoupling of
the Chinese and the American economies, particularly in technology and finance. Such a
decoupling would present a long-term threat to global peace and security.
It would also effectively constitute the first step in the declaration of a new Cold War.
As with the last Cold War, many nations would be forced to choose between the two powers. And
that is a choice none of us wants to make.
"... Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7 percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of higher tariffs on U.S. imports. ..."
"... Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its consumers and economy. ..."
"... The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits. ..."
"... The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. ..."
"... Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall U.S. trade deficit. ..."
"... The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. ..."
"... If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another. ..."
Everyone Loses in the US-Chinese Clash
-- but Especially Americans
... Economists reckon the dead-weight loss arising from the existing tariffs on $200
billion in Chinese imports to be $620 per household, or about $80 billion, annually. This
represents about 0.4 percent of U.S. GDP. If the United States continues to expand its tariff
regime as scheduled, that loss will more than double.
Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the
Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China
has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has
lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7
percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports
from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products
that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of
higher tariffs on U.S. imports.
Beijing's nimble calculations are well illustrated by the example of lobsters. China
imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S. lobsters in July 2018, precipitating a 70 percent drop in
U.S. lobster exports. At the same time, Beijing cut tariffs on Canadian lobsters by three
percent, and as a result, Canadian lobster exports to China doubled. Chinese consumers now
pay less for lobsters imported from essentially the same waters.
THE INESCAPABLE DEFICIT
Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its
consumers and economy. But the trade war would be more palatable for Washington if its
confrontation with China were accomplishing Trump's goals. The president thinks that China is
"ripping off" the United States. He wants to reduce the United States' overall trade deficit
by changing China's trade practices. But levying tariffs on Chinese imports has had the
paradoxical effect of inflating the United States' overall trade deficit, which, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau, rose by $28 billion in the first seven months of this year compared
with the same period last year.
The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the
practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits.
The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most
of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always
exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. The shortfall has
shifted over time but has remained between three and six percent of GDP.
Trump wants to boost
U.S. exports to trim the deficit, but trade wars inevitably invite retaliation that leads to
significant reductions in exports. Moreover, increasing the volume of exports does not
necessarily reduce trade deficits unless it is accompanied by a reduction in the country's
spending in terms of consumption and investment. The right way to reduce a trade deficit is
to grow the economy faster than concurrent domestic expenditures, which can be accomplished
only by encouraging innovation and increasing productivity. A trade war does the opposite,
damaging the economy, impeding growth, and hindering innovation.
Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall
U.S. trade deficit. If China buys more from the United States, it will purchase less from
other countries, which will then sell the difference either to the United States or to its
competitors.
For example, look at aircraft sales by the U.S. firm Boeing and its European
rival, Airbus. At the moment, both companies are operating at full capacity. If China buys
1,000 more aircraft from Boeing and 1,000 fewer from Airbus, the European plane-maker will
still sell those 1,000 aircraft, just to the United States or to other countries that might
have bought instead from Boeing.
China understands this, which is one reason it hasn't put
higher tariffs on U.S.-made aircraft. Whatever the outcome of the trade war, the deficit
won't be greatly changed.
A RESILIENT CHINA
The trade war has not really damaged China so far, largely because Beijing has managed to
keep import prices from rising and because its exports to the United States have been less
affected than anticipated.
This pattern will change as U.S. importers begin to switch from
buying from China to buying from third countries to avoid paying the high tariffs. But
assuming China's GDP continues to grow at around five to six percent every year, the effect
of that change will be quite modest.
Some pundits doubt the accuracy of Chinese figures for
economic growth, but multilateral agencies and independent research institutions set Chinese
GDP growth within a range of five to six percent.
Skeptics also miss the bigger picture that China's economy is slowing down as it shifts to
a consumption-driven model. Some manufacturing will leave China if the high tariffs become
permanent, but the significance of such a development should not be overstated. Independent
of the anxiety bred by Trump's tariffs, China is gradually weaning itself off its dependence
on export-led growth. Exports to the United States as a proportion of China's GDP steadily
declined from a peak of 11 percent in 2005 to less than four percent by 2018. In 2006, total
exports made up 36 percent of China's GDP; by 2018, that figure had been cut by half, to 18
percent, which is much lower than the average of 29 percent for the industrialized countries
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Chinese leaders have long
sought to steer their economy away from export-driven manufacturing to a consumer-driven
model.
To be sure, the trade war has exacted a severe psychological toll on the Chinese economy.
In 2018, when the tariffs were first announced, they caused a near panic in China's market at
a time when growth was slowing thanks to a round of credit tightening. The stock market took
a beating, plummeting some 25 percent. The government initially felt pressured to find a way
out of the trade war quickly. But as the smoke cleared to reveal little real damage,
confidence in the market rebounded: stock indexes had risen by 23 percent and 34 percent on
the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges, respectively, by September 12, 2019. The resilience of
the Chinese economy in the face of the trade war helps explain why Beijing has stiffened its
negotiating position in spite of Trump's escalation.
China hasn't had a recession in the past 40 years and won't have one in the foreseeable
future, because its economy is still at an early stage of development, with per capita GDP
only one-sixth of that of the United States. Due to declining rates of saving and rising
wages, the engine of China's economy is shifting from investments and exports to private
consumption. As a result, the country's growth rate is expected to slow. The International
Monetary Fund projects that China's real GDP growth will fall from 6.6 percent in 2018 to 5.5
percent in 2024; other estimates put the growth rate at an even lower number.
Although the
rate of Chinese growth may dip, there is little risk that the Chinese economy will contract
in the foreseeable future. Private consumption, which has been increasing, representing 35
percent of GDP in 2010 and 39 percent last year, is expected to continue to rise and to drive
economic growth, especially now that China has expanded its social safety net and welfare
provisions, freeing up private savings for consumption.
The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the
inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped
to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. The trade war, without taking into
account the escalations from September, will shave off at least half a percentage point of
U.S. GDP, and that much of a drag on the economy may tip it into the anticipated downturn.
(According to a September Washington Post poll, 60 percent of Americans expect a recession in
2020.) The prospect of a recession could provide Trump with the impetus to call off the trade
war. Here, then, is one plausible way the trade war will come to an end. Americans aren't
uniformly feeling the pain of the tariffs yet. But a turning point is likely to come when the
economy starts to lose steam.
If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which
relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that
system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility
of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another.
China and the United States are joined at the hip economically, each being the other's
biggest trading partner. Any attempt to decouple the two economies will bring catastrophic
consequences for both, and for the world at large. Consumer prices will rise, world economic
growth will slow, supply chains will be disrupted and laboriously duplicated on a global
scale, and a digital divide -- in technology, the Internet, and telecommunications -- will
vastly hamper innovation by limiting the horizons and ambitions of technology firms.
...
"... Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company. Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival. ..."
"... Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about survival. ..."
"... Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy. ..."
Huawei is going to beat Trump with human resources
By Jeff Towson
President Trump's placement of Huawei on the U.S. entity list was a body blow. The
magnitude of the hit should not be understated. Being cut off from U.S. technology so
suddenly staggered the multinational. But, to their credit, Huawei didn't go down. They took
the hit and stayed on their feet.
I'm not really sure what the U.S. government thought it would achieve with the ban. To
stop Huawei's growth in international markets? To shift 5G market share to Ericsson and
Nokia? To cripple the company? Just an assertion of principle?
I think they really just don't understand Huawei.
Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to
technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have
much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company.
Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival.
Huawei's core strategy has always been about survival.
If you read Ren Zhengfei's talks and papers going back to the early 1990's, what jumps out
at you is how different Huawei is. The goal of the company has never really been about money.
Nor about becoming a tech giant. Nor about innovation. And it has definitely not been about
going public and getting a big payday. Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about
survival.
"Being big and strong temporarily is not what we want. What we want is the ability and
resilience to survive sustainably," said Ren in 2001.
Actually he has been talking for literally decades about how Huawei can survive long-term
– and about the common causes of corporate decline. My simplistic take is that Ren came
up with a fairly logical plan for long-term survival: Serve your customers no matter what.
Then get big and slowly grind your competitors down with lower costs and greater R&D
spending. And within this, the only resource you really have are your people and their
cumulative brainpower.
Huawei's main resource is its people.
Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the
cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells
them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and
recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main
strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of
value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy.
Unlike the companies in the U.S. and Europe, where the shareholders are the stakeholders
with ultimate say or multiple stakeholders, such as employees, owners and the community, at
Huawei, the only stakeholders you ever really hear about are the current employees. It's all
about the top contributing, current employees. Shareholders, providers of capital, retired
employees and even the founders are all a distant second in importance.
Note how different this is to other large engineering-focused companies (say GM and
Bosch), where much of the value goes into guaranteed salaries (regardless of contribution)
and into post-retirement benefits (i.e., not current employees). Huawei is not only focused
primarily on this one group, they are also operating much more as a meritocracy with regards
to labor.
Huawei to me looks a lot like what 3G capital has been doing in consumer-facing companies
like Budweiser and Burger King. They have instituted "meritocracy and partnership" on a
massive scale in a knowledge business. There is a lot of ownership. And you rise and fall
based on your performance.
Huawei is awesome at inspiring dedication in their top contributing, current employees.
And that is pretty logical. If brainpower is Huawei's main resource, this is the group that
creates that value. So recruiting and motivating this group is the biggest priority. And they
don't just want them motivated. They want them "all in."
In practice, this is actually pretty complicated. It's a big company. Employees are at
different stages of their lives and careers. How do you get current staff, senior staff and
incoming staff to go "all in" in creating value for customers – and therefore the
enterprise?
My outsider's take is that Huawei is mostly focused on motivating teams and team managers.
High-performance teams with aggressive and dedicated managers are the engine of Huawei. And
these are mostly in sales and marketing and R&D. They make the largest contributions to
the customers and therefore the enterprise. You motivate at the team level and within the
departments that matter most. And then you scale it up.
But how do you assess contributed value?
Staff are rated every 6-12 months across metrics such as sales performance (usually
team-based), talent, dedication, and the potential for advancement. The phrases I keep coming
across in my reading are "dedicated employees" and "high-performance teams." In fact, the
book on their HR book is titled Dedication.
Once assessed, how do you reward performance?
High-performing contributors are given higher bonuses, of course. But they are also
identified and given more opportunities (and responsibilities). They are given more training
and the option to participate in the employee share ownership program (very important). Low
performers, in contrast, are demoted or exited. Meritocracy works in both directions.
And this brings us back to the main point of this article: How does the U.S. tech ban
impact any of this? How does it impact an HR system for motivating the more than 190,000
employees that continually recreate the company and ensure its survival?
In the long term, it doesn't.
Yes, the company took a big hit in the short term in terms of its access to tech
(especially in semiconductors and in the consumer business) and to a few markets. But the
core of the company is still churning along like it has for 30 years. And I think it is very
likely Huawei will overcome these supply chain problems. And, ironically, the current crisis
is probably resulting in increased motivation and dedication across the company.
"... Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just 12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's Republic of China is that it is still with us. ..."
The 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China was not a birthday I felt like
celebrating. As Dutch historian Frank Dikötter has shown in his searing three-volume
history of the Mao Zedong era, the Communist regime claimed the lives of tens of millions of
people: 2 million in the revolution between 1949 and 1951, another 3 million by the end of
the 1950s, up to 45 million in the man-made famine known as the "Great Leap Forward," and yet
more in the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution, Mao's campaign against the intelligentsia,
which escalated into a civil war.
Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just
12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to
economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's
Republic of China is that it is still with us.
Now, I could give you a rather boring explanation of why I think China's bid to "catch up
and surpass" (ganchao) the United States will fail. But maybe a more interesting answer can
be found in Liu Cixin's astonishing 2008 novel, "The Three-Body Problem," which I read for
the first time last week.
The problem of the title is introduced to the reader -- and to the nanotechnology
scientist Wang Miao, one of the central characters -- as a virtual reality game, set in a
strange, distant world with three suns rather than the familiar one. The mutually perturbing
gravitational attractions of the three suns prevent this planet from ever settling into a
predictable orbit with regular days, nights, and seasons. It has occasional "stable eras,"
during which civilization can advance, but with minimal warning, these give way to "chaotic
eras" of intense heat or cold that render the planet uninhabitable The central conceit of
Liu's novel is that China's history has the same pattern as the three-body problem: periods
of stability always end with periods of chaos -- what the Chinese call dong luan. The other
key character in the book is Ye Wenjie, who sees her father, a professor at Tsinghua
University, beaten to death by a gang of teenage Red Guards during the Cultural
Revolution.
Banished from Beijing to a labor camp in benighted rural backwater, Ye is rescued when she
is given a lowly job in a mysterious observatory known as Red Coast. But nothing can undo the
emotional damage of witnessing her father's murder. Nor can she escape the chaos of
Communism. She watches in horror as the entire area around the observatory is deforested.
Everything -- even astrophysics -- is subordinated to Mao's warped ideology.
Disillusioned completely by the madness of mankind -- a sentiment reinforced by a chance
meeting with an American environmentalist -- Ye stumbles on a way of beaming a message from
Earth deep into space by bouncing it off the sun. When, after years of empty noise, a clear
message is received in reply, she does not hesitate. Even though the message is a warning not
to communicate with Trisolaris -- the name of a real planet with three suns -- Ye sends
another message, ensuring that the Trisolarians can locate Earth, and initiate their
long-planned relocation.
Rehabilitated in the political thaw that follows Mao's death, Ye Wenjie returns to
Beijing, following in her father's footsteps as a physics professor. But she leads a double
life, for she also becomes the Commander of the Earth-Trisolaris Movement, a radically
misanthropic organization dedicated to helping the Trisolarians conquer earth. Acute readers
will notice that this group's ideology is a subtle parody of Maoism.
"Start a global rebellion!" they shout. "Long live the spirit of Trisolaris! We shall
persevere like the stubborn grass that resprouts after every wildfire! ... Eliminate human
tyranny!"
Little do they know that the Trisolarians are even worse than humans. As one of the aliens
points out to their leader, because of their world's utter unpredictability, "Everything is
devoted to survival. To permit the survival of the civilization as a whole, there is almost
no respect for the individual. Someone who can no longer work is put to death. Trisolarian
society exists under a state of extreme authoritarianism." Life for the individual consists
of "monotony and desiccation." That sounds a lot like Mao's China.
There is one scene in "The Three-Body Problem" that sticks in the mind. An adult and a
child stand looking at the grave of a Red Guard killed during the factional battles that
raged during the Cultural Revolution. "Are they heroes?" asks the child. The adult says no.
"Are they enemies?" The adult again says no. "Then who are they?" The adult replies:
"History."
True, the hero of the story is the foul-mouthed, chain-smoking Beijing cop Shi Qiang.
Chinese readers doubtless relish the scene when he lectures a pompous American general about
how best to save the world.
But the deeper meaning of the book is surely that Trisolaris is China. The three bodies in
contention are not suns but classes: rulers, intellectuals, masses. Right now, China is in
one of its stable phases. But, as the contending forces shift, chaos will sooner or later
return. Perhaps it already has, in Hong Kong.
If it spreads, I -- and history -- will win that bet.
The Three-Body Problem is a hard science fiction novel by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin. It is
the first novel of the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, but Chinese readers generally
refer to the whole series by the title of this first novel. The second and third novels in
the trilogy are titled The Dark Forest and Death's End. The title of the first novel refers
to the three-body problem in orbital mechanics. ...
The English translation by Ken Liu was published by Tor Books in 2014. It was the first
Asian novel ever to win a Hugo Award for Best Novel, in 2015 and was nominated for the 2014
Nebula Award for Best Novel.
(An amazing trilogy. Inspired by Arthur Clarke (*). Looks like Niall has read the first
book.)
* 'The Songs of Distant Earth' is a 1986 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C.
Clarke, based upon his 1958 short story of the same title. He stated that it was his
favourite of all his novels. ... The novel tells of a utopian human colony in the far future
that is visited by travellers from a doomed Earth, as the Sun has gone nova. The Songs of
Distant Earth explores apocalyptic, atheistic, and utopian ideas, as well as the effects of
long-term interstellar travel and extra-terrestrial life. (Wikipedia)
('Songs' is optimistic; 'Remembrance of
Earth's Past is not.)
A new Homeland Security rule to screen out immigrants who are at risk of becoming
dependent on government benefits was put on hold by a federal judge until there's a final
decision whether the so-called green card wealth test is legal.
US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said Friday that the rule, which was set to
go into effect Oct. 15, can't be implemented nationwide.
The rule, announced in August, replaces a current policy that says immigrants shouldn't
receive more than half their income from cash benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security.
Under the new more expansive definition, immigrants aren't supposed to use public benefits
like Medicaid, public housing assistance, or food stamps for more than 12 months over a
36-month period. Immigration officials will consider an immigrant's age, health, education,
and wealth to see if they are at risk of becoming a "public charge."
Immigrant rights' advocacy groups and several states have argued that the new rule
conflicts with existing immigration laws and would drive up the cost of providing health care
and other services to immigrants.
Daniels blocked the rule following a. August lawsuit filed by the states of New York,
Connecticut and Vermont and the city of New York, which alleged that the policy specifically
targets immigrants of color. He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security went beyond
its authority under federal immigration law.
"Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this
new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the rule -- which has
absolutely no support in the histroy of U.S. Immigration law -- is reasonable," Daniels said,
calling the rule "repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and
success through hard work and upward mobility." ...
White House Weighs Blocking Chinese Companies From U.S. Exchanges
By Alan Rappeport and Ana Swanson
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration is discussing whether to block Chinese companies
from listing shares on American stock exchanges, the latest push to try to sever economic
ties between the United States and China, according to people familiar with the
deliberations.
The internal discussions are in their early stages and no decision is imminent, these
people cautioned.
The talks come as senior officials from both countries are scheduled to resume trade
negotiations in Washington early next month. President Trump, who has continued to give mixed
signals about the prospect of a trade deal with China, said earlier this week that an
agreement could come "sooner than you think." His decision to delay an increase in tariffs
until mid-October and China's recent purchases of American agricultural products has fueled
optimism that the talks could produce an agreement.
But the prospect of further limiting American investment in China underscores the
challenge that the two sides will continue to face even as they try to de-escalate a trade
war that has shaken the global economy. The administration has already increased scrutiny of
foreign investment with a particular eye toward China, including expanding the types of
investments that can be subject to a national security review.
Last week, the Treasury Department unveiled new regulations detailing how a 2018 law, the
Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, will work to prevent foreign firms from
using investments like minority stakes to capture sensitive American information. And the
United States has already blacklisted some Chinese companies, including Huawei, effectively
barring them from doing business with American companies.
Stocks dropped on Friday after a report on the deliberations was published by Bloomberg
News. The market continued to slide through most of the day. At close, the S&P 500 was
down 0.5 percent and the Nasdaq composite index was down 1.1 percent.
Losses were particularly steep in the technology sector, and among semiconductor stocks,
two parts of the market that have been sensitive to the latest updates on the economic
tensions between China and the United States.
Details of how the United States would restrict Chinese companies from American stock
markets were still being worked out and the idea remained in its early stages, the people
familiar with the deliberations said.
China hawks within the administration have discussed the possibility of tighter
restrictions on listed Chinese companies for many months. Supporters say the efforts would
close longstanding loopholes that have allowed Chinese companies with links to its government
to take advantage of America's financial rules and solicit funds from American investors
without proper disclosure.
Skeptics caution that the move could be deeply disruptive to markets and the economy and
risk turning American investors and pension funds into another casualty of the trade war.
The effect of limiting Chinese firms from raising capital inside the United States could
be significant. As of the beginning of this year, 156 Chinese companies were listed on
American exchanges and had a total market capitalization of $1.2 trillion, according to the
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
"The underlying concerns have merit, but how to deal with them without creating a lot of
collateral damage is tricky," Patrick Chovanec, managing director at Silvercrest Asset
Management, wrote in a post on Twitter. "Abruptly delisting Chinese firms en masse would
clearly send shock waves through markets."
The idea gained traction on Capitol Hill this summer when Republicans and Democrats in the
Senate and the House introduced legislation that would delist firms that were out of
compliance with American regulators for three years. The lawmakers argued that Chinese
companies have been benefiting from American capital markets while playing by a different set
of rules.
American complaints center on a lack of transparency into the ownership and finances of
Chinese firms. The business community has long criticized China for classifying some auditor
reports on company finances as state secrets and outlawing cross-border transfers of
auditors' documentation.
In 2015, the Chinese affiliates of the Big Four accounting firms -- Deloitte Touch
Tohmatsu, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young -- paid $500,000 each to settle
a dispute about their refusal to provide documentation on Chinese companies to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which an American judge had ruled was a violation of United States
law.
The White House has grown more interested in blocking Chinese firms in recent weeks, with
some in the administration describing it as a top priority. Officials say the topic is not
yet an issue in bilateral negotiations with the Chinese and inserting it into the talks could
lead negotiations to fall apart again.
"This would be another step in ratcheting up the pressure," said Michael Pillsbury, a
China scholar at the Hudson Institute who said he raised the concept of investment
restrictions with the White House after negotiations with China broke down in the spring.
The White House declined to comment.
The concept has divided Mr. Trump's advisers along their usual fault lines, with Peter
Navarro, Mr. Trump's trade adviser, advocating action and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
urging caution....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
It was meant protect the right to exercise one's religion of choice, and to protect the
nation from becoming a theocracy. States like Alabama are more a theocracy than a democracy.
The evangelicals so important to Trumps election would impose an evangelical theocracy on the
nation.
Good point about religion in USA poliitics today, Melvin.
I suggest, again, that anne and everyone here watch "The Family" on NETFLIX to see how
religion has secretly infiltrated our politics and that of other nations, especially
developing nations.
Agreed except I am not sure about the "secretly" part. It depends upon how you mean it. More
precisely though reactionary social conservatives have wore religious pretense as an
effective stalking horse to elevate their agenda in US politics. This has never been about
religion per se, but rather just a tool to fool the tools.
Religion was the earliest cloaking device ever employed by the ship of state to conceal its
own agenda going all the back to tribal Shamans even before the Divine Right of Kings. The
1st Amendment to the US Constitution only ever provided very weak defense from the state's
misuse of religion, but more so protected individual's freedom of religion. In God We Trust,
so to speak.
It was religious influence in the US political sphere that was the primary vehicle for
promulgating the political views that lead to the abolition of slavery (e.g., Quakers), the
social welfare movement (e.g., Robert Hunter's 1912 book "Poverty"), women's suffrage (see
link below, but not so much in the South), and alcohol temperance (obviously enough). OK,
three out of four is good.
A house bill bans using Huawei and ZTE phones; also adds 1 billion in taxpayer paid for
equipment to be donated to to USA companies so the USA companies can trash the China made
equipment and exchange if for 1 billion in USA and Israel made equipment.
I wonder does this mean the USA and Israel cannot compete with the Chinese?
Another demonstration of the potential authoritarian state being built by the Gop and trump.
H/T to Kurt.
"The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding for a Middle East
Studies course jointly taught by Duke University and the University of North Carolina because
it believes it is too positive in its depiction of Islam in comparison to its portrayal of
Judaism and Christianity.
The Department of Education said the consortium had failed to offer a "balance of
perspectives" on the religions and ordered the universities to remake the course to provide a
more "positive" portrayal of Judaism and Christianity or lose its federal funding. The
consortium received $235,000 in federal grant money last year.
There is "a considerable emphasis placed on the understanding the positive aspects of
Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of
Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East," the
Department of Education said in its letter to the schools."
"The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding for a Middle East
Studies course jointly taught by Duke University and the University of North Carolina because
it believes it is too positive in its depiction of Islam in comparison to its portrayal of
Judaism and Christianity."
That's funny as this is coming from Slate. Since when Slate depends on Gulf monarchies
dollars. I thought it was bankrupt long ago.
Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key
principle of separation of the church and the state?
Why such studies can't be supported by Catholic church, rich Jewish donors, or Gulf
monarchies? Say, 33.3% each ;-)
Looks like a clear waste of taxpayers dollars for me. So Trump administration is right
in withholding the funds, IMHO.
"Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key
principle of separation of the church and the state?"
No - it would only do that if it was a theology class or specifically supported one
religion over another. Most uni religious studies classes are secular classes that discuss
and compare various religious sects from a dispassionate, sociological point of view. In
fact, I think that a comparative religious studies should be a core curriculum. It would
greatly reduce the religious bigotry that has infected parts of our nation. This is coming
from someone who hasn't believed in God since I went to a religious university.
In fact, I think that a comparative religious studies should be a core curriculum. It would
greatly reduce the religious bigotry that has infected parts of our nation. This is coming
from someone who hasn't believed in God since I went to a religious university.
But then it should be done in Sociological department as an additional obligatory sociology
course:
Religious studies originated in the 19th century, when scholarly and historical analysis of
the Bible had flourished, and Hindu and Buddhist texts were first being translated into
European languages.
Early influential scholars included Friedrich Max Müller in England and Cornelius P.
Tiele in the Netherlands. Today religious studies is practiced by scholars worldwide.[1]
In its early years, it was known as "comparative religion" or the science of religion and,
in the USA, there are those who today also know the field as the History of religion
(associated with methodological traditions traced to the University of Chicago in general,
and in particular Mircea Eliade, from the late 1950s through to the late 1980s).
"... With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with the world of Google-led Android systems outright. ..."
"... Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services within it. ..."
"... They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and, most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a "web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit. ..."
"... p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores. ..."
"... So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become independent." ..."
"... Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S. dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android. ..."
"... To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15 percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their own app-stores. ..."
September 21, 2019
Huawei's pivotal moment
By Tom Fowdy
Huawei launched its Mate 30 series on Friday, the first new device produced by the
Shenzhen telecommunications firm since it has been blacklisted by the United States
government and excluded from American technology markets.
The subsequent result of the listing had led Google to sever ties with the company and
prohibit new devices from using its Play Store services and operating system, something which
ultimately impacts the Mate 30 Series, which is using an open-source version of Android.
The impact of it all has led Western commentators to ask questions about Huawei's future
in Western smartphone markets, particularly what applications can it access.
However, not all is bleak, and what may start off as a hindrance for the company is set to
transform into an opportunity. The United States' assault on the company has forced Huawei to
innovate.
With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now
positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with
the world of Google-led Android systems outright.
In this case, what seems like a detriment is part of a broader pivotal moment for Huawei.
The company's portfolio is about to change forever.
Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global
smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might
otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services
within it.
They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and,
most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more
developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a
"web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit.
U p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from
Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has
made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google
applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores.
So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt
Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become
completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become
independent."
First of all, we are well aware that Huawei is developing its own Harmony Operating System
as a contingency measure, although it has not chosen to apply it to the Mate 30 as an olive
branch to Google.
Second, and most excitingly is Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S.
dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort
to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish
a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android.
To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15
percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their
own app-stores.
This effort is combined with a wider scope in research and development from the company,
which is also designed to forfeit dependence upon American technology chains in terms of
critical components and other parts.
We have already seen massive investment pledges from Huawei to build new research and
development centers in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy and Brazil. They are not empty
promises, but a serious and strategic effort.
In this case, what was intended to be a political effort to destroy and contain Huawei is
likely to prove a pivotal turning point in the company's history with huge repercussions for
global smartphone and technology markets.
Instead of having once been reliant on and thus beneficial to American technology markets,
the outcome is that Huawei will re-emerge independent of and competing against it.
Armed with a pending new operating system, a new application development drive and a
broader research effort, what seemed otherwise a detriment is likely to bring a massive
opportunity. Thus, it is very important to examine the long-term prospects for the company's
fortunes ahead of short-term challenges.
"... "The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event. ..."
"... The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors, the first and largest of its kind. ..."
"... Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks AI does well. ..."
"... Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance. ..."
Smartest and fastest: Huawei reveals new smartphone chip Kirin 990 5G
By Gong Zhe
Chinese smartphone giant Huawei, which has been under heavy attack from the U.S.
government during the last few months, just revealed its next-generation smartphone
system-on-a-chip (SoC) product "Kirin 990 5G," signaling the company's business is not
stalled by foreign strangling.
The launch event was held simultaneously at IFA electronic show in Berlin, Germany, and in
Beijing on Friday.
In his keynote speech, Huawei's head of gadgets Richard Yu told the press that the chip is
more advanced than other flagship smartphone SoCs, because it has a built-in 5G modem.
Current rivals of the chip, like Qualcomm's Snapdragon 855, have no 5G modem and have to
rely on an extra chip to support 5G.
"The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of
effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat
while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event.
The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors,
the first and largest of its kind.
Flexible AI power
The chip also features three AI cores, two larger than the other smaller. This design,
first in smartphones, saves battery power by only using the small core to process simple AI
tasks, while resorting to the larger cores for more complex jobs.
The company named the cores "Ascend Lite" and "Ascend Tiny" to relate the cores to
Huawei's new, self-proclaimed "fastest AI training chip in the world," the Ascend 910.
Huawei built a showcase at the Beijing launch event to demonstrate the chip's AI power.
They showed a FaceID-like face recognition feature in a Kirin 990-powered developer board
that can work when the person is four meters away from the phone, times further than Apple's
current product.
Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality
video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei
technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object
recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks
AI does well.
Even better photos
Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone
zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top
of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed
with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance.
A Kirin 990-powered smartphone can shoot 4K videos (3840 x 2160 pixels) at 60 frames per
second, on par with market flagship phones.
The chip can also run DSLR-level noise-reduction algorithm – namely "Block Match 3D"
– to bring professional tech to consumer devices.
"Porting an algorithm from DSLR to smartphone may be easy. But getting the program to run
fast enough can be hard for any phone maker," Ai told CGTN Digital.
Non-U.S. tech
The design of Kirin 990 is still based on technology Huawei bought from British tech
company ARM, used by several mainstream brands.
After the U.S. began imposing restrictions on Huawei, ARM cut ties with the Chinese phone
maker. Despite this, Huawei has been able to use and modify AMRv8 technology thanks to its
permanent ARM license. Hence why chips like Kirin 990 can still be legally built and
sold.
In addition to ARM, there are other major smartphone tech companies cutting ties with
Huawei, forcing the Chinese company to create its own alternatives. After Google announced to
bar Huawei phones from installing their apps, Huawei started porting its IoT system "Harmony"
to smartphones.
But Huawei still wishes to use technologies from all over the world. As Ai Wei explained
at the launch event, "Huawei will not deliberately remove all U.S. tech from its smartphones.
But when the supply from U.S. was cut, Huawei has to find a way to survive."
"That's why Huawei chose to create its own technology," Ai added....
The point in article after article is that China is emphasizing technical advance in building
the economy from rural to urban applications and the emphasis will not be lessened. The rural
applications I am reading about are especially exciting.
I appreciate the interview, but Clayton Dube as director of the University of Southern
California's U.S.-China Institute knows remarkably little about China or American relations
with China. Possibly Dube is being especially cautious, but still:
"The air in Los Angeles," the academic explains by way of an example, "is influenced by
the air coming out of northern China. But of course, that bad air in China is produced by
factories often producing for the American market. And so we have not only outsourced
production, we've outsourced pollution."
This is absurdly wrong. China has been working on cleaning the environment for years now
and the effects as monitored have been dramatic.
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to
get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming
from.
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to
get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming
from.
[ Surely so, this very day is "International Day of Peace in Nanjing" in memory of the
victims of the terrible Japanese occupation:
Four Years After Declaring War on Pollution, China Is Winning
Research gives estimates on the longer lives that are now possible in the country.
By Michael Greenstone
On March 4, 2014, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, told almost 3,000 delegates at the
National People's Congress and many more watching live on state television, "We will
resolutely declare war against pollution as we declared war against poverty."
China has had the benefit of skipping over other advanced nation's Legacy infrastructure.
Leapfrogging ahead in some areas of development is smart and saves money for China as
well, but that doesn't make China superior to other advanced nations.
The U.S. Has a Fleet of 300 Electric Buses. China Has 421,000
The rest of the world will struggle for years to match China's rapid embrace of electric
transit.
By Brian Eckhouse - Bloomberg
Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson
CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in
Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future
business that is unlikely to come.
A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker,
completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build
subway cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.
But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on
Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation
that would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States,
citing national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for
the effort....
Terrific discussion on how the West perceives China...
[ Actually a discussion that shows a remarkable misperception of China even by an American
China academic-specialist. As such the discussion is important though discouraging. ]
"... I always thought globalization was about the opportunity for a handful of businesses and corporations to control major industries around the world. ..."
"... There is an anti-China hawks faction based in the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been, born Chinese?". ..."
"... We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what other country may fall within his sights? ..."
"... it seems business people in the government are being pushed aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country. Great! ..."
"... Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. ..."
"... As it is now, China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability. ..."
"... Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war. ..."
"... the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic "spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population. ..."
"... Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans, they are simply against China. ..."
"... as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia." ..."
"... Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills, and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison. ..."
"... The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how stupid it was to do it in the first place ..."
"... Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%. ..."
"... Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market, and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world. How can that help the US ? ..."
"... The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest is coming to an end. And none too soon. ..."
"... I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to have the US start making it's own medications again. ..."
"... I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital drugs.. ..."
"... Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States! (Or at least his advisors don't). ..."
"... Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics. ..."
"... He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to compete in a free trade world. ..."
By Marshall Auerback, a
market analyst and commentator. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media
Institute
"Chimerica" is a term originally coined by the historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz
Schularick to describe the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and China since the
latter's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. In the words of Ferguson : "The Chinese did the saving, the
Americans the spending. The Chinese did the exporting, the Americans the importing. The Chinese
did the lending, the Americans the borrowing." Much of the pre-crisis boom in global trade was
driven by this economic symbiosis, which is why successive American presidents tolerated this
marriage of convenience
despite the increasing costs to the U.S. economy . The net benefits calculation, however,
began to change after 2008, and the conflict has intensified further after the 2016
presidential election result. Today, the cumulative stress of Donald Trump's escalating trade
war is leading to if not an irreparable breach between the two countries, then certainly a
significant fraying. The imminent resumption of trade talks notwithstanding, the rising cost of
the tariffs is already inducing some U.S. manufacturers to exit China. But in most instances,
they are not returning to home shores.
It may have taken Trump to point out the pitfalls of the Chimerica link, but coming up with
a coherent strategy to replace it is clearly beyond the president's abilities. America is
likely to remain a relative manufacturing wasteland, as barren as Trump's own ill-conceived
ideas on trade. At the same time, it's not going to be an unmitigated victory for China either,
as Beijing is increasingly suffering from a large confluence of internal and external
pressures.
Chimerica helped to launch China as a global trade power. To the extent that this marriage
helped the U.S. economy, it skewed toward the largely blue state coastal regions. Wall Street
banks located on the East Coast happily collected lucrative commissions and investment banking
fees, as China's export proceeds were recycled into U.S. treasuries, stocks, and high-end real
estate while the capital markets boomed; on the West Coast, "new economy" companies thrived,
their growth and profitability unhindered by the onslaught of Chinese manufactured exports. By
contrast, facilitated by technological advances that permitted large-scale outsourcing by U.S.
manufacturers, Chimerica laid waste to much of what was left of America's Rust Belt, and the
politics of many of the displaced workers mutated to the extent that Donald Trump became an
appealing alternative to the establishment in 2016.
The major legacy of Chimerica, then, is that too many American workers have been
semi-permanently replaced by low-cost offshored labor. Prior to great advances in technology,
along with globalization, displacement of the current labor force could only have occurred
through immigration of workers into the country. Historically, displacement by immigrants
generally began at the menial level of the labor force, and became more restrictive as when it
became correlated with significant unemployment. Given the rise of globalization and the
corresponding liberalization of immigration in the past few decades, however, policy no longer
arrests the displacement of American workers. The policy backlash has consequently manifested
itself more via trade protectionism. Trump has sought to consolidate his Rust Belt base of
supporters by launching a trade war, especially versus Beijing, the ultimate effects of which
he hoped would be to re-domicile supply chains that had earlier migrated to China.
Early on in his presidency, there was some hope that Trump's protectionism was at best a
bluff or, at worst, an aberration, and that the return of a Democrat to the White House in 2020
would eventually reestablish the status quo ante. But the president still can't get a wall, and
his protectionism has become more pronounced almost as if to compensate. The problem today is
that even if Trump is voted out of office in 2020, corporate America is becoming less inclined
to wait out the end of his presidency to return to the pre-Trump status quo of parking the bulk
of their manufacturing in China. There is too much risk in putting all of one's eggs in the
China basket, especially given
growing national security concerns . Hence, U.S. companies are taking action. In spite of
decades of investment in these China-domiciled supply chains, a number of American companies
are pulling out:
toy manufacturer Hasbro , Illinois-based
phone accessories manufacturer Xentris Wireless, and lifestyle clothing company PacSun are
a few of the operators who are exiting the country.
But they are not coming back to the U.S., relocating instead to places like Vietnam,
Bangladesh, Mexico, the Philippines and Taiwan. The chief financial officer of Xentris, Ben
Buttolph, says
that the company will never return to China: "We are trying to have multiple locations
certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with one of the
locations, we just flip the switch." Likewise, the CEO of Hasbro, Brian Goldner,
recently spoke of "great opportunities in Vietnam, India and other territories like
Mexico."
All is not lost for the U.S., however, as Goldner did celebrate the success of Hasbro's
facility in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, which has resumed
production of Play-Doh in the U.S. for the first time since 2004 . It is doubtful, however,
that this represents the recapturing of the high value-added supply chains that Trump envisaged
when he first launched his trade assault on Beijing.
In general, as Julius Krein,
editor of American Affairs , writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign
competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot
compete with what exists in Asia."
These are not isolated examples.
Defense One also notes the following development:
It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. U.S. chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese
entities. The Department of Commerce halved the number of licenses that let U.S. companies
assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering projects.
This development consequently makes it hard to proclaim Beijing a winner in this dispute
either. The country still needs access to U.S. high tech. The government announced yet
another fiscal stimulus to the economy earlier this month in response to a cluster of
weakening economic data, much of which is related to the trade shock. It is also the case that
China is being buffeted politically, both externally and internally: externally, in addition to
the escalating trade war, China's own efforts to counter the effects of rising protectionism by
creating a " reverse
Marshall Plan " via the Belt and Road Initiative is
floundering .
China's "iron brother," Pakistan, is increasingly being victimized by India's aggressive
Hindu-centric nationalism . It is hard to imagine the Modi government opportunistically
taking the step of annexing Kashmir and undermining Pakistan, had it not sensed Beijing's
increasing vulnerability.
Internally, Beijing is finding it increasingly challenging as it seeks to enforce its "One
China" policy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The
withdrawal of the controversial extradition law that first precipitated widespread
demonstrations in Hong Kong has not alleviated the political pressures in the territory, but
simply allowed an even bigger protest culture to take root and strengthen an independent
political mindset. Similarly, Taiwan has also openly supported the Hong Kong protesters,
pledging help to those seeking asylum . Both regions now constitute both a huge humiliation
and challenge to the primacy of China's ruling Communist Party. And now on top of that, foreign
manufacturers are leaving the country, weakening a totally leveraged manufacturing complex.
The implications of this divorce go well beyond the U.S. and China. They constitute another
step toward regionalization, another step away from a quaint ideological "post-history"
construct that saw Washington, D.C., as the head office and the rest of the world as a bunch of
branch plants for "America, Inc." It's hardly comforting to contemplate that the last time we
reached this historic juncture was the early 1900s, when a similarly globalized economy broke
down, followed by the Great War. As Niall Ferguson points out , "a high level of economic integration does not
necessarily prevent the growth of strategic rivalry and, ultimately, conflict." There's no
doubt that both Washington and Beijing will likely making soothing noises to the markets in
order to create favorable conditions for the trade talks in October, but their actions suggest
that they are both digging in
for a longer struggle . Today's trade wars, therefore, are likely to morph into something
more destructive, which is a lose-lose in an era where human advancement depends on greater
integration between economic powers.
There may be another aspect to this development and that is of geopolitics. You can see
that in Marshall's article when the CFO of Xentris said: "We are trying to have multiple
locations certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with
one of the locations, we just flip the switch." There is an anti-China hawks faction based in
the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter
Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but
they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been,
born Chinese?".
So we have seen a long string of sanctions and tariffs at play so that China will change its
laws and institutions to suit American interests. Yeah, I can't see that happening anytime
soon but hey, America First, Baby. We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and
not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones
against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do
the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what
other country may fall within his sights?
That being the case if you were running an international country, you can no longer just have
your manufacturing base or service operations just in one country. If Xentris is an example,
US companies may have to split manufacturing into several countries in case one fine day that
Trump will sanction yet another country that your company depends on.
I would imagine that it
would not be so efficient but it seems business people in the government are being pushed
aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country.
Great!
Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. Another
four years of this will, effectively, dismantle what democracy is left. The world trade won't
be the big issue. The departure of millions of Americans will.
If that happens, be sure to thank the Catfood Democrats for it. Because they are the
people who will do their very best and hardest to throw the next election to Trump, one way
or another.
It seems like diversification of supply chains can only be a good thing. As it is now,
China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze
them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals
consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability.
I really don't think it matters if manufacturing jobs are repatriated to the US, or just
set up and spread around elsewhere for now – since they'll be obsolete jobs in the near
future anyway, as robotics and AI get increasingly efficient at doing the work that human
workers currently do.
Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence
won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of
Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war.
So the status quo was preferable? The tone of the article seems to suggest that America should accept it place as a
third-world manufacturer, as if these Asian nations have some magical sauce that can't be
replicated. Gawd.
The US does have a lot of magic. Like one third of FDI related to tax evasion. Pulling Mac
Book manufacturing out of Austin for the lack of one 'screw', etc. So is the premise of going after China on trade and IP policies good. I would agree. Maybe
not in strategy, but at least someone has opened the box.
I agree with your comment, the article suggests the status quo was preferable. Of note, Trump has shown his supporters that something CAN be done other than follow the
"resistance is futile" path of the Bill Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama administrations.
I also suggest that the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic
corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic
"spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job
loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population.
I worked in the electronics industry for 30+ years and watched high margin manufacturing
move to Asia. Now the lower level component manufacturers (PCBs, passives) are firmly established in
Asia as the USA companies have helped train worthy competitors overseas. It took 25+ years to move much of USA manufacturing overseas, indicating to me that it
will take a long time to bring it back significantly, well outside the Trump time frame.
But I suspect Trump voters will appreciate Trump's headline efforts. If the Democrats push for more Free Trade as good for the USA, it will hurt them at the
ballot box.
The second time as farce. How tragicomic that Trump has succeeded in little more than
repatriating the manufacture of Play-Doh. On the other hand, the shipping cost of unbaked brick seems a rational factor in Hasbro's
decision. A GND that shortens supply lines would be more effective in repatriating heavy
industry, but then printed circuit boards aren't all that heavy .
The thing is Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for
actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans,
they are simply against China.
So he goes and puts tariffs on a country, not a product. And surprise, said product
doesn't come back on-shore. Comical (and yeah, cosmically a bit just) that Vietnam is getting
so much of that manufacturing. Wasn't what he was elected for.
In general, as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry
is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our
manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia."
As a engineer up to my elbows in manufacturing for forty years, this was awfully easy to
predict way back then (I gave up complaining about it about 2000), and then watch happen
– real time. And to once again state the obvious, China did not TAKE American jobs,
American CEOs GAVE them our jobs. We will not fix this problem until we identify and fix the
root cause.
Now the only way to fix it is (once again obviously) massive government investment such as
mandated by the GND. We need the GND, it is not only required to save the world, it will save
our country.
Agree, it was predictable, and it was predicted. What we've been talking about is the "Giant sucking sound" Ross Perot foretold would
happen prior to the passing of NAFTA. It wasn't hard back then to see that he was right, but it took a few decades for the
public to feel the impact, boiling frogs and all that.
Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills,
and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price
of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery
way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever
direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison.
NAFTA and China are two completely separate things. I have actually supported NAFTA in
principle because we should encourage trade to be focused on our immediate neighbors. A
wealthier and safer Mexico and Central America would create markets for us and virtually
eliminate illegal immigrants as the southern border.
China is on the other side of the world and is not part of NAFTA. While we should have
cordial relations with it, if we are looking for inexpensive labor, south of the border is
the better place to focus on that. So Trump's tariffs on China are not the wrong thing to do
per se. The problem is that they are being done in a vacuum of general trade policy where he
is looking at everything as transaction bilateral relations with every country on the planet,
which requires an immense amount of detailed thought and negotiation, neither of which appear
to be a focus of this administration.
The countries that the companies are talking about moving their operations to are
generally part of the new TPP which the US is not part of. So, we have removed ourselves from
having trade relations with countries US CEOs are setting up operations in, but those
countries are now starting to work together to counter both China (original TPP purpose) and
the US (now that the US has bailed on it). Sounds like a recipe for a replay of China's giant
sucking sound.
The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how
stupid it was to do it in the first place. Anyone smart enough to breath knows that Mexico is next door, and China is on the other
side of the world, but they are both part of the same giant sucking sound. The fact that you support both NAFTA ,think it was unwise to back out of the TPP, and
think the issue is the present administration's lack of " detailed thought and negotiation
" indicate a truly unbelievable level of denial.
NAFTA and MFN for China were two different actions towards the same goal . . . the use of
Free Trade to dismantle thingmaking in America and re-mantle thingmaking in foreign
export-aggression platforms to use against America.
Free Trade is the new Slavery. Militant Belligerent Protectionism is the new
Abolition.
I remember when a Midwest Democrat (Stabenow?) tried to get a law passed that would
prohibit a US corporation from deducting, from their federal taxes, the cost of moving
factories overseas. A very minor disincentive, but a disincentive nonetheless. The Repubs beat it down as "anti-business". Concern about American workers is something to express in political speeches around
election time but not in legislation.
Hidden within this narrative is the fact that some countries, and not only China, have for
long been playing beggar-thy-neighbor policies by restraining internal consumption and
redirecting savings to the rest of the world that in turn finance their exporting machines.
IMO, the biggest mistake made by China has been not to force fast enough a transition from a
saving economy to a consumer economy with more balanced external relationships.
These kind of
policies are confrontational. As confrontational as tariffs or even as economic sanctions in
my view. Yet, the prevailing economic narrative is that saving and exporting is the right
economic thing to do. In this sense I think it matters a lot to which countries are being re
directed investments of american companies leaving China. My intuition is that, for instance,
Vietnam migth be willing to play this game while Mexico not. Investing in countries that save
too much migth be counterproductive.
I very much regret this aggressive narrative that has become common place in which
countries are identified simply as competitors, if not enemies, in a global chess game.
Political moves are confrontational and or humiliating. These Game of Thrones dynamics are
played precisely when some international consensus in more important things like figthing
climate change would be more than desirable. We are headed to truly bad times.
Here is
an article by Steve Dickinson from the layers office Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski that
is based on his Co's China practice. Steve's conclusion goes as follows:
The Chinese system put in place from 1992 to 2005 was a unique system and not likely to
be replaced in S.E./South Asia or in any other region of the world. So for manufacturers,
moving to a new region means doing the analysis from the ground up. Simply taking what they
do in China and moving it to a new location is not likely to be a workable solution.
Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will
continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total
population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese
internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%.
Personal savings deposited in bank accounts reach the equivalent of some $US 30 Trillion !
Compare that to consumer debt at some $US 6.5 Trillion. In other words China is growing into
the largest consumer market on earth and the biggest advantage that its internal market
procures is its 'economies of scale' that make Chinese productions hyper-competitive. In
other words China is gaining the kind of advantage that the US had along the 20th century.
The advantage of a super large market size that dwarfs other national markets.
Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market,
and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world.
How can that help the US ?
The biggest problem of the West and particularly the US is its ideological approach to
economics. The Chinese adopted a pragmatic approach and it has served them well. Time to
relearn the meaning of political economics (économie politique).
I read Dickinson's PR piece linked by laodan. I used to work for a big law firm that had
an international practice group focusing on moving US businesses to China ( I was not
involved in that practice area, did environmental law and litigation.) The firm's PR
department tasked lawyers with certain expertise to generate these kinds of come-ons as part
of the compensation weighting scheme -- publish, and bring in business, or lose out in the
annual "whining for dollars" partnership division of spoils. Eat what you kill.
Dickinson is talking his book, of course. I have no idea if his read of the history and
the current state of affairs in China and the "Asian Tigers" (does anyone use that term any
more?) is accurate and complete, but what he describes is his firm's readiness to help
supranational (emphasize SUPRAnational) and post-national corporate entities get a leg up in
the race to the bottom. He'll help you find the places where the ruling class will give away
the biggest share of the "national birthright" so the corporate entity can maximize profit by
streamlining production and consumption, and of course growth. All the stuff that is killing
the planet. But his time frame, his personal time frame, presumably, as well as the framing
of the corporate shark entities which he is a remora to, cares nothing for the bigger
economic and ecological effects of more stuff, more shipping, more energy use, and of course
more combustion and consumption.
And I'd note that he carefully omits all the baksheesh and greasing of palms that i read
is such an important part of "doing business" at any kind of scale, to varying degrees
everywhere in the world. I wonder if his custom analyses of the relative merits of, say,
Vietnam vs. China vs. Cambodia vs. Taiwan includes sketching out the bribes that have to be
paid to close on the sale of national birthrights on the way to the bottom that the globalist
business model drives everything toward?
I'm sure he would be happy to have the ear and hourly billings of all the great decision
makers of all the various kinds of businesses, high to low tech, wanting to take full
advantage of the "opportunities" that may be on offer, on how to ride the asymptotically
downward curve of the race to the bottom, for fun and profit
Looks like China has had a pretty effective industrial policy, unlike the US where
corporate vampire capital dominion and corruption have bled the mopery white (not a racial
reference, of course ) Do economists and policy wonks in the US even dare to use the phrase
"industrial policy" any more? Or is it just presumed that "shareholder value" trumps all
else? Especially as the author puts it, again quoting Ferguson, where we are "in an era where
human advancement depends on greater integration between economic powers."
The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the
death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our
corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest
is coming to an end. And none too soon.
For national security reasons at minimum, I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to
have the US start making it's own medications again.
Makes more sense to subsidize our production of medication than to give billions in subsidies
to very profitable oil companies.
I agree. I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of
building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S
the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital
drugs..
Anecdotally, I have started making this my number one political conversation issue –
replete with references ( because of course not a soul believes it at first).. I have yet to
find a single person Repub or Demo who isn't horrified and against it .
Any nation with this much power over our drug supply they could kill millions of us in short
order
Even getting manufacturing out of China will not bankrupt that country as intended. If USA
is intent on pursuing a nationalistic basis to sanctions, I think its bound to fail. Trade
always finds a way as we can well remember from our own commercial / industrial
development.
Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and
make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for
facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. What's still
available is land far from roads and rivers with little power supply.
Another thing is preserving wealth. US Industrialists will keep their money offshore and
remit only as much as they need in the homeland. A major problem imo is a mental restraint in USA thinking. Life is all about competition
and winning. The actual activity, whatever it is, provides no joy unless you win. That
fearful tag "No-one remembers who came second" is banded about. Thats not a philosophy for
happiness. It forces the population into displacement activities few of which are wholesome.
Here endeth the lesson.
It's not a bug, it's a feature! Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States!
(Or at least his advisors don't).
The trick is to move them out of nationalistic China, which is setting itself up as a
competitor for power, and move the jobs into nice docile low-wage colonies, like Mexico and
Indonesia and Bangladesh.
The only catch: China has all the integrated supply lines and is stable. Moving your
manufacturing into a dozen different uncoordinated unstable third-world banana republics has
its own down side.
The UK repealed the Corn Laws to embark on free trade. This reduced the price of bread, and lowered the cost of living, so UK employers could pay
internationally competitive wages. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays through wages, so the employer
is paying for that bread through wages. Expensive bread leads to higher wages making UK employers unable to compete in a free
trade world. "The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class
in the community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays via wages. Employees get less disposable income after the landlords rent has gone.
Employers have to cover the landlord's rents in wages reducing profit. Ricardo is just talking about housing costs, employees all rented in those days. The appalling conditions UK workers lived in during the 19th century were well
documented.
Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free
trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years
ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics.
He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had
disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to
compete in a free trade world.
Never mind our companies can off-shore to where employers can pay lower wages for higher
profits. Look at the US cost of living Donald; this is why those jobs ain't coming back. It's hard to make a good profit in the US, when employers have to cover the US cost of
living in wages, reducing profit. The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + other debt
repayments + food + other costs of living
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history.
It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work.
The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus.
China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it.
Maximising profit is all about reducing costs.
China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world.
It did have, but now China has become too expensive and developed Eastern economies are
off-shoring to places like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
An open, globalised world is a race to the bottom on costs.
"The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
Several years ago Naked Capitalism ran an article about how a young George Ball was one of
the New Immoralists for International Corporate Globalonial Plantationism. And that was
before neoliberalism.
"[A]n era where human advancement depends on greater integration between economic
powers."
Oh, by all the gods, no. And what, pray, defines 'human advancement'? What the hell is Mr Auerback talking
about?
Further integration only propels the speed at which resources are extracted and the planet
dies incrementally more. The future will not be one fully integrated planet guided by
whatever-the-hell oligarchs and their 'meritocratic' servitors deign the best options. The
future will of necessity be vastly more local, vastly more hand-made, vastly less energy- and
resource-intensive, and there will be vastly less intercontinental and intra-continental
trade. World-spanning – even continent-spanning political-economic arrangements have no
long term viability whatsoever. Trying to maintain such is a foolish waste of effort and
resources that could be more usefully be directed at de-growth and de-industrialization.
And with that, The Lord Curmudgeon shook his cane one last time at the kids on his lawn
and returned to the troll's cave from which he came.
The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have
seen their Minsky Moment coming. China was the latest victim of neoclassical economics. The biggest danger to capitalism is neoclassical economics; it brought capitalism to its
knees in the 1930s and is having another go now.
1929 and 2008 look so similar because they are; it's the same economics and thinking. Richard Vague has analysed the data for 1929 and 2008 and they were even more similar than
they initially appear. Real estate lending was actually the biggest problem in 1929.
Margin lending was another factor in 2008.
The 1920s US mistake is now global.
Japan, the UK, the US, Euro-zone and now China. The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have
seen their Minsky Moment coming. The debt fuelled growth model not only runs out of steam, all the debt in the economy then
acts like a drag anchor holding the economy back. Japan has been like this for thirty years.
Richard Koo explains the processes at work in the Japanese economy since the 1990s, which
are at now at work throughout the global economy.
It is unclear why he calls this "incompetence". Tories clearly want to sabotage the deal and at the same time save face. That's
a very tricky task and mistakes were made.
Notable quotes:
"... Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves. ..."
"... You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them. ..."
"... Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated". ..."
"... "It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph. ..."
gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:07pm A little over a year ago I wrote
this .
Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are
so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves.
...This is a political and economic disaster, not just waiting to happen, but firmly scheduled...unless Labour's neoliberal
Blairites save them, the Tory government is headed for an epic collapse.
It's rare that my predictions are 100% accurate, but this time I totally nailed it. To give you an idea of how badly the Tories
have bungled things, look at these two headlines.
You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a
radical socialist over
them.
But while Corbyn may be less popular than no deal among the public, The Daily Telegraph says "the scourge of bankers and avowed
opponent of capitalism, is winning support from unexpected new quarters" with two of the biggest global banks operating in the
City of London "warming to the Labour leader".
According to the paper, he is now seen as the lesser of two evils by analysts at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, two titans of
the financial system.
Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey
says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated".
"It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases
and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the
Telegraph.
To put this sentiment in
hard numbers , a coalition led by his party would spur the pound more than 5%.
As for those overstated fears about the Labour leader, that's because of a highly coordinated three year smear campaign by the
very same business community.
Then, his efforts to secure a snap general election -- with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates
more aligned with his hard-Brexit views -- were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.
Now, he is effectively trapped in Downing Street, with Corbyn holding the keys. The government plans to propose new elections
again on Monday, but the opposition leader says his party will only support the move when its efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit
are locked down.
"Certainly his biggest tactical mistake so far was not to realize that it was Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, who effectively
had veto power over when a general election could be held," said Professor Tony Travers, director of the Institute of Public Affairs
at the London School of Economics.
This allows time for Corbyn to appear like a professional leader, so that when he finally allows a general election the memory
of his steady hand will be fresh in the public's mind.
Like all other Tories worldwide, Boris "Tiny" Johnson is a charlatan. Hopefully, the British People will wake up and
end their decades-long nightmare by placing him [Corbyn] in power.
As we need to do, ourselves.
edit: Added Corbyn's name to clarify that last sentence. And we, too, need to remove all Tories from power.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must
in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
@edg
I think Brexit is like tariffs. Tariffs are a good idea for the working class because it puts a cost on off-shoring jobs. BUT
the way Trump is doing it is stupid and doesn't help anyone. Same thing with Brexit. It probably helps the 99%, but not the way
the Tories are going about it.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit
must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me
think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes
me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
"... Not all mosques agreed to read Karmani's sermon, and some claimed -- quite incorrectly, as it happened -- that the grooming issue was a thing of the past. ..."
"... Many of those deeper aspects are directly related to the persistence of religious fundamentalism and a wide refusal among many to integrate within British society. Despite the efforts of moderate Muslims, mosques and institutions to stop young men and women travelling abroad to take part in jihad or bring back wives from abroad, many have done so. Sermonizing, even with good intentions, may not address the underlying reasons for seemingly anti-social behaviour. ..."
"... Also in 2013, Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, and a controversial reformist, spoke out following the trial and conviction of six members of a child sex ring from Oxford. He contended that some imams were indirectly inspiring the grooming gangs through their contempt for non-Muslim women ..."
"... True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - "one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt" ..."
"... Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded. ..."
"... Hargey's link between the grooming gangs and hard-line religious leaders is borne out by an article published in 2018 by the serious liberal newspaper, The Independent . The author is Ella Hill, one of the girls abused in Rotherham and now part of the largest child sexual abuse investigation. ..."
"... Sexual and gender-based violence is used as a tactic of terrorism by a range of today's violent extremist groups. This makes it essential to address violence against women and girls as an integrated part in countering and preventing violent extremism. ..."
Not all Muslims remained silent about the grooming gang problem. We have already seen how
the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, a Muslim of Pakistani origin, took rapid action to open an
enquiry into the crimes. A number of Muslim organizations and individuals have spoken out
against the gangs, and condemned them for bringing their faith into disrepute. The integrative
Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), for
one,
has spoken out strongly about grooming culture.
In May 2013, Julie Siddiqi, chief executive of the ISB,
coordinated a Muslim-led coalition to campaign against offenders, known as The Community
Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, which, in turn, was launched in Bradford with the backing
of the Bradford Council of Mosques. The following month, a Muslim group called Together
Against Grooming (TAG) declared that a Friday prayer sermon (
khutba ) would be read out in around 500 mosques across the country to draw attention to
the grooming issue.
The sermon was written by
Alyas Karmani , an imam who has a background in psychology and serves at several mosques
around Bradford. Karmani specializes in sexual counselling from a non-fundamentalist
perspective and
has worked on a PhD entitled, "The Crises of Masculinity and Urban Male Violence". His
detailed understanding of the grooming gangs and their various motivations are perhaps the
most sophisticated yet advanced by a Muslim expert and should be taken into account by any
present or future investigation.
Some other Muslim organizations such as the progressive Islamic Society of Britain have sent
out sermons on the same issue. There can be no question that there is an important and growing
range of Muslim reaction to the shame brought on the communities by the grooming gangs and the
reluctance in many places even to talk about sexual matters. This reformist activity in the
migrant community needs to be encouraged and backed by government resources.
There are, however, other, sometimes deeper aspects to the problem that still remain to be
explored.Not all mosques agreed
to read Karmani's sermon, and some claimed -- quite incorrectly, as it happened -- that the
grooming issue was a thing of the past.
Many of those deeper aspects are directly related to
the persistence of religious fundamentalism and a wide refusal
among many to integrate within British society. Despite the efforts of moderate Muslims,
mosques and institutions to stop young men and women travelling abroad to take part in jihad or
bring back wives from abroad, many have done so. Sermonizing, even with good intentions,
may not address the underlying reasons for seemingly anti-social behaviour.
Also in 2013, Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, and a controversial
reformist,
spoke out following the trial and conviction of six members of a child sex ring from
Oxford. He contended that some imams were indirectly inspiring the grooming gangs through their
contempt for non-Muslim women:
On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote
the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result
can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.
He wrote at length about the ways in which fundamentalist attitudes influenced some men:
True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different
doctrine is preached - "one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular
contempt"....
The men are taught that women are "second-class citizens, little more than chattels or
possessions over whom they have absolute authority"...
The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage
their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy
-- sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs [sic for kuffar
, pl. of kafir ] or non-believers.
Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure
and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished
for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.
The largest and most influential of all UK mosques are those of the Deobandis, a highly
conservative majority denomination in Pakistani Islam that also
dominates the seminaries within the UK and in which future imams are trained.
According to the author and Investigations editor at BBCNewsnight, Innes Bowen:
What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic
law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if
not banned; attitudes towards women are deeply conservative, with, for example, some scholars
advising Muslim women that their religion does not permit them to travel any distance unless
accompanied by a close male relative. That this description of such an austere brand of Islam
sounds similar to that propagated by the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be surprising
– the Taliban movement grew out of the Deobandi madrasas of Pakistan.
Many Deobandi and other fundamentalist preachers and online fatwa sites promulgate
the doctrine of al-Wala'
wa'l-Bara' , which may be roughly translated as "loyalty [to Islam] and avoidance [of
unbelievers]". This belief reinforces the need to stay away from, and even to have enmity
towards, the inferior non-Muslim world. It is not far-fetched to see how, through this
doctrine, a sense of total difference from, and contempt for, non-Muslims in general -- and
non-Muslim girls and women in particular -- may have given many of the grooming gangs a debased
level of justification, even self-righteousness in the members of the grooming gangs.
Hargey's link between the grooming gangs and hard-line religious leaders is borne out by
an article published in 2018 by the serious liberal newspaper, The Independent . The
author is Ella Hill, one of the girls abused in Rotherham and now part of the largest child
sexual abuse investigation. She begins:
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of
England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a "white slag" and
"white c***" as they beat me.
They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn't
dress "modestly", that they believed I deserved to be "punished". They said I had to "obey"
or be beaten.
Sexual and gender-based violence is used as a tactic of terrorism by a range of today's
violent extremist groups. This makes it essential to address violence against women and girls
as an integrated part in countering and preventing violent extremism.
She then argues that:
Religious indoctrination is a big part of the process of getting young men involved in
grooming gang crime. Religious ideas about purity, virginity, modesty and obedience are taken
to the extreme until horrific abuse becomes the norm. It was taught to me as a concept of
"othering".
"Muslim girls are good and pure because they dress modestly, covering down to their
ankles and wrists, and covering their crotch area. They stay virgins until marriage. They
are our girls."
[Author's note: Italicized in the original, but should probably have been in quotation
marks. The passage is evidently meant to be words spoken by gang members who used her.]
She also emphasizes this religious background to her treatment, stating that "My main
perpetrator quoted scriptures from the Quran to me as he beat me." Nevertheless, she goes on to
say that "Most grooming gang survivors I know absolutely condemn anti-Islamic hate, and we're
uncomfortable with English Defence League protests. We certainly don't want random attacks on
'all Muslims'. You can't cure harm with more harm."
The connection between fundamentalist religiosity, terrorism and gender crime is not as
fanciful as it might have seemed at first. There are decent Muslims everywhere who work hard to
counter all the anti-social and criminal activities in which so many of their co-religionists
engage and the theological positions through which they try to justify what they do. But
terrorist attacks, anti-Semitic hate speech, and sexual harassment of young white women are
real crimes committed by a different kind of Muslim and must be addressed as such.
In a report published on December 12, 2017, the important Muslim counter-extremism think
tank, the Quilliam Foundation, addressed at length the problem of the grooming gangs. Written
by Quilliam's CEO, Haras Rafiq with media strategist and researcher Muna Adil,
the report , "Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation: Dissecting Grooming Gangs", consists
of a comprehensive data analysis of grooming gang cases identified in the UK since 2005. Ten
case studies from 2010-2017 are also analysed in depth to help determine any similarities and
identify any patterns that exist across the cases.
At the root of the problem seems to lie the fact that many Muslim men have failed to
integrate into British society. According
to Muna Adil :
There are elements from within the British Pakistani community that still subscribe to
outdated and sexist views of women embedded within their jaded interpretations of Islam.
These backward views are passed down from generation to generation until the lines between
faith and culture dissolve, making it increasingly difficult to criticise one without being
seen as a critic of the other.
Quilliam's findings echo a number of earlier reviews and surveys of the British Muslim
community as a whole. In her 2016 government-commissioned
review into integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities, Dame Louise
Casey found evidence that the hardest group to integrate was the Muslim community. In her
Executive Summary , she notes (paragraph 30) that:
People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity tend to live in more residentially
segregated communities than other ethnic minority groups. South Asian communities (people of
Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi ethnicity) live in higher concentrations at ward level than
any other ethnic minority group. These concentrations at ward level are growing in many
areas.
She adds that that, "Compared to other minority faith groups, Muslims tend to live in
higher residential concentrations at ward level". She continues:
[Paragraph] 32. The school age population is even more segregated when compared to
residential patterns of living. A Demos study found that, in 2013, more than 50% of ethnic
minority students were in schools where ethnic minorities were the majority, and that school
segregation was highest among students from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds
relative to other ethnic groups.
Again:
[Paragraph] 44. Polling in 2015 also showed that more than 55% of the general public
agreed that there was a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society,
while 46% of British Muslims felt that being a Muslim in Britain was difficult due to
prejudice against Islam. We found a growing sense of grievance among sections of the Muslim
population, and a stronger sense of identification with the plight of the 'Ummah', or global
Muslim community.
She also highlights problems with the national language:
[Paragraph] 52. English language is a common denominator and a strong enabler of
integration. But Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups have the lowest levels of English
language proficiency of any Black or Minority Ethnic group and women in those communities are
twice as likely as men to have poor English.
Finally, we should note her statement on gender equality, which is clearly linked to the
Muslim communities:
[Paragraph] 57. ... in many areas of Britain the drive towards equality and opportunity
across gender might never have taken place. Women in some communities are facing a double
onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers
preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents. And violence
against women remains all too prevalent in domestic abuse but also in other criminal
practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage and so-called "honour" based
crime.
Casey was not the first to draw attention to most of these issues. In 2007, the British
think tank Policy Exchange, published a
detailed report titled "Living apart together: British Muslims and the paradox of
multiculturalism", written by three young Asian researchers. Their most striking finding, drawn
from a survey, was that the youngest generation (16-24 year olds) were more radical in their
beliefs than their grandparents (55+ year olds). Thus, 37% of the youngest would prefer to live
under shari'a law than British law, compared to only 17% of their elders ; 36% of the youngest
believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they must be punished by death, compared
to only 19% of the oldest; a high 74% of 16-24 year olds prefer Muslim women to wear the veil,
compared to a mere 28% of 55+ year olds -- an astonishing reversal. Most immigrant communities
-- notably Jews, Italians, Irish, Poles and others in the United States' "melting pot" -- come
to identify with their host country within the second and third generation, and that has been
largely true of the United Kingdom.
One particular feature that distinguishes Muslims from the rest of the increasingly secular
UK population is the extent to which religion plays a major role in people's lives. Figure 2 of
the report shows that 66% agree strongly and another 20% of Muslims tend to agree that "My
religion is the most important thing in my life". In Figure 1, 49% say they pray the full 5
times a day, and 22% 1-3 times a day, with a tiny 5% replying "never". It is important to read
the report in full. for it has many supportive things to say about British Muslims:
However, there is also considerable diversity amongst Muslims, with many adopting a more
secular approach to their religion. The majority of Muslims feel they have as much, if not
more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad. There is clearly a
conflict within British Islam between a moderate majority that accepts the norms of Western
democracy and a growing minority that does not. For these reasons, we should be wary of
treating the entire Muslim population as a monolith with special needs that are different to
the rest of the population.
An
extensive poll of Muslim opinion conducted in 2016 by ICM showed that things were much the
same or worse than in 2007. It was reported on by Trevor Phillips, a son of Caribbean
immigrants and former chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission. In an article
for the Sunday Times , he expressed his deep frustration with the Muslim failure to
integrate:
...for a long time, I too thought that Europe's Muslims would become like previous waves
of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural
baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain's diverse identity landscape. I should
have known better.
Another
2016 survey , carried out by a Czech think tank, European Values, found that some 44% of
Muslims held views corresponding to radical Islamic fundamentalism.
"The survey discovered 57 percent of Muslims reject homosexuals as friends, 45 percent
said they don't trust the Jews and 54 percent think of the West as an enemy of Islam . Among
fundamentalist Muslims, 72 percent of respondents said they would use violence to defend
Islam. Among regular Muslims, that number amounted to 35 percent.
"An incredibly large number of Muslims want Islamic Sharia law to dominate over local
laws. For instance, 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only
source of law in the country. That figure remains astonishingly high in the United Kingdom at
69 percent."
"The Trade War Spurs China's Technology Innovators Into Overdrive" [
Industry Week ]. "In Shenzhen's glitzy financial district, a five-year-old outfit creates a
360-degree sports camera that goes on to win awards and draw comparisons to GoPro Inc.
Elsewhere in the Pearl River Delta, a niche design house is competing with the world's best
headphone makers. And in the capital Beijing, a little-known startup becomes one of the biggest
purveyors of smartwatches on the planet. Insta360, SIVGA and Huami join drone maker DJI
Technology Co. among a wave of startups that are dismantling the decades-old image of China as
a clone factory -- and adding to Washington's concerns about its fast-ascending international
rival.
Within the world's No. 2 economy, Trump's campaign to contain China's rise is in fact
spurring its burgeoning tech sector to accelerate design and invention. The threat they
pose is one of unmatchable geography: by bringing design expertise and innovation to the place
where devices are manufactured, these companies are able to develop products faster and more
cheaply ." •
Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!
"... Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis. ..."
Part of the Trump administration's
latest round of 15 percent tariffs on Chinese imports went into effect Sunday, with the
rest to follow on December 15. These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods
that Americans rely on, including clothing, appliances, televisions, smartwatches, textbooks,
diapers, coffee, and even whiskey. And given their timing, they'll likely have an effect on
holiday shopping. This makes all the more welcome President Trump's
recent statement during the G7 summit that China is looking to end the trade war and that
he too is open to making a deal.
Trump is right to negotiate with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as finding an off-ramp from
the trade war should be Washington's priority. America's interest is in out-competing Beijing,
not hurting our own economy in an attempt to damage theirs. The United States has a better hand
here, but we must play it to our advantage.
America's great strength is in our freedom, our market economy, and our democratic system.
The United States has attained a level of prosperity unseen in human history, and that economic
engine is what fuels our military power. Without a strong economy, we cannot have a strong
military. Thus an endless trade war endangers American security in the long term: as both sides
pile on retaliatory tariffs, the risk of recession increases. American consumers will feel each
new trade barrier as it hits their pocketbooks.
Washington must not pursue policies that hurt those it governs. And the suffering inflicted
by a trade war wouldn't just be limited to the pricing of consumer goods. It would also make us
weaker for no good reason. And it would lower tax revenues, requiring America to go further
into debt to maintain our present level of security.
Advertisement
Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has more
problems than America. Beijing suffers from high national debt, a lack of clear economic
reform, and a rapidly aging population. It has few, if any, good or timely solutions to these
pressing issues.
According to the Institute of International Finance, China's total national, corporate, and
household debt is now
over 300 percent of its GDP. What makes this especially bad for Beijing is that the debt
was taken on very quickly after the 2008 global recession, without the power of a global
reserve currency to make borrowing easier, as the United States has. Moreover, this debt is
largely corporate and China's state-capitalist system makes it harder for Chinese companies
survive market pressures. Beijing has used cheap credit to fuel its exports and its economic
rise through fully and partially state-controlled national companies.
The Chinese economic system has undergone some reforms in recent years but
still remains too top-down and too focused on exports over consumption as compared to more
developed economies. In other words, China needs to transition to a full market economy like
Taiwan and South Korea did on their paths to prosperity, but it hasn't done so yet.
Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a
rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of
working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of
age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will
prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis.
This comparative weakness is why it makes sense to find a trade war off-ramp sooner rather
than later. China needs one badly and will eventually want a deal -- if it doesn't already. As
for the United States, recession may be inevitable, but it would be better if it were not
self-inflicted.
Already the trade war has cost American billions in higher prices for
imported products. American farmers have
been hit hard by China's retaliatory tariffs and, according to
a report by IHS Markit, U.S. manufacturing has shrunk for the first since 2009. Economists
polled by Reuters believe the trade war has increased the risk of a recession, with a
median of those surveyed giving a 45 percent chance of a downturn over the next two years.
Additionally, major
banks have
expressed concerns , as the stock market takes hits with every new tariff increase and
angry statement between Washington and Beijing.
I couldnt disagree more. I want more tariffs against China and Europe. I want closed borders
and zero migration. China has infiltrated our government, our defense agencies, our nuclear
agencies, our major research centers, our college campuses, our media and bribed our
politicians. China is an imminent threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan and its militarization of the
islands in the South China Sea are a threat to all of South Asia. China has been stealing US,
Canadian and European technology for decades to leapfrog the US into technological dominance
globally. China's plan is to force the US our of the Asia Pacific. China has infiltrated
Canada and Australia to a similar degree (if not more) than the US. If you pander to these
free trade globalists then you will be paving the way for a military conflict between Chinese
and American Hegemony in Asia and elsewhere around the world. I dont know about you but I
will take a tariff and trade war over a military war any day. Ramp up those tariffs and shift
those supply chains out of China toward more benevolent allies and the world be be all the
safer for it.
China has been waging a one sided trade war against us for over 30 years, it's about time we
resisted. Becoming more economically intertwined with our dangerous and genocidal rival
doesn't sound like the right answer to me, especially when China will continue protectionist
policies and currency manipulation regardless of what we do. America has allowed its
industrial base to hemorrhage since the 70s, and bending over for our enemy to keep cheap
trash flowing and American factories closed is not the right answer.
Is this a white box article the Chamber of Commerce is using to astroturf?
China is a Monstrous regime that is killing and enslaving its citizens. It will simply
kill everyone over 65, then 60 if it becomes convenient like they did with their one child
policy. Problem solved.
You wish to keep trading with criminals, polluters, and pirates so you can get cheap junk
at WalMart?
You have a job. I wish you would lose yours and that dozens of blue collar had working but
laid off Americans can find one. It isn't how much something costs in dollars (or how much of
your soul it costs), it is how much it costs in your virtuous labor. I'd rather pay double
for stuff but get triple wages rather than pay half but be all but permanently
unemployed.
Well said. Calling off the trade would be good for US consumers and the economy in general.
But while we are on the subject,calling off the war on immigration would also be good for US
consumers and the economy in general.
Wow. This article is off-base on any number of levels.
"These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods that Americans rely
on,"
No, no they won't. Tariffs are paid for by the importer, not the consumer. If the importer
could randomly increase prices, they would do so without tariffs. The market sets prices.
"America's interest is in out-competing Beijing, not hurting our own economy in an attempt
to damage theirs."
If America could out-compete Beijing, American manufacturing would not have moved to
China. It turns out, the American people simply don't want to live according to 3rd world
standards. We want decent homes and stuff. We don't want to live in a cesspool of pollution.
I'm sure the Chinese people have the same preferences, they just don't get a choice.
"Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has
more problems than America."
I agree with the author here, but not for the same reasons. Attacking China doesn't
resolve anything. American companies will just move to a different 3rd world country with
whom we can't complete. Why should I care if my clothes come from China or Vietnam?
I am 100% supportive of the trade war and building the wall and tariffs. I say zero
immigration and make all Chinese Tariffs permanent. Negotiate a trade deal with the tariffs
intact. Id rather have a trade war with China and permanent tariffs than a war with China.
China has been stealing technology and has infiltrated media, government, defense,
education, government officials (usually through bribes) from the US, Canada, Australia and
Europe. China is proving itself to be a threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines,
Indonesia, India and South Asia.
Much of this "so called Russia Collusion" is actually a deflection of democratic
politicians China is bribing to take down Trump in order to continue their military and
technological theft, their existing preferential trade and their existing network. China is a
serious danger to the US and the rest of the world. It is preferential to sacrifice a small
amount of prosperity today for long term peace with China.
Propaganda. The aging of Chinese population? Not to worry, China has no real Social Security
system, and so relies on massive surpluses of savings. The 300% consumer debt ratio? That
would cripple any country with no help from trade. Should we let Wells Fargo and Goldman
refinance them?
Farmers hit hard? As I recall we have had the worst corn harvest in decades, and shame on
us for not growing more wheat, oats, and sugar cane. Our beef and poultry prices will be
affected, not to mention our fast food industry, which has been whipsawed by political
correctness. But China will effectively ration its pork, as it faces an even worse African
Swine Flu crisis, and an additional one on grains from the Black Army Worm.
US decline in manufacturing? Look first at our glut of automobiles, and the self vetting
of plant capacity by GM. Don't forget the crisis in car leases, which have made older cars
worth less than their outstanding loans. And note, that the fall in lithium prices indicates
that China's car electrification initiative is falling flat.
One thing left out of the equation is oil. And why should China live high on Iranian oil
(mostly wastefully burned in power plants, mind you, and not cars) while we suffer attacks on
Saudi oil from Iranian proxies (all on ChiRussia's dime)? Puts our trade negotiations in
clear perspective, doesn't it?
Stopping the war will not bring back China as our major trading partner. China is not going
to be in this vulnerable position with America again. She is going to develop other markets
"... the private influence of Christian dispensationalists was nonetheless present, as seen through the role of dispensationalist preacher and Third Temple advocate Billy Graham and his close relationships to several presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. ..."
"... Then the political power of dispensationalist theology dramatically moved from the private quarters of the halls of power into the mainstream American political discourse with the founding of the Moral Majority by evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell in 1979. ..."
"... In the early 1970s, Falwell's growing ministry was bringing in millions of dollars annually, especially his nationally broadcast program "The Old Time Gospel Hour," which ran on several major cable networks at the time. ..."
"... The Moral Majority is widely credited with turning the Christian evangelical right into a major political force in the United States, promoting extremely pro-Israel policies, increased defense spending, a Reaganite approach to the challenges of the Cold War, as well as conservative domestic policies. Falwell frequently utilized his gift from Begin in traveling and promoting the new organization, as well as himself as a major public figure. ..."
"... The Moral Majority marks a clear turning point in the Israel-U.S. evangelical relationship, as it made fervent support for Israel an area of major importance to evangelical voters and also led many evangelical voters to pay closer attention to events going on in the Middle East. Yet, given Falwell's strong promotion of Christian Zionism, many evangelicals who became increasingly politically active following the organization's founding not only supported Israel's policies of the era but also supported many of the future ambitions of Begin and the Likud Party. This support was solidified by the beginning of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism's ongoing practice of offering U.S. evangelical leaders free "familiarization" tours to Israel in the early 1980s. ..."
"... Falwell framed Begin's expansionist ambitions as a religious belief in "the inerrancy of the Old Testament," a sentiment Falwell shared. Falwell also pushed for a U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and felt that construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount was necessary to usher in the end times and the second coming of Christ. ..."
"... In addition, Falwell frequently met with Begin, whom he later called a personal friend, and these meetings often overlapped with Begin's official meetings with Reagan. A year later, Begin gave Falwell Israel's Jabotinsky award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to receive the honor for his advocacy on behalf of Israel and, more specifically, Likud policies and ambitions. ..."
"... Another prominent dispensationalist with great political and literary influence is Hal Lindsey, the author and co-author of several books, including The Late Great Planet Earth . Lindsey's work greatly influenced many prominent U.S. politicians like Ronald Reagan, who was so moved by Lindsey's books that he invited Lindsey to address a National Security Council meeting on nuclear war plans and helped make Lindsey an influential consultant with several members of Congress and the Pentagon. ..."
"... For instance, significantly more American Christians (55 percent) than American Jews (40 percent) believe that God gave Israel to the Jews while that sentiment is shared by only 19 percent of Israeli Christians. In addition, with regards to the Trump administration's pro-Israel policies, only 15 percent of evangelical Christians believe that President Trump favors Israel too strongly while 42 percent of American Jews hold the view that Trump is biased in favor of Israel. ..."
"... In a 2017 speech to the Christian Zionist group CUFI, Netanyahu made it clear that much of this "absurd" support came from American evangelicals, stating that "America has no better friend than Israel and Israel has no better friend than America, and Israel has no better friend in America than you." ..."
"... As a result of these meetings, CUFI aligned itself tightly with the neoconservatives that were well represented in the Bush administration, even appointing neoconservative and Christian Zionist Gary Bauer to its board and naming Bauer the first director of its lobbying arm, the CUFI Action Fund. Bauer is a founding member of the highly controversial and now-defunct neoconservative group, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and has also served on the executive board of the neoconservative group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). ..."
"... In addition, CUFI has close ties to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to President Trump and the entire Republican Party. Adelson even received a special award from Hagee at a 2014 CUFI event. "I've never had a greater warm feeling than being honored by Pastor Hagee," said a beaming Sheldon Adelson at the time. ..."
"... Efforts by prominent politicians to court Hagee were once numerous, until evidence of Hagee making remarks about the Holocaust that were widely considered anti-semitic surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign. In those remarks, Hagee asserted that Adolf Hitler had been sent by God to act as a "hunter," and force Jews by means of the Holocaust to resettle in Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had aggressively courted Hagee's endorsement, was forced to distance himself from Hagee after those comments resurfaced. ..."
"... More recently, Hagee was part of an exclusive group of evangelical leaders who met with White House officials this past March prior to the partial release of the so-called "Deal of the Century," aimed at bringing "peace" to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is widely viewed as greatly favoring Israel and is expected to be rejected outright by Palestinian leadership. ..."
"... After the meeting, Hagee issued an urgent prayer request. "Our topic of discussion was discussing the forthcoming peace plan concerning Israel. Israel and the Jewish people need our prayers and our advocacy like never before," Hagee said in a video posted to the CUFI Twitter page soon after the meeting. "The Bible gives the command, 'For Zion's sake, I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not keep my peace.' I urge you tonight to pray for the peace of Jerusalem." ..."
"... While Hagee's influence and the influence of his organization CUFI are stronger than ever with Trump in the White House, his political clout with the Trump administration is, at least partially, due to the presence of staunch Christian Zionists in two of the top offices in the executive branch: vice president and secretary of state. ..."
"... After Trump chose his running mate, Pence's religious fervor came under media scrutiny , with several outlets noting that he was known to be an ardent Christian Zionist. Pence's faith gained particular attention owing to his past statements on Israel, which he has often described in prophetic terms. ..."
"... Though raised Catholic, Pence gradually transitioned to an "evangelical Catholic" and then to an evangelical Protestant and has since become a key political figure representing the fundamentalist Christian movement that promotes "dominionism," an ideology that varies in its interpretations but ultimately seeks to see the secular nature of the U.S. government shift towards one governed by "Biblical law." Pence's association with this movement has led prominent voices in the media to accuse him of supporting a theocratic form of government. ..."
"... Christian Zionism has a long history in American politics, but it has never captured the bully pulpit of the White House. Past administrations often used general biblical language in reference to Israel, but never has the evangelical theology of Christian Zionism been so close to the policymaking apparatus of the executive branch. ..."
"... Concerns that the U.S. is under the influence of extremist religious Zionism and Christian Zionism that would prevent the country from acting as an "honest broker" in the Israel-Palestine conflict have, unsurprisingly, been proven true . In fact, Pence's religious beliefs are believed to have been a major factor in Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. Embassy to the contested city. ..."
"... For much of his political career, Pompeo has framed U.S. counterterrorism policy as a " holy war " between Christianity and Islam, which he believes is the earthly equivalent of a cosmic battle between good and evil. In 2017 ..."
"... Pompeo, like many Christian Zionists, believes that war between the United States and Iran is part of the end times, a belief that is outright alarming given his prior control over CIA covert operations and his focus on Iran, as well as his current role as the U.S.' chief diplomat, in which he has also been laser-focused on promoting an aggressive policy towards Iran. ..."
"... In addition to his views on "holy war," Pompeo also frequently discussed his views on the rapture while serving as CIA director. TYT reported last year that Pompeo had spoken about the rapture so frequently that it had reportedly frightened top CIA officials. ..."
"... Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State , Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service of a religious obsession with ushering in the end times. The historical record clearly shows how Christian Zionists have influenced events throughout history, particularly in regard to the founding of the state of Israel and subsequent developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict. ..."
"... Yet, the Trump administration's ties to this apocalyptic ideology go even deeper than has been discussed in this article, as many other influential members in the Trump administration -- especially top Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman -- also share and actively promote this extremist religious Zionist ideology that seeks to rebuild a Third Temple. As will be seen in the next installment of this series, this ideology is also a driving factor for top Trump and Republican Party donors such as Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Organized religion -- like organized politics, organized labor and organized crime -- cannot be trusted to have anyone's interests at heart but those of its leadership. Hell I'd personally trust organized crime (my family's Sicilian -- and all that implies) more than the other 3 I mentioned -- organized religion least of all. ..."
"... The best thing Christian Zionists could do is to perform their own aliyah and move en masse to the West Bank, specifically Bethlehem and other Christian spots. Learn some Aramaic or Samaritan. Breed like crazy. ..."
"... How cynical is it for Likud to be taking advantage of these mentally slow Christians? It's pathetic. I would imagine Pence is a true believer. Pompeo may be just acting the part as I would guess many to be doing. ..."
"... I refuse to believe Mike Pompeo gives a rat's ass what the bible says about anything. His flattery of Hagee and his followers is purest cynicism. ..."
"... Israel has always been run mostly by secular Jews. Netanyahu is a good example. In his non-observant hands, orthodox Jewish theology becomes an excuse for simple ethnic chauvinism. ..."
"... Christian zionists are crazy and numerous, but I don't believe that they are the driving force behind U.S. policy towards Israel. ..."
"... The GOP supports Israel because of AIPAC and Jewish blackmail, not Evangelicals. ..."
"... So called Christian Zionism is a kind of ersatz religion that is based not on the worship of God but rather the state of Israel. ..."
"... As one raised in a Christian Zionist church I can tell you the brain washing and mind control is very effective on young children and is quite difficult to free yourself from. ..."
"... When you look back at the "teachings" in the Old Testament, and how it is presented in these churches, it is nothing more than trauma based mind control. ..."
"... Speaking of private jets, if you haven't seen it, I recommend watching the video of the late billionaire "Christian" minister Kenneth Copeland (with private runway, too) and the Rev Jesse Duplantis explain why the need private jets costing tens of millions. Altho it's a little bit of a spoiler, it's so they can talk directly to God without being trapped in "a tube with them demons," meaning the mostly Christian passengers they'd be flying with in an airliner. If there are in fact demons roaming this world. . . ..."
"... Pence, Pompeo, Bolton and the CUFI's are the antithesis of what it means to be Christian. ..."
"... driving through the rural South, you see house flags of the Star of David in the yards of modest homes. ..."
"... Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." ..."
Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State,
Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and
influence the foreign policy of both nations in service to a religious obsession end times
prophecy.
The largest pro-Israel organization in the United States is not composed of Jews, but of
Christian evangelicals, with a total membership of 7 million, more
than 2 million more members than the entirety of the American Jewish community.
Members of this organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), met in Washington on
Monday, attracting thousands of attendees and featuring speeches from Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike
Pence, and National Security Advisor John Bolton. CUFI's leader, controversial evangelical
preacher John Hagee, has met with President Donald Trump several times and was recently part of
an exclusive White House meeting in March on the administration's upcoming "peace plan" for
Israel and Palestine.
CUFI is but one of many organizations throughout American history that have promoted the
state of Israel and Zionism on the grounds that a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine is a
requirement for the fulfillment of end-times prophecy and necessary for Jesus Christ to return
to Earth -- an event Christians often refer to as "the Second Coming."
While organizations like CUFI and its predecessors have long seen the creation of the state
of Israel in 1948, and the later Israeli victory and conquest of Jerusalem in 1967, as the
fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, there is one prophecy that this sect of evangelical
Christians believes is the only thing standing between them and the Second Coming. There are
estimated to be more
than 20 million of these Christians, often referred to as Christian Zionists, in the United
States and they are a key voting bloc and source of political donations for the Republican
Party.
As was explored in previous installments of this series, these Christian Zionists, much like
religious Zionist extremists in Israel, believe that the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the
Rock must be replaced with a Third Jewish Temple in order to usher in the end times.
These two groups of different faiths, since the 19th century, have repeatedly formed an
opportunistic alliance in order to ensure the fulfillment of their respective prophecies,
despite the fact that members of the other faith are rarely if ever on the same page in their
interpretations of what occurs after the temple's construction.
This alliance, based on a mutual obsession with hastening the coming of the Apocalypse,
continues to this day and now, more than at any other time in history, these groups have
reached the heights of power in both Israel and the United States. Parts I and
II of this exclusive series explored how this branch of religious Zionism has come to
dominate the current right-wing government of Israel and has led Israel's current government to
take definitive steps towards the destruction of the Al Aqsa mosque and the imminent
construction of a Third Temple.
Now this installment (Part III) will show how this movement's Christian counterpart in the
United States, Christian Zionism, has likewise become a dominant force in American politics,
particularly following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, where this apocalyptic
vision is a major driver behind his administration's Middle East policy.
Yet, this fire-and-brimstone vision of the end times has long been a guide for prominent
figures in American history and the American elite, even predating Zionism's founding as a
political movement. Thus, Christian Zionism's influence on Trump administration policy is
merely the latest of a long list of examples where prophecy and politics have mixed in American
history, often with world-altering results.
Accounts of the role of European and North American Christians in the creation of the state
of Israel often begin with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but the efforts of certain
Christian groups in England and the United States to create a Jewish state in Palestine
actually date back centuries earlier and significantly predate Zionism's official founding by
Theodore Herzl.
Among the first advocates for the physical immigration of European Jews to Palestine were
the Puritans, an offshoot of Christian Protestantism that emerged in the late 16th century and
became influential in England and, later, in the American colonies. Influential Puritans
devoted considerable interest to the role of Jews in eschatology, or end-times theology, with
many -- such as John
Owen , a 17th-century theologian, member of parliament, and administrator at Oxford --
believing that the physical return of Jews to Palestine was necessary for the fulfillment of
end-time prophecy.
While the Puritan roots of what would later become known as Christian Zionism are often
overlooked in modern accounts of where and why American evangelical support for Israel began,
its adherents still clearly acknowledge its legacy. For instance, on Monday at the CUFI
conference, Pompeo, himself a Christian Zionist known for his obsession with the end times,
told the group the following:
Christian support in America for Zion -- for a Jewish homeland -- runs back to the early
Puritan settlers, and it has endured for centuries. Indeed, our second president [John
Adams], a couple years back, said 'I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent
nation.'
These Puritan beliefs, which persist today and have only grown in popularity, became more
entrenched in England and colonial America with time, especially among the monied political
class, and led to a variety of interpretations regarding exactly what the Bible says about the
end times. Among the most influential was the development of Christian "dispensationalism," an
interpretive framework that uses the Bible to divide history into different periods of
"dispensations" and sees the Bible's prophetic references to "Israel" as signifying an
ethnically Jewish nation established in Palestine.
Charles Russell's visual interpretation of Darby's 'dispensations' circa 1886
Dispensationalism was largely developed by English-Irish preacher John Nelson Darby, who
believed that the God-ordained fates of Israel and the Christian church were completely
separate, with the latter to be physically removed from the Earth by God prior to a foretold
period of earthly suffering known as the Tribulation.
In Darby's view, the Tribulation would begin following the construction of a Third Jewish
Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This belief in the physical removal of Christians from
the Earth prior to the Tribulation, widely known as "the rapture," was invented by Darby in the 1820s
and its lack of scriptural support has been widely noted by theologians of various
denominations as well as biblical scholars. However, it is important to point that there are
differences among dispensationalist Christians as to whether the rapture will occur before,
during or after the Tribulation period.
Yet, despite its relatively short existence as an idea and lack of support in the Bible, the
rapture was enthusiastically adopted by some churches in England and the United States,
particularly the latter. This was largely thanks to the work of highly controversial theologian
Cyrus Scofield.
Notably, Darby's brand of Christian eschatology coincides with similar
developments in Jewish eschatology , namely the ideas of Rabbi Zvi Hirsh
Kalisher and the creation of a new branch of Jewish messianism that believed that Jews must
proactively work to hasten the coming of their messiah by immigrating to Israel and building a
Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Darby's beliefs, and those he inspired promoted
something similar in the sense that Christians could hasten the coming of the rapture and the
Tribulation by promoting the immigration of Jews to Israel as well as the construction of a
Third Jewish Temple.
Darby traveled to North America and several other countries to popularize his ideas, meeting
several influential pastors throughout the English speaking world, including James Brookes, the
future mentor of Cyrus Scofield. His travels and the spread of his written works popularized
his eschatological views among certain circles of American and English Christians during the
religious revival of the 19th century. Darby's beliefs were particularly attractive to the
elite of both countries, with some English noblemen placing newspaper advertisements urging Jews
to immigrate to Palestine as early as the 1840s.
Another prominent figure influenced by Darby's end-times doctrine was the American preacher
Charles Taze Russell, whose church later gave rise to several different churches, including the
Jehovah's Witnesses. Decades before the founding of modern political Zionism, Russell began
preaching -- not just to Christians, but to Jews in the United States and elsewhere -- about
the need for mass Jewish immigration to Palestine.
As Rabbi Kalisher had done a few decades
prior , Russell
penned a letter in 1891 to a wealthy member of the Rothschild banking family, Edmond de
Rothschild, as well as Maurice von Hirsch, a wealthy German financier, about his plan for the
Jewish settlement of Palestine. Russell
described his plan as follows:
My suggestion is that the wealthy Hebrews purchase from Turkey, at a fair valuation, all
of her property interest in these lands: i.e., all of the Government lands (lands not held by
private owners), under the provision that Syria and Palestine shall be constituted a free
state."
The same plan was to resurface a few years later in arguably the most influential Zionist
book of all time, Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State , which was published in 1896.
Russell addresses an audience of American Jews in New York in 1910. Photo | Public
Domain
It is unknown whether Rothschild or Hirsch was influenced at all by Russell's letter, though
Russell's ideas did have a lasting impact on some prominent American Jews and American
Christians with regard to his promotion of Jewish immigration to Palestine.
The same year that Russell wrote his letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, another
influential dispensationalist preacher wrote another document that is often overlooked in
exploring the role of American Christians in the development and popularization of Zionism.
William E. Blackstone, an American preacher who was greatly influenced by Darby and other
dispensationalists of the era, had spent decades promoting with great fervor the immigration of
Jews to Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy.
The culmination of Blackstone's efforts came in the form of the Blackstone Memorial,
a petition
that pleaded that then-President of the United States Benjamin Harrison and his secretary of
state, James Blaine, take action "in favor of the restoration of Palestine to the Jews." The
largely forgotten petition asked Harrison and Blaine to use their influence to "secure the
holding at an early date, of an international conference to consider the condition of the
Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home, and to promote, in all other
just and proper ways, the alleviation of their suffering condition."
As with Russell's letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, it is unknown exactly how
influential the Blackstone Memorial was in influencing the views or policies of Harrison or
Blaine. However, the Blackstone Memorial petition is highly significant because of its
signatories, which included the most influential and wealthiest Americans of the era, the
majority of whom were Christians.
Signatories
of the Blackstone Memorial included J.D. Rockefeller, the country's first billionaire; J.P.
Morgan, the wealthy banker; William McKinley, future president of the United States; Thomas
Brackett Reed, then speaker of the House; Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;
the mayors of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago; the editors of the
Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune , among
others; and numerous other members of Congress, as well as influential businessmen and
clergymen. Though some rabbis were included as signatories, the petition's content was opposed by most American
Jewish communities. In other words, the primary goal of Zionism, before it even became a
movement, was widely supported by the American Christian elite, but opposed by American
Jews.
The Blackstone Memorial would later attract the attention of Louis Brandeis, one of the most
prominent American Jewish Zionists, who would
later refer to Blackstone as the real "founding father of Zionism," according to Brandeis'
close friend Nathan Straus. Brandeis would eventually succeed in convincing an elderly
Blackstone to petition then-President Woodrow Wilson with a second Blackstone Memorial in 1916
that was presented in private to Wilson nearly a year later.
Instead of gathering signatures from prominent members of America's elite class, Blackstone
this time focused on shoring up support from Protestant organizations, namely the Presbyterian
Church, in keeping with Wilson's Presbyterian faith. According to historian Jerry Klinger,
president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, this change in focus
had been Brandeis', not Blackstone's, idea.
Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create
Israel , described Brandeis as "one of the most influential" American Zionists and a
key figure in the efforts to push Wilson to support the formation of a Jewish state in
Palestine, of which Blackstone's second petition was part. However, Weir asserted that
Blackstone's second petition was secondary to a so-called "gentleman's agreement" whereby
English officials promised to support a Jewish state in Palestine if American Zionists, led by
Brandeis, were able to secure the United States' entry into World War I.
Wilson ultimately supported Blackstone's new document, which was never presented publicly to
the president, but privately by Rabbi Stephen Wise. This second Blackstone Memorial was a key
component of the Brandeis-led campaign that eventually guaranteed American support -- i.e.,
private support -- for the Balfour Declaration, which established British intentions to support
a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Notably, the Balfour Declaration is named for the
then-English Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour,
himself a Christian dispensationalist , though Weir told MintPress that Balfour was
more likely influenced by political imperatives than religious motives. The only person in the
British cabinet to oppose the Balfour Declaration was its only Jewish member, Edwin
Montagu.
The Balfour Declaration was addressed to a member of the Rothschild banking family, Lionel
Walter Rothschild, the last in a series of letters written to members of the Rothschild family
urging them to use their wealth and political influence to favor the creation of a Jewish state
in Palestine: from Rabbi Kalisher, who wrote to Baron Amschel Rothschild in 1836; to Charles
Taze Russell, who wrote to Edmond de Rothschild in 1891; and finally to the Balfour
Declaration, written to Lionel Walter Rothschild in 1917.
Weir told MintPress that the Rothschilds figure so prominently in these early efforts
to establish a Jewish state in Palestine owing to "their wealth and the power that goes with
it," making them very sought after by those who felt that a Jewish state could be formed in
Palestine by the purchase of the territory by wealthy European Jews, as both Kalisher and
Russell had proposed. However, the Balfour Declaration was addressed to the Rothschilds
because, at that time, members of the Rothschild family, Edmond de Rothschild in particular,
had become among the strongest supporters of the Zionist cause.
Though the declaration carries his name, it is unclear whether Balfour himself actually
authored the document. Some historians -- such as Michael Rubinstein, former president of the
Jewish Historical Society of England -- have made the case that the declaration
itself was written by Leopold Amery, then-political secretary of England's War Cabinet and a
Zionist who, despite his commitment to the Zionist cause, obfuscated his Jewish roots for much
of his career for reasons that are still the source of speculation.
As shown by the Balfour Declaration and the lobbying efforts that led to its creation,
support for what would soon become known as Zionism among the nobility of England and the
United States was already formidable before Herzl even began work on The Jewish State.
It is worth considering that the power and influence of this religiously-motivated class of
Christian elites had an influence on Herzl and his ideas, particularly given the fact that
dispensationalist Christians had been promoting a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine at a time when
the idea was
unpopular among many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States.
Furthermore, the role of Christian Zionists, as they would later become known, continued
well after Herzl began his Zionist activities, and resulted in many of the most influential
acts that led to the establishment of the State of Israel, including the Balfour
Declaration.
Notably, Herzl's own success in promoting his views following the publication of The
Jewish State was largely due to English dispensationalist pastor William Hechler. Hechler,
while serving as chaplain at the British Embassy in Vienna,
forged an alliance and later close friendship with Herzl and was critical to negotiating
meetings between Herzl and prominent members of the German government, including Kaiser Wilhelm
II, which lent necessary political legitimacy to Herzl's Zionist movement.
A largely overlooked figure in the rise of Zionism, Hechler is mentioned in Herzl's diary
more than any other person and passionately felt that the creation of a Jewish state in
Palestine would bring about the end times. Hechler is also known to have been extremely
interested in the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, having devoted
considerable time to creating models of that Temple, some of which he prominently displayed in
his office and showed to Herzl with great enthusiasm during their first meeting.
Herzl gives Kaiser Wilhelm II a tour of an early Jewish settlement near Jaffa, Palestine in
1898. Photo | Israel GPO
The Hechler-Herzl alliance is one early example of how Christian Zionists and Jewish
Zionists each used the motivations of the other for political gain despite the fact that
Christian Zionists often hold anti-Semitic views and secular Zionists, as well as religious
Zionists, do not hold Christianity in high regard. This opportunism on the parts of both
Christian and Jewish Zionists has been a key feature in the rise of Zionism, particularly in
the United States, and the case of Cyrus Scofield, the man more responsible than any for
popularizing Christian Zionism among American evangelicals, offers another important
example.
There is perhaps no other book that has been more influential in the dissemination of
Christian Zionism in the United States than the Scofield Reference Bible , a version of
the King James Bible whose annotations were written by Cyrus Scofield. Scofield -- who had no
formal theological training, though he later claimed to have a D.D. (doctor of divinity degree)
--
originally worked as a lawyer and political operative in the state of Kansas and eventually
became the district attorney of that state.
Soon after his appointment to the position, he was forced to resign as a result of
numerous
allegations of corruption, including bribery, forging signatures on banknotes and stealing
political donations from then-Senator of Kansas James Ingalls. During this time, Scofield
abandoned his wife and two daughters, an action since blamed on the burgeoning scandals he was
facing as well as his self-admitted heavy drinking habits.
Amid this backdrop, Scofield is said to have become an evangelical around the year 1879 and
soon became associated with prominent dispensationalist preachers of the era, including Dwight
Moody and James Brookes. Local papers at the time, such as the Atchison Patriot ,
regarded Scofield's conversion and career change with great skepticism,
referring to Scofield as the "late lawyer, politician and shyster generally" who had
disgraced himself by committing "many malicious acts."
Scofield went on to pastor relatively small churches, moving from Kansas to Dallas, Texas,
and later Massachusetts. Yet, despite his lack of renown and his troubled history, by 1901
Scofield had managed to gain entrance to an exclusive men's club in New York, the Lotos Club,
whose members at the time included steel magnate and multi-millionaire
Andrew Carnegie ,
members of the Vanderbilt family , and famous American writer Samuel Clemens, better known
by his pen name, Mark Twain.
Pastor Scofield, center, with the Deacons of the First Congregational Church of Dallas,
circa 1880s
Scofield's membership in this exclusive club -- as well as the club's patronage of his
activities, which granted him lodging and financing to produce what would become the
Scofield Reference Bible -- has been the subject of considerable speculation. Indeed,
many have noted that the presence of a fundamentalist, dispensationalist small-town preacher
with a disgraced political past in a club stuffed with some of the country's most elite
academics, writers and robber barons just doesn't add up.
Joseph M. Canfield, in his book The
Incredible Scofield and his Book , asserted that "the admission of Scofield to the
Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has
cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield."
Canfield puts forth the theory in his book that the person "directing" Scofield's career was
connected to New York lawyer and Zionist activist Samuel Untermeyer, who was on the club's
executive committee and was a close associate of Louis Brandeis and
influential in the administration of Woodrow Wilson. He then notes that Scofield's
annotated bible was later "most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the
international interest in one of Untermeyer's pet projects -- the Zionist Movement."
Other scholars, such as David Lutz, have been
more explicit than Canfield in linking Untermeyer's Zionist activism to his role in
financially backing Scofield and his work on his annotated Bible. Ultimately, like the
Blackstone Memorial before it, the Lotos Club's patronage of Scofield's work again reveals the
interest of the American elite of the era, Christian and Jewish alike, in promoting Christian
Zionism.
Untermeyer and the Lotos Club notably also funded Scofield's numerous travels to Europe,
including one fateful trip to England where Scofield met with Henry Frowde, publisher of Oxford
University Press. Frowde was taken with Scofield's work, largely owing to the fact that Frowde
was
a member of the "Exclusive Brethren," a religious group founded by John Nelson Darby, the
father of dispensationalism. Oxford University Press subsequently published the Scofield
Reference Bible in 1909. Twenty years after its publication, it became
the first-ever Oxford publication to generate over a million dollars in sales.
Scofield's Bible became spectacularly popular among American fundamentalists soon
after its publication, partly because it was the first annotated bible that sought to interpret
the text for the reader as well as because it became the central text of several influential
seminaries that were set up after its 1909 publication. Among Scofield's many annotations are
claims that have since become central to Christian Zionism, such as Scofield's annotation of
Genesis 12:3 that those who curse Israel (interpreted by Christian Zionists to mean the
state of Israel since its founding in 1948) will be cursed by God and those that bless Israel
will similarly be blessed.
Modern Christian Zionists, like Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel (CUFI),
have frequently cited this interpretation that originated with Scofield in defending extreme
pro-Israel stances. For instance, Hagee made
the following statement in 2014:
You have to go back to basics, with the fact that in Genesis (chapter 1), God created the
world and made a very solemn promise (brought in Gen. 12:3), 'I will bless those who bless
you and I will curse those who curse you.' From that moment on, every nation that ever
blessed Israel has been blessed by God. And every nation that has ever persecuted the Jewish
people, God crushed. And so He will continue."
Despite the widespread dissemination of the Scofield Reference Bible and its popularization
among American evangelical churches and seminaries, the public influence of dispensationalist
eschatology and Christian Zionism on American politics was relatively limited for much of the
20th century. However, the private influence of Christian dispensationalists was nonetheless
present, as seen through the role of dispensationalist
preacher and Third Temple advocate Billy Graham and his close
relationships to several presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard
Nixon.
Then the political power of dispensationalist theology dramatically moved from the private
quarters of the halls of power into the mainstream American political discourse with the
founding of the Moral Majority by evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell in 1979.
In the early 1970s, Falwell's growing ministry was bringing in millions of dollars annually,
especially his nationally broadcast program "The Old Time Gospel Hour," which ran on several
major cable networks at the time. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- the spike in donations, Falwell
was soon targeted by the federal government, specifically the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), for "fraud and deceit" and "gross insolvency" in the financial management of
his ministry, particularly the ministry's sale of $6.6 million in church bonds. The SEC lawsuit
was eventually settled when a group of businessmen in Lynchburg, Virginia -- where Falwell's
ministry was based -- took over the ministry's finances for the next several years, until 1977.
Falwell blamed his ministry's financial problems on his "financial ignorance."
Jerry Falwell travels with his son Jonathan, right, aboard his private jet in 2004. Todd
Hunley | Thomas Road Baptist Church
One year after his ministry appeared to be on a better financial footing, Falwell received
an invitation to visit the state of Israel and was personally invited on the all-expenses-paid
trip by Menachem Begin, then the prime minister of Israel and leader of the Likud Party. The
trip would mark the beginning of a long friendship and close relationship between Falwell and
Begin and, more broadly, a relationship between American evangelical leaders and Israel's Likud
Party. As Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg
notes in his book The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple
Mount , the Begin administration "was the first to tap evangelical enthusiasm for Israel
and turn it into political and economic support."
Soon after returning from Israel, Falwell's finances
again came under federal scrutiny after a federal investigation found that Falwell had
transferred the health insurance policies of his employees to an unlicensed shell company with
just $128 in assets and hundreds of thousands in dollars in unpaid claims. Just as Falwell's
financial troubles began to mount yet again, he received a generous gift from none other than
Begin in the form of a private Learjet valued at $4
million . Shortly thereafter, Falwell went on to found the Moral Majority organization, "
after
consultations with theologians and political strategists ."
The Moral Majority is widely credited with turning the Christian evangelical right into
a major political
force in the United States, promoting extremely pro-Israel policies, increased defense
spending, a Reaganite approach to the challenges of the Cold War, as well as conservative
domestic policies. Falwell frequently utilized his gift from Begin in traveling and promoting
the new organization, as well as himself as a major public figure.
The Moral Majority marks a clear turning point in the Israel-U.S. evangelical relationship,
as it made fervent support for Israel an area of major importance to evangelical voters and
also led many evangelical voters to pay closer attention to events going on in the Middle East.
Yet, given Falwell's strong promotion of Christian Zionism, many evangelicals who became
increasingly politically active following the organization's founding not only supported
Israel's policies of the era but also supported many of the future ambitions of Begin and the
Likud Party. This support was solidified by the beginning of
the Israeli Ministry of Tourism's ongoing practice of offering U.S. evangelical leaders free
"familiarization" tours to Israel in the early 1980s.
Begin's vision of "Greater Israel" -- the complete annexation of Palestine as well as large
parts of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt by Israel -- was also shared and promoted by Falwell.
In 1983, Falwell
stated that "Begin will quickly tell you, 'We don't have all the land yet we're going to
have,'" and further predicted that Israel would never relinquish control over the occupied West
Bank because Begin was determined to keep the land "which has been delivered to them (the
Israelis)."
Falwell
framed Begin's expansionist ambitions as a religious belief in "the inerrancy of the Old
Testament," a sentiment Falwell shared. Falwell also pushed for a U.S. recognition of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel and felt that construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount was
necessary to usher in the end times and the second coming of Christ.
As Falwell helped turn Christian Zionism into a major political force in the United States,
he also made himself a key political figure in the Reagan era and an important go-between for
U.S.-Israel relations. In 1981 Begin informed Falwell of his plans to bomb an Iraqi nuclear
facility before he informed the Reagan
administration with the hopes that Falwell would "explain to the Christian public the reasons
for the bombing." According to Canadian academic David S. New, Begin
told Falwell during that phone call: "Get to work for me."
In addition, Falwell frequently met with Begin, whom he later called a personal friend, and
these meetings
often overlapped with Begin's official meetings with Reagan. A year later, Begin gave
Falwell Israel's Jabotinsky award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to receive the honor for
his advocacy on behalf of Israel and, more specifically, Likud policies and ambitions.
Though the Moral Majority officially shuttered its doors in 1989, its political legacy
persisted long after, as did Falwell's political clout. Indeed, following Begin's model,
Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first term as prime minister, also made a habit of visiting
Falwell, meeting with the controversial pastor even before he met with political officials in
his visits to Washington.
Netanyahu, left, meets Falwell at a hotel in Washington, Jan. 19, 1998. Greg Gibson | AP
During one trip to D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu's first visit was to an event co-hosted by
Falwell, where the pastor praised Netanyahu as "the Ronald Reagan of Israel." The New
York Times described the purpose of Netanyahu's U.S. visit not as a visit aimed at
meeting with government officials, but rather one intended "to shore up his base of traditional
support in the United States. Conservative Christian groups have long been ardent supporters of
Israel because of its religious importance to Christianity."
However, this relationship between Christian Zionists like Falwell and prominent right-wing
Israeli politicians has not been without its controversy, especially given that pro-Israel
evangelicals like Falwell have a history of making anti-semitic statements.
For example, during a 1999 sermon, Falwell discussed his interpretation of end-times
prophecy, widely shared by Christian Zionist evangelicals, that the Second Coming would follow
not just the creation of the state of Israel but the construction of a Third Temple on the
Temple Mount, from which a figure known to Christians as the "Antichrist" would reign. In
responding to his own rhetorical question as to whether the Antichrist is "alive and well
today," Falwell stated that "Probably because when he appears during the tribulation period he
will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course, he'll be Jewish."
Falwell's comments were immediately
condemned by a variety of Jewish groups, including the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League
(ADL). Rabbi Leon Klenicki, then-director of interfaith affairs for the ADL, noted that
Falwell's view is a "common theological position" among American evangelicals and that Falwell
was "an influential voice among evangelical and charismatic Christians" who "only supports
Israel for his own Christological ends." "He sees us only as the ones who prepare the coming of
Jesus," Klenicki stated
at the time. "It is a great disappointment after more than 30 years of dialogue; he's still in
the Middle Ages."
Another prominent dispensationalist with great political and literary influence is Hal
Lindsey, the author and co-author of several books, including The Late Great Planet
Earth . Lindsey's work greatly influenced many prominent U.S. politicians like Ronald
Reagan, who was so moved by Lindsey's books that
he invited Lindsey to address a National Security Council meeting on nuclear war plans and
helped make Lindsey an influential consultant with several members of Congress and the
Pentagon.
[T]he first -- despite his insistence of love for Jews -- is the classic one of Christian
anti-Jewish polemic: They are 'the Jewish people who crucified Jesus' and the archetype of
those who ignore the truth of prophecy. The second role is to fulfill prophecy despite
themselves."
Gorenberg further notes that Lindsey believes that Jews have fulfilled two of the three
crucial prophecies that will usher in the end times, with the first being the creation of the
state of Israel in 1948 and the second being the Israeli conquest and occupation of Jerusalem
after the Six Day War in 1967.
According to Lindsey : "There remains but one more event to completely set the stage for
Israel's part in the last great act of her historical drama. That is to rebuild the ancient
Temple "
As Falwell's and Lindsey's comments reveal, the eschatological views of dispensationalism
frequently perceive the Jewish people as little more than pawns that must fulfill certain
requirements -- e.g., establishing the state of Israel, conquering Jerusalem, building a Third
Temple -- in order to hasten the salvation and "rapture" of evangelical Christians. Meanwhile,
Jews in Israel who do not convert to Christianity are expected to die horrible deaths, though
some Christian Zionists in recent years, as will be seen shortly, have sought to adjust this
still common theological position.
Despite the anti-semitic motivations underlying evangelical support for the state of Israel
and the Likud-supported vision of "Greater Israel," the politically active Christian Zionist
movement that Falwell helped create translated into a strong support base for Israel and
right-wing Likud policy that has made it crucial to prominent Israeli politicians.
For instance,
significantly more American Christians (55 percent) than American Jews (40 percent) believe
that God gave Israel to the Jews while that sentiment is shared
by only 19 percent of Israeli Christians. In addition, with regards to the Trump
administration's pro-Israel policies,
only 15 percent of evangelical Christians believe that President Trump favors Israel too
strongly while 42 percent of American Jews hold the view that Trump is biased in favor of
Israel.
In a video recorded in the early 2000s -- later broadcast on Israeli TV -- Netanyahu,
speaking to a family of Jewish settlers, described the mass support among Americans,
particularly evangelicals, for Israel as "absurd," saying:
America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't
get in our way; 80 percent of the Americans supprt us. It's absurd."
In a
2017 speech to the Christian Zionist group CUFI, Netanyahu made it clear that much of this
"absurd" support came from American evangelicals, stating that "America has no better friend
than Israel and Israel has no better friend than America, and Israel has no better friend in
America than you."
Richard Silverstein -- an academic and journalist whose work has been published in
Haaretz and MintPress, among other outlets -- has argued that Israeli
politicians, particularly Netanyahu, have sought out support from evangelical groups despite
their anti-Semitic undertones and the fact they the act out of self-interest in pursuing their
political objectives.
In a 2017 article ,
Silverstein stated that for Israel's nationalist right-wing:
Judaism is not a spiritual value, it is a physical manifestation of power in the world.
These Israelis understand that not all Jews are their "brothers." Some Jews are too effete,
too liberal, too humane, too universalist. These Jews are the detritus which will be washed
away by the tide of history. Israeli nationalists need to replace these traditional Jewish
allies and have done so by finding new ones: Christian evangelicals, African dictators,
European neo-Nazis. Zionism as they define it is less a movement dedicated to ethics and more
one dedicated to self-interest."
As Falwell began to fade from public view in the early 2000s, his legacy has largely fallen
to a handful of preachers now at the forefront of Christian Zionism and Christian Zionist
political activism, with Falwell's son, Jerry Falwell Jr., ranking prominently among them.
However, of the preachers that followed in Falwell's footsteps, one stands out: John Hagee.
Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, which has an active
membership of over 22,000. A charismatic Christian who believes in dispensationalist
eschatology and thinks that Christians are biblically required to support Israel, Hagee has
long been a major advocate for Israel within evangelical and charismatic Christianity circles
and has raised over $80 million for Israel since he first began hosting "A Night to Honor
Israel" events in the early 1980s.
In 2006, Hagee sought to create the "Christian AIPAC" and revived a then-defunct
organization previously founded in 1975 known as Christians United for Israel, or CUFI,
mentioned at the beginning of this installment. Since its re-founding, CUFI has grown
exponentially, now counting 7 million members , a
figure that exceeds the Jewish population of the United States, which stands at around 5.7
million. Hagee chairs its executive board, which included Jerry Falwell up until Falwell's
death in 2007.
Vice President Pence, left, greets Hagee at CUFI's annual summit, July 8, 2019, in
Washington. Patrick Semansky | AP
CUFI is
exempt from paying U.S. taxes and from publicly disclosing its finances because it is
officially registered as a church, though it is often likened to an arm of the pro-Israel lobby
in the United States and actively promotes
and funds illegal West Bank settlements. CUFI also advocates for Israeli sovereignty over all
of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and the construction of a Third Temple.
Much has been written about CUFI's influence in the Republican Party, which began under the
George W. Bush administration soon after its founding. As journalist Max Blumenthal noted in
a 2006 article for
The Nation: "Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of
off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United
for Israel (CUFI)."
As a result of these meetings, CUFI aligned itself tightly with the neoconservatives that
were well represented in the Bush administration, even appointing neoconservative and Christian
Zionist Gary Bauer to its board and naming Bauer the first director of its lobbying arm, the
CUFI Action Fund. Bauer is a founding member
of the highly controversial and now-defunct neoconservative group, Project for a New American
Century (PNAC), and has also served on the executive board of the neoconservative group
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).
CUFI has since won powerful allies and counts neoconservative Elliott Abrams; former CIA
director James Woosley; neoconservative archon Bill Kristol; former Arkansas Governor Mike
Huckabee; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Ted Cruz (R-TX); Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence among its staunchest
supporters. At a CUFI summit last year, Netanyahu
described CUFI as a "vital part of Israel's national security."
In addition, CUFI has close ties to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to
President Trump and the entire Republican Party. Adelson even received a
special award from Hagee at a 2014 CUFI event. "I've never had a greater warm feeling than
being honored by Pastor Hagee," said a beaming Sheldon Adelson at the time.
At the most recent CUFI summit, held on Monday, the Trump administration sent Pence, Pompeo,
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Assistant to the President and Special Representative
for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, all
of whom spoke at the summit.
In addition to its own influence as an organization, the group has made Hagee himself a
major political player. In 2007, then-Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) compared Hagee to Moses ,
stating:
I want to take to opportunity to describe Pastor Hagee in the terms the Torah used to
describe Moses. He is an Ish Elohim. A man of God. And those words really do fit him. And I
have something else. Like Moses, he's become the leader of a mighty multitude. Even greater
than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promised Land."
Efforts by prominent politicians to court Hagee were once numerous, until evidence of Hagee
making remarks about the Holocaust that were widely considered anti-semitic surfaced during the
2008 presidential campaign. In those remarks, Hagee
asserted that Adolf Hitler had been sent by God to act as a "hunter," and force Jews by
means of the Holocaust to resettle in Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy.
Then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had aggressively courted
Hagee's endorsement, was forced to distance himself from Hagee after those comments
resurfaced.
Yet, the stigma around Hagee has since worn off and his influence is again on the rise
following Trump's election to the presidency, as evidenced by the attendance of numerous top
Trump officials to the 2019 CUFI Washington Summit earlier this week.
Though he was not included on the official board of Trump's evangelical advisers early in
Trump's presidency,
several slightly less controversial allies and associates of Hagee were, including Tom
Mullins, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Kenneth Copeland. Then, a few months after Trump's
inauguration, Hagee "dropped by" the White House unannounced
and met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss U.S. support for Israel. He also met with
Trump a few weeks before Trump announced plans to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,
a meeting at which Trump
had reportedly promised Hagee that the embassy would soon be moved and told the pastor "I
will not disappoint you." Hagee described Trump's announcement on Jerusalem as having "biblical
timing of absolute precision."
More recently, Hagee was part of an exclusive group of evangelical leaders who
met with White House officials this past March prior to the partial release of the
so-called "Deal of the Century," aimed at bringing "peace" to the Israel-Palestine conflict,
which is
widely viewed as greatly favoring Israel and is
expected to be rejected outright by Palestinian leadership.
After the meeting, Hagee issued an urgent prayer request. "Our topic of discussion was
discussing the forthcoming peace plan concerning Israel. Israel and the Jewish people need our
prayers and our advocacy like never before," Hagee said in a video posted to the CUFI Twitter
page soon after the meeting. "The Bible gives the command, 'For Zion's sake, I will not keep
silent, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not keep my peace.' I urge you tonight to pray for the
peace of Jerusalem."
As the final installment of this series will show, the shared apocalyptic visions of
extremist religious Zionists and Christian Zionists regarding a Third Jewish Temple on the
Temple Mount is a major driver behind the Deal of the Century and was also a major factor in
the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite
Palestinian hopes that East Jerusalem would serve as the capital of their future state.
Notably, Christian Zionists believe that Palestinians must
be expelled from the state of Israel. In addition, these end-times beliefs are also a
factor in the administration's push for war with Iran, which Christian Zionists like Hagee and
Pompeo believe is also a requisite for
the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
While Hagee's influence and the influence of his organization CUFI are stronger than ever
with Trump in the White House, his political clout with the Trump administration is, at least
partially, due to the presence of staunch Christian Zionists in two of the top offices in the
executive branch: vice president and secretary of state.
Though several Trump officials spoke at the recent CUFI summit, two stand out -- not just
for their high-ranking positions but also for their open admissions that their Christian
Zionist beliefs guide their policies. These officials are Vice President Mike Pence and
Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
After Trump chose his running mate, Pence's religious fervor came
under media scrutiny , with several outlets noting that he was known to be an ardent
Christian Zionist. Pence's faith gained particular attention owing to his past statements on
Israel, which he has
often described in prophetic terms.
Though raised Catholic, Pence gradually transitioned to an "evangelical Catholic" and then
to an evangelical Protestant and has since become a key political figure representing the
fundamentalist Christian movement that promotes "dominionism," an ideology that varies in its
interpretations but ultimately seeks to see the secular nature of the U.S. government shift
towards one governed by "Biblical law." Pence's association with this movement has led
prominent voices in the media to
accuse him of supporting a theocratic form of government.
Though many of the initial concerns about Pence revolved around his likely effects on
domestic policy, much of his influence has instead been seen in foreign policy, including the
administration's
Middle East policy . His
public identification as a Christian Zionist and his speech to the 2017 CUFI summit, the
first vice president to ever speak at the annual event, have led some to worry that the
Christian Zionist view of prophecy is guiding Pence's political actions.
Pence visits the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site in Jerusalem's Old City, Jan. 23,
2018. Oded Balilty | AP
Following Pence's first speech at CUFI, Daniel Hummel, a scholar and fellow at Harvard's
Kennedy School,
told the Washington Post :
Christian Zionism has a long history in American politics, but it has never captured the
bully pulpit of the White House. Past administrations often used general biblical language in
reference to Israel, but never has the evangelical theology of Christian Zionism been so
close to the policymaking apparatus of the executive branch.
By identifying with Christian Zionism while in office, Pence risks the Trump
administration's ongoing search for an 'ultimate deal' to solve the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and erodes the U.S.' claim that it can be an 'honest broker' in the Middle
East."
Concerns that the U.S. is under the influence of extremist religious Zionism and Christian
Zionism that would prevent the country from acting as an "honest broker" in the
Israel-Palestine conflict have, unsurprisingly,
been proven true . In fact, Pence's religious beliefs are believed to have been a
major factor in Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to
move the U.S. Embassy to the contested city.
Though Mike Pence is the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration who is openly a
Christian Zionist, it is Pompeo that is the most overt and open about how his religious beliefs
regarding the end times guide his decision-making as head of the U.S. State Department.
For much of his political career, Pompeo has framed U.S. counterterrorism policy as a "
holy war " between Christianity and Islam, which he believes is the earthly equivalent of a
cosmic battle between good and evil. In 2017, as CIA director, Pompeo claimed:
Radical Islamic terror [will] continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray
and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior [and] truly
the only solution for our world."
That same year, Pompeo
created a new CIA "mission center" targeting Iran headed by Michael D'Andrea, whose CIA
nickname is "
The Prince of Darkness ." Pompeo, like many Christian Zionists, believes that war between
the United States and Iran is part of the end times, a belief that is outright alarming given
his prior control over CIA covert operations and his focus on Iran, as well as his current role
as the U.S.' chief diplomat, in which he has also been laser-focused on promoting an aggressive
policy towards Iran.
In addition to his views on "holy war," Pompeo also frequently discussed his views on the
rapture while serving as CIA director. TYT reported
last year that Pompeo had spoken about the rapture so frequently that it had reportedly
frightened top CIA officials.
According to Michael Weinstein -- founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation , a
watchdog group on issues of religious freedom in the military and intelligence community -- who
was quoted in the TYT report:
He [Pompeo] is intolerant of anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian. The people that
worked under him at the CIA that came to us were never confused -- they never had time to be
confused. They were shocked and then they were scared shitless."
A 2015 video of Pompeo that surfaced while he was CIA director also shows the former
congressman
describing politics as "a never-ending struggle until the rapture."
More recently, a New York Times article published in March again brought Pompeo's
obsession with the end times back into public view. Titled " The Rapture and
the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy ," the article detailed how Pompeo
has made it standard operating procedure to mix his Christian Zionist views with his approach
to foreign policy. That article also referenced the
statement Pompeo made earlier this year, in which he opined that it was "certainly
possible" that President Trump had been sent by God to "save the Jewish people from the Iranian
menace."
Pompeo made those statements during an official trip to Jerusalem that was also
controversial for other reasons. Indeed, in a state department video shared on social media and
meant to publicize Pompeo's trip, footage of a model of the Third
Jewish Temple was included while footage of the Al Aqsa mosque was notably excluded,
despite it being the most iconic building in Jerusalem.
Given that Pompeo had also visited the tunnels that have worn away the historic mosque's
foundations, many Palestinians took the video as a sign that the Trump administration was
colluding with the Temple Activist movement in Israel, which was discussed in detail in
Part II of this series.
Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State ,
Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and
influence the foreign policy of both nations in service of a religious obsession with ushering
in the end times. The historical record clearly shows how Christian Zionists have influenced
events throughout history, particularly in regard to the founding of the state of Israel and
subsequent developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In the pursuit of these dispensationalist end-times prophecies, Christian Zionists have
forged alliances with Jewish Zionists and each has opportunistically used the other in order to
usher in the common events that are believed to facilitate the coming of their respective
apocalypses or to aid more secular, political goals. From Hechler and Herzl, to Scofield and
Untermeyer, to Begin and Falwell, these alliances have shaped the policy of Western
governments, particularly the U.S. and England, for over a century.
Today, only one such prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, the construction of a Third Jewish
Temple on the Temple Mount, which is currently occupied by the Al Aqsa mosque compound. Now,
more than ever before, Israel's government, as shown in Part II, is filled with high-ranking
officials who openly call for Al Aqsa's destruction and seek to hastily construct a Third
Temple. Similarly, as this report has shown, the Trump administration is greatly influenced by
Christian Zionists who also seek the mosque's destruction, in hopes that the Third Temple will
soon be built.
Yet, the Trump administration's ties to this apocalyptic ideology go even deeper than has
been discussed in this article, as many other influential members in the Trump administration
-- especially top Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to
Israel David Friedman -- also share and actively promote this extremist religious Zionist
ideology that seeks to rebuild a Third Temple. As will be seen in the next installment of this
series, this ideology is also a driving factor for top Trump and Republican Party donors such
as Sheldon Adelson.
The end result is that the hold of this apocalyptic ideology on both the governments of
Israel and the United States appears to be stronger now than ever, meaning that the danger
currently facing Al Aqsa mosque, and with it world peace, looms large.
Correction | An earlier version of this article stated that Hal Lindsey was a co-author of
the popular Left Behind book series. This was incorrect, as that series was co-written
by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, both of whom were influenced by Lindsey's earlier books
including The Late Great Planet Earth .
Feature photo | Texas evangelist John Hagee of Christians United for Israel addresses a
crowd of his followers and Israeli supporters at a rally at the Jerusalem convention center,
April 6, 2008. Sebastian Scheiner | AP
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.
I have told friends and others who would listen when we discussed these matters that the Old
Testament is the biggest, most powerful and destructive post-hypnotic suggestion in all of
human history used by the jews to simultaneously manipulate part of Christianity (the
fundamentalist/pro-zionist part) to do the bidding of jews in general and israel in
particular as well as the Epistles of St. Paul who corrupted the teachings of Christ in his
personal crusade to turn those teachings into a proselytizing and missionary 'religion' for
the good of its leadership.
We've witnessed the fruits of those destructive elements for hundreds of years, but never
to the extent of what has happened in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Organized religion -- like organized politics, organized labor and organized crime --
cannot be trusted to have anyone's interests at heart but those of its leadership. Hell I'd
personally trust organized crime (my family's Sicilian -- and all that implies) more than the
other 3 I mentioned -- organized religion least of all.
I've never understood the degree of attachment that fundamentalist/pro-zionist Christians
have towards the jews they never seem to really look at the reality of modern life and see
just how detrimental -- if not downright destructive -- they have been of our nation and
every other nation that's thrown them out.
The best thing Christian Zionists could do is to perform their own aliyah and move
en masse to the West Bank, specifically Bethlehem and other Christian spots. Learn
some Aramaic or Samaritan. Breed like crazy.
We helped destroy Christianity in the Middle East, and we can help bring it back to
life.
According to one of the most popular dispensationalism theories, God has a special and unique
plan of redemption for an earthly people referred to as Israel, and a heaven-bound group of
people known as His church. The prominent view is that there are two peoples of God, with
Israel realizing special earthly promises during the millennium, and His church receiving
heavenly treasures. However, regardless of what manmade term is utilized, this thinking
represents a dual-covenant doctrine that is simply not Biblical.
The theological rhetoric in relation to replacement theology also includes covenant
theology. This teaching separates Gods relationship with mankind by a multitude of covenants
instead of unique dispensational ages. Again, these convoluted systems of belief represent
the commandments and doctrines of men and are not at all Scriptural.
There are several prevalent schools of thought regarding replacement theology expressed
within the teachings of Judeo-Christianity that paint a false picture concerning the truths
of Judaism. This brief synopsis will examine some of these beliefs within the context of
replacement theology.
[MORE]
In this article, we will not be viewing Judaism through the narrow prism of propaganda that
has captured the minds of those who have been infected with a Judeo-Christian ideology.
For those who are able to escape the false gospel programming, the reality with regards to
replacement theology or the profound differences between the Old and New Covenants becomes
strikingly apparent.
Judeo-Christianity and replacement theology
Although there are variances, the Judeo-Christian dual-covenant doctrine is not an actual
replacement theology as such. It is more of a dualistic yet separate plan of redemption for
both the Jewish people and the Christians. Many theologians teach that the New Testament
church will be raptured before the commencement of the Great Tribulation. Apparently, at the
end of this age, there is a period of seven years in which many Jews will come to know Christ
as their Messiah.
Within Christian eschatology, it is almost exclusively taught that the Antichrist will
confirm a covenant with the Jews for seven years. And in the middle of this week, he causes
the sacrifices and offerings to cease. Then on a wing of the temple, he sets up the
abomination of desolation.
The prominent view is that God has promised to save all of Israel. As the story goes, He
will bless those who bless Israel, and His everlasting promise to them is unconditional.
Unfortunately, most so-called scholars simply do not understand the identity of the true
Israel of God.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise.
It is taught that we cannot exclude the Jewish people from their original and permanent
covenant promises, as they represent the natural seed of Abraham.
If the covenant promise was made to Abraham and his seed, who does this seed refer to?
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Are the Jewish people synonymous with Spiritual Israel, or does this family consist of all
who are in Christ?
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Yahshua the Messiah
Is it not clearly defined that the righteousness of God is only possible through faith in
Yahshua the Messiah without the works of the Law (Rom 3:22, 28, Rom 9:32).
Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or
to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith
The Judaizers would claim that we can never combine the Church with Israel, as the two are
forever separated with unique identities and purposes.
Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise
made of none effect
How cynical is it for Likud to be taking advantage of these mentally slow Christians?
It's pathetic. I would imagine Pence is a true believer. Pompeo may be just acting the part
as I would guess many to be doing.
We are going to be paying more for gas soon. Fifty percent of the Saudi refinery capacity
is down. But has anybody been thinking what could happen if Iran were hit and taken off-line
as well? Would there be US gas shortages and $5 per gallon fill up prices? Maybe this would
focus the minds of the daft Christian Zionists.
The GOP needs to get real and stop treating Israel domestic and foreign policies with
support at all costs zealotry, only because, it is backed by Christian fundamentalists in
their party. It's time to just say no. Like to the nitwit talk about a mutual defense
policy.
"Christian evangelicals, with a total membership of 7 million, more than 2 million more
members than the entirety of the American Jewish community ."
No chance.
The alleged number of this "American Jewish community" is intentionally misleading
nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on. Most Jews are not religious so they do
not say they are "Jewish" in questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews
nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they
create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.
And they practically all heavily support "that shitty little country" and whatever is "good
for Jews" at the expense of others.
Will the 'good' Christians care about Falwell and wife's life with a pool boy, a personal
tennis trainer, a gay hostel in Miami , naked pictures, calling in Cohen for pictures
retrieval, lol, probably not.
Donald Trump Met The Miami Pool Attendant Whom Jerry Falwell Jr. Backed In A Business
Venture
Michael Cohen, Trump's fixer and Falwell's friend, was also at Liberty University when Trump
and the pool attendant met.
Why is it that so many of these so-called "Christian Zionists" are:
a) disgustingly obese, and
b) filthy rich?
A private jet? Really?
Didn't Jesus say something about a rich man's chances of getting into Heaven being extremely
poor?
That's how I remember it, but, hey, that was a long time ago.
Besides that:
@Anthony Aaron It's ironic that Christian Zionism is often considered "fundamentalist"
considering that outright hostility to Jews (see Luther) or at least supercessionism (Jews
deicide = no longer Chosen, Christians now Chosen) was the theological norm in Christianity
until WWII and the advent of Holocaustianity. Given the track record of atheist or
"post-religious" society to date, I'd suggest you reconsider the blanket condemnation of all
organized faith. Non-kosher, muscular, Germanized Christianity is the model for how to reform
the modern church, or build something better in its stead. The Orthodox have their own strong
tradition to build on. Both are syncretisms of some of the better elements of Christianity
and pre-existing pagan and cultural elements from Europe, and both are proven to advance
human happiness. "Judeo-Christianity" on the other hand is a Frankenstein theology that mocks
and subverts transcendent and human values alike.
The restoration of the state of Israel or the Jews is neither a creation Quakers,
Puritans, Baptists, Mennonites, Anglicans, Catholics, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, etc.
The principle of restoration is not even an idea created by Jews.
@Anthony Aaron It's not the Old Testament that's the problem, it's the Talmud. Jews
hardly read the Old Testament.
If they did, they would understand that God has punished them for their subversive behavior
for centuries. The Christian religion is the reason the West elevated itself in the first
place, which is why it is constantly attacked by the Jews.
This bit about Christian Zionism is just a distraction from the reality of Jewish power. When
people raise the issue of Jewish control of congress, how convenient to have the Christian
Zionists (7 million? 20 million?) to point to. But they have no real power at all.
Consider: How much power do these pastors and their flocks have when they address any
subject other than Israel? Christian Zionists are historically opposed to abortion rights,
gay rights, pre-marital sex, sex education, and secularism generally. They come from a
demographic that supported segregation in the 1950s and is opposed to affirmative action,
immigration, gun-control, and other social policies that secular Jews overwhelmingly support.
During the Cold War southern evangelicals were strongly anti-communist, leading to tension
with a Jewish community where pro-Soviet sympathies were not uncommon. How much support have
they gotten on any issue other than the need to serve Israel? How many evangelicals are on
the Supreme Court?
None!
That the ADL would call Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "Masters of Hate" on the cover of
their newsletter shows just how much respect the evangelicals can count on when they aren't
plugging Israel. And I refuse to believe Mike Pompeo gives a rat's ass what the bible says
about anything. His flattery of Hagee and his followers is purest cynicism.
Note that the founders of Israel were NOT religious Jews but Bolsheviks. They created some
of the most radical communes ever, with their collective child-rearing system, the kibbutz.
Their leaders were happy to weaponize the 'God gave us Palestine' crowd for their purposes,
but Israel has always been run mostly by secular Jews. Netanyahu is a good example. In his
non-observant hands, orthodox Jewish theology becomes an excuse for simple ethnic
chauvinism.
Jews are perfectly correct in thinking the southern Christian friends of Israel do not
have Israel's true interests at heart. But it doesn't matter, since they are only fostered to
camouflage the power of the secular Zionist lobby.
Again: On EVERY ISSUE OTHER THAN ISRAEL these voters and their pastors get their butts
kicked. And even on Israel, if they ever push for something the secular Jewish lobby doesn't
like they will get their butts kicked on that too.
Whoever promotes the myth of Christian Zionist power is playing into the hands of AIPAC in
its effort to disguise the power of the Jewish lobbies.
It's not the Jews, goyim! It's the Evangelicals! Blame them, not us!
Jews love using Evangelicals as human shields. The author fails to mention that The
Puritans, as well as all other Judaizing movements, were encouraged and propagated by Jews
themselves.
The Jewish/Puritan alliance was born in a mutual rejection of the cross and all it stood
for, and the substitution of King David or Simon bar Kokhba or Sabbetai Sevi or Oliver
Cromwell or Napoleon Bonaparte as an alternative to the suffering Christ. The Jews were so
enamored of Cromwell as a potential Messiah that they sent a delegation to examine his
baptismal records in Huntington, to see if he were descended from the lineage of King
David. Cromwell, as Graetz points out, was driven to consummate this revolutionary alliance
between Jews and Puritans on both the theoretical and the practical level:
Dispensationalism is based on the misinterpretation of the New Testament references to Israel
and the Jews. It's not the Apostle Paul's fault that his words are twisted and
misinterpreted.
The Christian Church is the new Israel and the new Jerusalem is that which is above and not
below.
And all who are of Israel are not Israel.
Jesus was also very clear that He was the new temple and even if it was destroyed it would be
raised up in three days.
Christianity in the United States has been hijacked by judaizers now in some of the highest
offices in our nation. It's very dangerous as we are seeing right now in our dealings with
Iran.
I would not call them "Christians". Anyone who holds to the heresy of Premillennialism today
is suspect. Most are them are deceived and are fake Christians. A few may be very new
immature Christians and a few are backsliders. Today most churches are fake, and called
Churchianity, not Christianity. One sign of that a church is fake, it takes the 501 C 3 tax
exemption. They don't preach against sin or sinners for money. There are only shallow pep
talks only from the pulpit. They entertain goats instead of feeding the sheep. Before the
internet, more Christians were in ignorance because they did not have access to the right
books or teachers. Now, since the internet, tons of books and teachers are available online
for free, so there is no excuse to remain stupid and blind and hold to the heresy of
dispensationalism or premillenialism, unless you are just spiritually deceived.
If true and accurate this explanation could illuminate a long standing mystery to many of us:
the source of the power that little, disliked, natural – resources poor "Israel"
[better known as Occupied Palestine] has over vast, powerful America.
It can't be "it buys Congressmen" because America has to fund Israel to the tune of
billions of dollars. Israel may, indeed, just send the money around in some crazy carnival
roundabout, whereby America is funding it's own slavery to a foreign power, but it seems not
enough to explain the paradox.
I wondered if it had to do with America wanting a foothold in the Middle East in order to
attack Russia from a strong local supply base. However, the largest US base in the ME is in
Qatar, with a small local facility in Israel of a few hundred personnel opened in 2017 only.
So -- no. this doesn't answer.
For a long time, it seemed that maybe Israel just found ways and means to own American
rulers in order to have a strong backing for it's invasion and theft of land belonging
largely to Arabic people located among Arab nations. But why they wanted to destroy what had
been a peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Palestinian Jews for centuries was not
explained. Again, neither did this explain why America would want to do it.
The Religious angle does seem to hold a rational answer – but for an irrational
belief. That there could be so many people clinging to an ancient, unsubstantiated belief
system as recorded in the Old Testament, and want to kill millions in order to see it
re-enacted, seems to totally beggar belief.
Is it possible there are so many adults who believe in fairy stories?
There is so much about America and its' people that is a mystery to the rest of the world.
How can so many act so irrationally, and hold so many contradictory, irrational beliefs, like
"American Exceptionalism".
If this [Christian Fundamentalism] is the answer, then it's horrifying and terrifying;
because such people have no rationality with which to deal and understand; no ability to hold
any understanding of different viewpoints; and no fear of totally destroying the world to
gain their insane ends.
America has long been the land of Cults. This seems to be the worst. What the world will
do about it remains to be seen – but if the writer here is correct, then the first step
has been taken; to rip the veil of secrecy off and shout the truth to the world in the light
of stopping that which we have finally realised exists.
@Mark James Oh, but Gawd! gave John Hagee XXXL Italian silk suits, a nubile young
secretary to bang and his own private jet. Surely he intended all these as clear signs of his
blessing.
The whole "rapture" thing is a homo-erotic fantasy.
The normal man fights, works, suffers, and struggles in life, hoping that his strength
dedication, sacrifice and meager accomplishments are worthy of God's acceptance, thus gaining
admittance to paradise.
These homo-erotics adopt an abduction-rape fantasy where the powerful man-god swoops down
from the heavens, beats down all opponents, then grabs up the believers who are actually
nothing more than cheerleaders laying on their backs with the legs in the air ready and
willing to be "raptured" into paradise.
Christian zionists are crazy and numerous, but I don't believe that they are the driving
force behind U.S. policy towards Israel. I can't believe that such a powerful group would
lose on almost every other issue, but can control every branch of the government and media on
the issue of Israel. That doesn't make sense to me.
The GOP needs to get real and stop treating Israel domestic and foreign policies with
support at all costs zealotry, only because, it is backed by Christian fundamentalists in
their party.
The GOP supports Israel because of AIPAC and Jewish blackmail, not Evangelicals.
@Colin Wright Sir the so-called Temple Mount may not even the site of the original
temple. If one needs a wall to piss against while in Israel, the Wailing Wall fits the bill.
Considering that the Jewish hordes that came with the caliph would rather slaughter
Jerusalem's Christians than build the so-called Temple, we know what the main priority of the
Chosen was at that time.
Both are syncretisms of some of the better elements of Christianity and pre-existing
pagan and cultural elements from Europe, and both are proven to advance human
happiness.
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism are syncronistic. The idea that they were was promoted
by judaizing Protestants. In truth, Jews have been allies with Pagans since Julian the
Apostate.
@TellTheTruth-2Christian Zionism is an oxymoron -- to those who have never read
the Jew Testament.
• Matthew 21:5 "Say to Daughter Zion , 'See, your king comes to you." •
John 12:15 "Daughter Zion , see, your king is coming." • Romans 9:33 "See, I
lay in Zion a stone." • Romans 11:26 "The deliverer will come from Zion
." • Hebrews 12:22 "Mount Zion , to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem." • 1 Peter 2:6 "See, I lay a stone in Zion ." • Revelation 14:1
"Standing on Mount Zion ."
It's time to go medieval on the asses of anybody who reads, owns, prints, or otherwise
bitterly clings to the Holy Hook . It's time True Christians once
again burn at the stake Bible-thumpers like William Tyndale. It is well documented that
Medieval Christendom banned that Jewish-authored book as brutally as any atheist Communist
regime.
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity
should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly
forbid their having any translation of these books."
The historical moment for rebuilding the so-called temple passed when the marauding Jews who
accompanied the invading Arabs in 620 or thereabouts, made it clear that they would rather
slaughter the Christians than waste their with the Temple stuff.
So called Christian Zionism is a kind of ersatz religion that is based not on the worship of
God but rather the state of Israel. For all too many Americans, they could be addicted to opoids, two months away from payday loans, their daughters could be running riot, but as long
as Holy Israel's interests are taken care of : God is in his high heaven and everything is
all right with the world.
Oops, you forgot one. "To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the law, the worship '" ( Catechism of the
Catholic Church ) Or just ask the Pope, who told an interviewer that "inside every
Christian is a Jew."
@jack daniels Note that the founders of Christianity were also Bolsheviks, as recorded in
Acts, "not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own but all things were
common property to them." And Ludgwig von Mises wrote, "primitive Christianity is
Bolshevism."
Why no mention in the introduction of the influential 19th century Christian Zionist Henry
Wentworth Monk "The Prophet"? He even sought an audience with President Lincoln to ask him to
ship the Jews to Israel.
Christian Zionism is, at its core in the consciousness of the masses, redirected White ethnic
nationalism without another permissible home.
Harnessed to work for the nationalism of the primary enemy of White people in the West,
the Jewish group, that is the primary bulwark against White nationalism.
When people are desperate to have their base political needs met, its seemingly simple to
give them a poison pill as a surrogate political position.
Jews are quite good at psychologically replacing political positions of the goyim, which
do not benefit the Jews, with positions that do benefit Jews and are fatal for non-Jews:
a. Jewish Christianity, mixed with some reworked older doctrines to coat the pill, for the
original European religions.
b. Fraudulent economic nationalism (Marxism) for ethnic-cultural nationalism.
c. Christian Zionism (Jewish nationalism) for European (White) nationalism and European
Zionism.
d. "Neoconservatism" (a mix of Marxist social doctrine for the non-Jews and Jewish
Zionism) for Conservatism (White ethnic nationalism).
e. Americanism (reworked by Jews from Republicanism to mean Marxist social
internationalism, in the modern age) for any type of nationalism.
Coming back from this will require a single, fast, and decisive rejection of all of it. It
will not happen by debating the always-treacherous, deceitful, and ultimately murderous kikes
in these comments sections.
There is literally nothing to lose by doing so. Without doing so, everything of any real
worth is lost regardless.
As one raised in a Christian Zionist church I can tell you the brain
washing and mind control is very effective on young children and is quite difficult to free
yourself from.
When you look back at the "teachings" in the Old Testament, and how it is
presented in these churches, it is nothing more than trauma based mind control. Many will
never see the absolute insanity of the teachings that Yahweh is a kind and loving God who,
all the while, preaches death and destruction to all who fail to fall in line with his every
wish. The Old Testament is one of the most violent and bloody text you will ever read.
When it comes to the New Testament, it is just a kinder, gentler version of the O.T. which
still preaches tribe worship, but adds submission to the state as well (thanks Romans).
So, after having created all those multiverses, matter, anti-matter, galaxies, galactic
clusters, stars, quasars, red dwarfs, black holes .. God turned His attention to a shitty
planet of a shitty solar system in a shitty part of a shitty galaxy. And with His almighty
wisdom, He then focused on a shitty strip of land on that planet & became increasingly
worried about some two-legged groups of morons, actually evolved apes, who had been wandering
around that shitty piece of land- and proclaimed He had a special interest in well-being
& future of those evolved apes- who, by the way, constituted a negligible fraction of all
evolved apes.
From Big Bang, multiverse, hyper-dimensional .. to a shitty strip of land. Not a progress
for God, definitely not
Christian zionists are useful idiots for the zionist NWO and they are supporting a satanic
zionist one
world government agenda that if it comes into being will purge these useful idiots just as
they did in the Soviet Union, for the fact is zionists hate Christians and will destroy them!
The Puritans, as well as all other Judaizing movements,
The Congregationalists are the closest modern heirs of the original Puritan group. For entertainment, peruse any Congregationalist congregation on the web in any major city.
Just don't have lunch first. In Dallas, for one example of any that you could use, I believe the major
Congregationalist congregation is explicitly one for homosexuals if memory serves. It sees
its primary role to be a promoter of all things LGBT. In any other random Congregationalist
"church", a typical written expression of their "faith" will be a listing of social justice
demands.
Though, I might recommend that if you wanted to observe Power you might also attend a
Congregationalist Church. The essence of all things is found at their origin.
A Quaker meeting in a central meetinghouse in a major urban location would be second best.
A similarly positioned Synagogue, of course, would be equal to or better than both.
Local papers at the time, such as the Atchison Patriot, regarded Scofield's conversion
and career change with great skepticism, referring to Scofield as the "late lawyer,
politician and shyster generally " who had disgraced himself by committing "many
malicious acts."
This is basically also what WASP "political science" field is–a collection of
shysters. In general, however, all this is a complete madness which passes under the nominal
"Christianity" title, while being anything but.
@turtle Your points start to make sense when you recognize CUFI-ism as the continuation
of Southern Freemasonry, now dispensing with the aprons and going directly for the kill with
their floppy bibles to undermine Christendom, or what's left of it, from their Jewish-funded
podiums on cable TV. As for Rev Hagee, with a wife and two little kids at home, this man was
at the office laying more than the cornerstone of his church while singing his alleluias
between the legs of the other woman he dumped his family for, like Scofield before him.
Speaking of private jets, if you haven't seen it, I recommend watching the video of the
late billionaire "Christian" minister Kenneth Copeland (with private runway, too) and the Rev
Jesse Duplantis explain why the need private jets costing tens of millions. Altho it's a
little bit of a spoiler, it's so they can talk directly to God without being trapped in "a
tube with them demons," meaning the mostly Christian passengers they'd be flying with in an
airliner. If there are in fact demons roaming this world. . .
CUFI-ism and the rest of these Masonic groups parading around in the trappings of
Christianity are very much like Puritanism, as the author points out. They reject the New
Testament and its unambiguous replacement covenant with mankind, relying on the Old Testament
covenant to interpret the new using lumpish proof texting that's heretical by definition,
ultimately waving away two millennia of the ascendency of Christendom with that verse from
Genesis.
Less anyone miss the more general connection between CUFI-ism and evangelicalism as the
American religion, I'd point out that in general their ersatz religion uses the trappings of
Christianity to flaunt Christ's word. Their "churches" are really civic centers of
statolatry, using rock, or the rhythms of sexual orgasm, to capture their highest
aspirations. They believe material prosperity is a measure of God's blessing of their
righteousness, as their real lives make clear. Instead of pictures reminding Christians
theirs is a faith in another realm and do no harm, these temples feature Israeli flags and
photos of the sons in uniform sent to die and be mailed if need be, ironically serving
Israel-American globe-homo imperium over the world. If their deity provides a dispensation,
it's revocation of the sixth and seventh commandments as a reward for CUFI's sanctioning the
incineration and dismemberment of several hundred thousand Arabs annoyingly in the way of
Eretz Israel.
Pence, Pompeo, Bolton and the CUFI's are the antithesis of what it means to be Christian.
There is no possible justification for the incineration of God's innocent children on the
grounds that -- as the CUFI's and Fox News like to brag -- we'll kill them over there before
they kill us over here. When such ends justify the means, any evil is possible in the hands
of such evil men. Right after 9/11 Wendell Berry wrote, Don't kill one Muslim child and dare
say you did it to protect my children and grandchildren. This should have been the rallying
cry of evangelicals if they believed in Christ's word, not singing alleluia as children's
skin was burned off them alive, making those Arab children, as were the 3,000 Americans
cremated alive on 9/11, burnt sacrifices to an empire of evil based on lies.
"I t has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in
the last war (WWI), effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great
Britain . They are keen to do it – and may do it – again . But you are
dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood, and the most elementary feeling of self
respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and
humiliations. American Jewry waits for a word – a call – from His Majesty's
Government. The formation of a Jewish fighting force would be that signal. Equipment cannot
be the determining factor; there will always be some alternative use for whatever equipment
is available; and fresh recruits are all the time being called up in the British Commonwealth
by their hundreds of thousands, while we are being told to wait for one single division
because of lack of equipment. If the spirit of American Jewry is roused, the influence
which this will exercise on America's rather sluggish production will return to you that
equipment with manifold gains." (minus the usual cut, graft, theft, and overcharges)
Stay in Chile, Whitney. Also, dont board any Cessna planes. I can count on one hand, on how
many investigative journalists that are worth their weight in gold. You are amazing.
Truly smart men who helped found this country were well aware of tyranny caused not only by
monarchies, but by the church as well. It is why many of them settled on a belief system(not
a religion)called Deism.
The words of Thomas Paine:
"The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory
of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be
saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their
holy [revealed] religion and their Christian faith.
"Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that
something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not
a friend to truth. "The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is
introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to
be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called.
Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our
duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a
false foundation.
"It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a
religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive
at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by,
superior to human authority.
"When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the
whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has
prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the
whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon
against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and
place.
"This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though
he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees
the God of order in every part of the visible universe."
"Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be
the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything
and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared
with the standard that God Himself has set up."
@Anthony Aaron "Among the first advocates for the physical immigration of European Jews
to Palestine were the Puritans "
No further proof is needed to show that this land was nutty from the time that whitey set
foot on it. But I find it hard to believe that Hagge and these other mega-preachers are doing
the work of Jesus, peace be upon him.
Jesus Christ (followed by Freud, Marx and many others) was just the first in a long line of
Hebrew con men who have dazzled the goyim. If you pray to Jesus, you are literally worshiping
a Jew. Enough. If you're of a spiritual mind, why not explore your own pagan roots and beliefs?
Other than that the bible told you so, how do you know that Odin is not the creator rather
than the god of the Israelites?
@Robjil Very true. But it began about 30 years before Cromwell when James 1 deported the
wild Scots Puritan border bandits to Ireland with the express purpose to genocide the native
Irish. Once the natives were eliminated or subdued English settlers were given land grants
and established what cane to be known as the Anglo Irish Protestant Ascendancy.
The Scots border bandits were later sent to America to settle in the frontier to fight the
Indians to keep the coastal merchants shipping interests and planters safe.
Descendants of those Scots border bandits known in America as the Scotch Irish are the
heart soul and core of the fundamentalist evangelical Christine Zionists today 450 years
later. John Knox lives on in Hagee and the rest of the Christian Zionists.
What did Hagee and his Christian Zionist idiots do for Arab Christian communities destroyed
by Mossad ..sorry er ISIS? All they do is cry for Israel. Don't they realize that many
Palestinians are Christians too?
What is surprising is that most of the powerful nations on earth are Christian (or kind off
Christian), USA, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy etc yet nobody could do much to save
those Middle Eastern Christians. Very strange.
@Johnny Smoggins If that were so, the Jews would not have worked so tirelessly to
infiltrate, corrupt, and destroy the Catholic Church and others. Neither would his life have
provoked the demented commentaries about him and his mother found in the Talmud. See
http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt03.html
You might dip into St. John of Chrysotom's homilies against the Jews and The Plot Against
the Church by Maurice Pinay
@Anonymous"Relying on the Old Testament" is exactly what the New Testament
does, as the Old Testament is referenced 4,105 times, including 695 direct
quotations.* The only path back to the good times of Medieval Christendom is to ban the
reading, owning, and printing of the Holy Hook , and root-out the
Bible-thumping bitter-clinger heretics with fire . Deus Vult!
[MORE]
* How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index
in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the
Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are
many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old
Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which
scholar's work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to
the Old may be as high as 4,105 .
The Expositor's Bible Commentary
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617
@England patriot Absolute rubbish. Just about no-one in Britain thinks a thing about
America and it's people, apart from the odd "celebrity" garbage. Brexiteers all think having
a load of unelected tyrants on a gravy train in Brussels laying down the law to the nation
that was once sovereign, telling them they are obliged to allow the uneducable low lives of
Africa and Arabia in to make London the knife murder capital of the world, is not a Britain
they ever voted for or wanted.
So they have the guts to say "we can make it without a rotted tyrannical Europe about to be
ruled by Macron and Le Garde in France's favour" [a nation never with a good word to say for
Britain at the best of times, and currently turning armed police onto desperate
demonstrators].
Rather be struggling on your knees and free, than sitting at a rich mans table begging for
crumbs.
@ivan I pulled up to a gas station a few weeks ago in South Carolina.
A pick up, well used and dusty, was there driven by a woman with a mullet. Looked like a
get your hands dirty female "get 'er done." Somebody that would help you move. Her lone bumper sticker: I Stand With Israel.
Further, driving through the rural South, you see house flags of the Star of David in the
yards of modest homes.
Knowing the Jews that I do, this strikes me as sad.
@Isabella The hope that America is going to give Britain a lucrative trade deal is one of
the most central ideas of Brexit. To say that Brexiteers never think about America is simply
not accurate, the post-Brexit trade deal with America is seen by most Brexiteers as probably
the most vital part of the whole process.
The main figureheads of Brexit are Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and both have clearly
pro-American, "trans-Atlantic" outlooks. Nigel Farage clearly sees the Brexit movement as
closely related to the Trump movement in the US and has made statements to that effect many
times. Unfortunately I would say that many Brexiteers over-estimate the willingness of the US
to offer Britain a lucrative deal.
The US is no longer the WASP-ruled, pro-Britain country it once was in the past. The
former WASP elite has largely given way to a Catholic elite, bolstered by Hispanic mass
immigration, and they are more likely to be politically hostile to Britain than pro-British.
If the Irish border problem is not solved and the Irish are unhappy about it, I don't think
Britain will be getting anything from America at all.
In fact, even Trump himself is hardly that enthusiastic about Britain and he is about as
good as it gets for pro-Britishness in the US these days. Many American politicians are much
more overtly anti-British than he is.
@Malla Nobody should build one of those things without Rabbi Jesus' architectural advice:
"For which of you, intending to build a pyrgon [towering pyramid], sitteth not down
first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"
@Anthony Aaron I think that it was Gregory Hood who observed that evangelicals have gone
from worshipping a savior of Jewish blood to worshipping Jewish blood.
I agree that Paul created what's incorrectly called "Christianity," but I think that he
had his own motive, whatever it was. The Church leaders were good Jews, except that they
believed that Jesus was the messiah. Modern-day evangelical Christianity is pathetic – say, "Jewish is Lord," support
Israel and oppose abortion, and you're in.
The mark of a true prophet or bible teacher is not a hatred of money or a vow of poverty,
but most false teachers love money and use the gospel for personal gain. (2 Corinthians 2:17,
Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:3).
Whoever would apply for a 501-3c, is also surrendering their first amendment rights, which
seems unpatriotic, to say the least.
Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations."
This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches
were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson
for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it
in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always
had on shaping "public policy."
Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings
attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3
acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3
church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues
of the day. Now, that being said, how can a 501c3 legally participate in the modern day
politics of foreign countries, i.e. Israel? I've read the code and I did not see this as an
exemption.
For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the
government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that
church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the
free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to
well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.
Did the church ever need to seek permission from the government to be exempt from taxes?
Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a
church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing
authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the
jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment
of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise
it. Since churches aren't taxable in the first place, why do so many of them go to the IRS
and seek permission to be tax-exempt? It occurs out of:
Ignorance ("We didn't know any better")
Bandwagon logic ("Everyone else is doing it")
Professional advice (many attorneys and CPAs recommend it)
Does the law require, or even encourage, a church to organize as a 501c3? To answer that
question let's turn to what the IRS itself has to say:
Churches Need Not Apply
In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out
and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and
church ministries, in Publication 557:
Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include:
Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations
of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men's or women's organization,
religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt
automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).
@Anthony Aaron The Old Testament is not "the biggest, most powerful and destructive
post-hypnotic suggestion in all of human history " Confusing Christian heresy (any form of
Judaizing is heretical) or Second Temple and post-Temple Jewish perversion of the Law of
Moses and the faith of Abraham (which perversion Jesus said made its adherents the children
of Satan) with the Old Testament is itself a gross perversion that only aids the heretics.
This is a spiritual, religious problem, and it can be addressed properly only by
non-heretical theology. We have what we do today because:
1. The Reformation unleashed a horde of heresies, most of them partaking significantly in
the revival of Judaizing heresies of Late Antiquity.
2. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were thorough-going Judaizers, and they imposed their sense of
the world on all English culture, which means that WASP culture is the direct product of a
Judaizing heresy. A secularized culture given final shape by a Judaizing heresy will be
pro-Jewish in almost all things, including in being violently antagonistic to white cultures
that have not been made part of the new Judaized post-Christendom imperial culture. They will
ally eventually with Jews against the vast majority of whites, against all whites who resist
being culturally Judaized.
3. In forging the largest and wealthiest empire in world history, the WASPs spread their
form of Judaizing culture around the globe.
4. Judaizing has been ingrained into the heart of WASP culture by the successes of
Anglo-Saxon Puritans so thoroughly that it cannot be removed without killing the host.
English-speaking culture that is de-Judaized will stop being WASP and revert to something
that the peoples of Catholic 'jolly ole England' would recognize as akin to them. It will
want to revive Christendom.
You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem. In fact,
without the WASP problem, there is no way that the Jewish problem of the past century or so
could have become so menacing to so many. If you doubt that for a second, recall the opening
of this article: at a minimum, in the US today, with Christian identification at its lowest
ever, there are at least 3 and a half times more Judaizing self-proclaimed Christians than
there are Jews.
@Malla Great points one and all. I have long agreed with Carlon when he stated: It's
one big club and you ain't in it.
Why else would the Russian Generals at the U.N. know the plans of our military before our
commanders did in Vietnam?
Why else would Hitler pull up short at Dunkirk when he could have annihilated the
retreating British forces?
World leaders put on a great puppet show for us on the world stage. While they play their
parts as bitter enemies, in reality they work closely together, with their only purpose being
the survival of their ruling class.
The problem is real wars are fought and real people die, all for the pleasure of these
oligarchs.
@anon One of the issues that I have with both Christianity and Islam is that believers
are supposed to identify with a genetically-alien people.
I read the Bible as a child, but while some of the stories were interesting, I simply
couldn't identify with a desert people. On the other hand, I loved stories of the old gods
and goddesses of Europe and read the Iliad at age 9. I could identify with them – they
were my people.
@Agent76 So called unrestricted religious freedom allows mafias to hide under the guise
of religion and then to operate with impunity.
No amount of such social corruption, which eventually bleeds into total corruption, is
worth that "first freedom". Precisely because its fatal to the State. The process that we are
now realizing.
No State = no protection of any Freedom from mafia groups. What will remain are those
"protected religions" as totalitarian organizations that can dominate peoples, as instructed
in their doctrines, who are undefended by the State.
In a perfect world, all so called religion would be actual religion and not plans for
sociopolitical dominance disguised in pseudo-religion. That's not the world in which we
live.
As the world threatens to shrink the value of religious beliefs, people of faith show
that religious freedom is at the heart of what makes the world a better place.
This is not the place for pure, unfounded propaganda lines.
From the Middle East to the sociopolitical conflicts being realized throughout the West,
Semitic religion and the groups organized around it are at the heart of it all.
The lack of such a protective umbrella would allow group intentions to be stated in their
secular context and not be protected when they are openly corrosive and hostile to the nation
in which they operate. Which at least two out of three of the major Semitic religions openly
are.
We do not have to give this nation up because one or two groups learned to exploit its
laws to destroy it. We have a duty to reinforce this nation's defenses against those hostile
to its broad existence.
@anon Oswald Spengler observed that, "Christian theology is the grandmother of
bolshevism."
Christianity began as an end-of-the-world cult. Many Palestinian Jews, including John the
Baptist, Jesus and Paul (at least at first) believed that the messiah(s) would come soon.
Share everything in common, turn the other check, etc., made sense when you thought that the
world would end any day now and God and the messiah would set everything right.
@Alden The theology of John Knox was not directly Judaizing. It was like the theologies
of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, and Thomas Crnamer and a host of pre-Anglo-Saxon Puritans
English, broadly Judaizing. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were a different kettle of fish, and
their cultural overlordship changed England permanently, which cultural changes were exported
to the world.
There was virtually no direct Judaizing brought to the American frontier by the
Scots-Irish. You will find virtually none in their writings and actions, whether in VA or SC
or TN or MS or TX or the lower midwest, until you get past World War 1.
What changed? They got fully Americanized. They accepted the story that their spiritual
fathers were the Anglo-Saxon Puritans. And they began to act what they had embraced. They
became WASPs in cultural terms.
@Wally Evangelical Christians do " owe it to the Jews " for their salvic spiritual
blessings that can be sourced only " from the Jews ." What are you, some sort of
heretical tightwad? One should not muzzle the ox that tramples out the vintage !
@anon It is not only pyramids, Iran's sworn enemy Saudi Arabia is on this Illuminati
symbolism too.
[MORE]
Saudi police Badge with the "all seeing eye".
What is strange is that Muslims should know this stuff. Islamic eschatology talks about a
one eyed anti-christ/dajjal in the end times, with Jesus (Hazrat Isa) coming down from
the heavens to fight the evil forces of dajjal (the Jewish massiah). Yet most Saudi muslims
accept such symbols.
Christianity was not the inspiration for Bolshevism.
Marx and Hess and Trotsky were obviously not Christians.
Christianity was aware that jews are the enemy of the Gospel for 1900 years until Darby
and Scofield produced their well known heresy.
Martin Luther didn't mice words about the tribe.
Christian zionism is so stupid, so heretical, so the OPPOSITE of the Gospel .you really
have to give the nose a lot of credit when they make up shit they go all the way.
@Hans Jews hate Whites, this is why they attack Christianity with such ferocity. I'm sure
you've noticed though that they have no problem with the primitive forms of it practiced by
blacks and hispanics.
Who but an enemy would plant the idea that if you're attacked, you should "turn the other
cheek" to allow yourself to be attacked again rather than fighting back?
Christians may have been more Jew wise in the past but so what? For centuries now they've
been worshiping them.
But back to my point; if you're a spiritual person, why not explore your own pagan roots? Is
it because the Jews told you that your gods were stupid, but their god is supreme?
Oswald Spengler observed that, "Christian theology is the grandmother of
bolshevism."
Oswald Spengler was a Jew born of a Jewish mother who deliberately obscured the roll of
Jewish Bolsheviks in establishing communism, put you pagan retards keep falling for it.
@Pierre Papier True. The support of evangelicals for Israel is a fig leaf justification
for what would otherwise be an obviously illogical and even treasonous devotion to another
country.
@Pierre Papier No, I don't think so. She has pointed out the use of the evangelicals by
politicians and their allies and handlers within the US government, and is providing examples
to support that point.
Zionist Jews are at the Top of the human species in the western world.
That's not a smart comment. You made a biological reference. The Jewish race is largely
defined by their highest-level of Western Neanderthal (non-human / pre-human / monkey)
genetic admixture that they attained from living around the primary Neanderthal cave-hives in
Israel and Armenia. They're literally less human than people with lower hominid mixtures. The
rest of their genetics are from us (the most unmixed group in the world) and as well as
high-hominid admixture groups like Arabs.
Jews are on top politically because of the manner in which small group mafia politics
works when embedded within larger groups. The smaller groups will always tend toward superior
political effectiveness because it is easier to have a higher degree of interpersonal
political cooperation in a smaller than a larger group.
This last dynamic is why so called "religious freedom" has to be abolished. Some time ago,
religious adherents figured out that you could embed secular sociopolitical goals and
political plans within religion, and then champion religious freedom to protect their
mafia.The "religious freedom" system was long ago corrupted and its no longer viable in its
present form. The cost of doing nothing is that of losing the Western nations to the
domination of pseudo-religious mafias.
@Moi The Puritans were not the first white people to set foot upon this continent. They
were just the nuttiest. So much of what they wanted to bring about was opposed by the others
who came before them that the division became one of north versus south and led to a war
between the two major factions.
Do these Christian Zionists care if Christians are being marginalized and ethnically cleansed
from teh ME holy lands?
Vladimir Putin's Russia has quietly become the protector of remaining Christians in places
like Syria and Iraq. American Conservative Christians don't seem to care anything about
remaining Christians in the places the original Christianity first spread under the missions
of St. Paul the former Jewish Pharisee Saul of Tarsus.
Pretty much all the news I hear out of Russia, Hungary, Central and Eastern Europe is
positive, encouraging, sensible.
In contrast most everything I hear out of USA/UK/England is negative, terrible,
insane.
I have to go to Russia Today to get any honest political commentary about our USA,
Christians trying to survive in the place that Jesus Christ and St. Paul lived, preached.
How much did these Christian Zionists get paid for their unconditional support for Israel
and their promotion of the New Conservative/Zionist war mongering in the ME?
@AnonymousNew Covenant, say you? This is who it's for: I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Jewdah . [
source ] Are you one in "the
house of Israel and the house of Judah" or not? Let us know, we're all curious. Myself, I
think any White trying to identify with a New Covenant assigned specifically to Israeli Jews
is as pathetic as Elizabeth Warren trying to identify as an Injun squaw. Maybe you're 1/1024
Jew?
This bit about Christian Zionism is just a distraction from the reality of Jewish power.
When people raise the issue of Jewish control of congress, how convenient to have the
Christian Zionists (7 million? 20 million?) to point to. But they have no real power at all
.Again: On EVERY ISSUE OTHER THAN ISRAEL these voters and their pastors get their butts
kicked. And even on Israel, if they ever push for something the secular Jewish lobby
doesn't like they will get their butts kicked on that too.
Well, I'll admit I haven't actually read the article itself, but I happened to notice this
comment, and certainly agree.
I think the clearest evidence comes from other countries like Britain and France, which
certainly have no sort of significant "Christian Zionist" religious movement these days, but
are nearly as much in thrall to pro-Israel policies as the U.S., and for much the same
reason, namely the existence of a powerful and cohesive (and heavily Jewish) "Israel
Lobby."
@Twodees Partain How do we deal with obviously illogical and even treasonous devotion
to another country, when the majority of Americans have accepted a "hundredfold"
bribe from a Rabbi to forsake their own blood and soil [1], and openly identify as dual
citizens? [2,3,4]
[MORE]
_________
Holy Hook References:
[1] "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an
hundredfold , and shall inherit everlasting life." -Matthew 19:29
[2] "But our Citizenship is in Jewheaven." -Phil. 3:20 (Jewheaven being Jerusalem, Rev.
21:2)
[3] "So now you Goyim are no longer strangers and foreigners; you are Citizens along with
all of Jewgod's holy Jewpeople." -Ephesians 2:19
[4] "I'm actually a Citizen of Israel." Pastor Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church,
Tempe, AZ youtube{.}com/watch?v=NFk2SQfoBio
So Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionist are on the same page up to the point where the
temple is built and after that they aren't on the same page anymore. Then what? Is that when
Christian Zionists take there age old turn to anti-semitism? The hebes will be ready you can
be sure.
@Johnny Smoggins Christians will turn against Jews when the shekels stop coming and their
tummies are empty. Of course Jews know all that and will be ready as they usually are.
@Robjil I have felt for a long time that when the time comes that a bolshevik style
roundup of us goyum starts the christian zionists will be the first victims.
Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy," the article detailed how Pompeo has made
it standard operating procedure to mix his Christian Zionist views with his approach to
foreign policy.
Clearly Pompeo is mixing "church and state" – he is not honoring his Oath of
Office.
Pompeo needs to follow the US Constitution – not shape US actions around the
bible.
@Johnny Walker Read The term Deism was messed up in the French Revolution. Another term
should be used for a religion on based on empathy for all, respect for all, and that deals
with present realities with rationality.
"One observer reported: "After the ceremony [the people] went to their homes with the
tranquility and the propriety of a nation truly free. Today they have rejoiced at the
change of place of the guillotine. I have heard a great number of citizens say: 'With this
change, the sword of the law will lose none of its effect, and we can enjoy a promenade
which will become the finest in Europe'. According to Michelet, other people believed that
the new cult also signalled an end to the executions. But far from signifying [this] it
preceded, by just a few hours, the onset of what has been called the Great Terror. Indeed,
two days after the Festival of the Supreme Being, the Convention voted the Law of 22
Prairial, submitted by Couthon (and generally thought to have been inspired by
Robespierre)."
Christian Zionists, Christians united for Israel – reality creates best jokes ever,
America is already occupied, annected and a protectorate.
All important things are in the hand of 1-2% of a small minority who is over-represented
in media, internet,Hollywood,banks,big business,Wall Street,FED,Supreme Court,NGO's,Lobby
like AIPAC,ADL, lawyers etc.
Even Trump is behaving like a Vice-president, as a self chosen King of Israel etc.
@Anonymous Q: How much did these Christian Zionists get paid?
A: 100x value of their earthly possessions -- but payable only after death. (Quite the
scam, isn't it?) Please see
comment #111 for contractual details.
@Jake Not WW1 but after the great depression. And may not be the WASP elites but the
Jewish elites. The British Empire had put restrictions in trade in between the USA and the
entire Empire after the Great Depression to protect the empire from future such actions with
the support of all the colonies.
[MORE]
" As far as is known "America's" anti-British policy was first given concrete expression
in the brief that General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943. This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America's
export-capitalism after the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What
this meant, in practical terms, was that as soon as the enemies in the field had been
disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be progressively destroyed and that
means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment they were over
the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman's abrupt
dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production
that many markets for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the
East Indies and the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list "
My comment:
What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression, The
British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and USA to protect
the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the wall street pigs.
In Page 22 of the book we read
"However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended
to overplay their hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the "Great
Depression" resulted in a formidable revolt against the Money Power -- the revolt of Adolf
Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much milder kind, in Great Britain and the
British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to hammer out a system
of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St. amok-runs.
These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money
Power and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to
the international financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third
Reich."
My comment:
In other words, the Wall street greedy pigs came to the conclusion that they faced a major
threat from Third Reich Germany (the barter system used by the regime) as well as to a lesser
extent from the British Empire (and other Empires). Hence the war to destroy Third Reich
Germany, Japanese Empire and Italy and then after the war the eventual slow destruction of
the European Empires, especially the British Empire. And hence we suddenly see 'independence
movements' sprouting all over the world and succeeding. Even before the war we had
'independence movements' and 'communist movements' all around the world thanks to their pet
'Soviet Russia's' agents going all around and 'radicalizing the masses', all with the
blessings of Wall Street Banker pigs.
From
The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam
by By Sidney Lens, Howard Zinn
Pages 327 & 328
" For Roosevelt, the "new era" meant a shift from the imperialism of the past, in which
Britain and France ruled great colonial empires, to a softer imperialism, in which the United
States was pre-dominant. He articulated his particular vision of the future on many
occasions. Commenting on the good-neighbour policy in 1940, for instance, FDR defined a new
approach to underdeveloped countries-"give them a share"-while simultaneously expressing the
opinion that it was "a terribly interesting idea" that Britain would have to sell much of its
holding in Latin America to finance its war-holdings of course would end up in the hands of
American entrepreneurs. "We've got to make very clear to the British from the very onset,"
Roosevelt remarked to his son Elliot, "that we don't intend to be simply a good-time Charlie
who can be used to help the British Empire out of a tight spot, and then be forgotten
forever." His bias against the old colonialism was so evident that during an informal
dinner at the Atlantic Conference in August 1941, Churchill pointed as stubby finger at the
American chief executive and exclaimed: "Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away
with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world
demonstrates it."
Yet, Roosevelt's opposition to the old imperial system was not predicated on idealism
but on the practical and materialistic desire to enhance American trade and
investment. As Richrad Hofstadter observes in his American Political Tradition, it "was
not simply altruistic; American commercial interests for instance the vast oil concessions
that had been made . Roosevelt appears to have believed that the ruthless imperialism of the
older colonial powers might be replaced by a liberal and benevolent American penetration that
would be of advantage both to the natives and to American commerce. He believed that British
and German bankers had had world trade pretty well sewn up in their pockets for a long time,'
to the disadvantage of the United States. Arguing that 'equality of people involved the
utmost freedom of competitive trade' he appealed to Churchill to open markets 'for healthy
competition' and dissolve the British Empire trade agreements'. "
@wiggins There are people who still tithe. The "preacher"is driving a Mercedes, and works
2 hours a week for a big salary and free home and they give him 10% of their income.
When you challenge them to help them save their money, they tell you with arrogant
surety that if they tithe, they have more money at the end of the month. They say it's
blessed, i.e magic.
Here is a disgusting article on it. To fall for this con is tragic and catastrophic
stupid.
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel "Divine" revelation always apears to happen in deserts and among people
under extreme physical and mental duress. Fasting for 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness
and then NOT meeting the "devil" would be surprising.
@Anon I agree. I say the Top, not that they deserve to be there. They are at the Top.
They give us tons of evidence of that for the past 70 years with their full control of our
MSM. 24/7 Jewish MSM spouts that Jews never did anything wrong in history and the biggest
wrong ever was done to them in WWII.
Aldous Huxley mentioned that Darwin said the following: Humans are a wild species. Why?
They are led by Top people who are wild, who will always be wild. They keep replacing each
other as they go to the Top. The only way that humans can solve this problem is for the Top
humans to be tamed by an alien species. Huxley and Darwin could not mention who these Top
people are, otherwise, both would never be know by us. Our Jewish Top Rulers would have
crushed them if they did.
Well, no aliens or Jesus is coming soon, for all we know, to tame our Top Jewish Rulers.
The best way to tame them is "Free Speech". This is most frightful thing of all to them.
Notice Jewish MSM's mass hysteria of "Fact Speech", what they call "hate speech". Free speech
is our greatest weapon against our Top Rulers. They know it, so that is the reason for
massive clamping down of websites, books, and anyone who speaks up about them and what they
do to our planet.
@Anon I do know history very well and I am a born again Christian and I have yet to veiw
a true Christian violating scripture. The MIC is a very different story all together.
January 26, 2019 CIA Was Aiding Jihadists Before Soviets Invaded Afghanistan
According to recently declassified documents [1] of the White House, CIA and State
Department as reported by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan
jihadists before the Soviets invaded in 1979.
July 07, 2014 57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple
Syrian Government
BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use
of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government.
@Ron Unz CZ's don't really have any power. They are not major donors and they wield very
little influence.
AIPAC is the elephant in the room.
As mentioned above, our government does nothing to further the interests of the dumb CZ's;
we have abortion, open borders, gay marriage, etc., against the wishes of the goofy CZ's,
while our military does the bidding of a foreign state.
John Hagee is a traitor to the United States because he puts "IZRUHL" first, and so does
Trump.
You have to give the nose credit for having both smarts and balls. Their tiny little crew
has been running the world for the last hundred years, almost without resistance.
Why else would the Russian Generals at the U.N. know the plans of our military before
our commanders did in Vietnam?
Wow I did not know that one. Very interesting.
I have always find it hard to believe that the USA which could defeat the Japanese Empire
would lose out to North Vietnamese. Agreed that the Vietnamese were great fighters, the
shorted thinner Vietnamese could go down small tunnels, knew the terrain better, had some
popular support etc But still .
Similarly I find it hard to believe that the Soviet Army which defeated the Wehrmacht would
lose in Afghanistan. Well I know the Afghans are brave fighters, local support, mountainous
terrain made it hard for mechanized troops etc , but still .
Why else would Hitler pull up short at Dunkirk when he could have annihilated the
retreating British forces?
Didn't Hitler want friendship with Britain. He though his magnanimous gesture will make
the British people realize he is not the monster as portrayed in the British press. He even
sent Rudolf Hess to Britain to find a way to end a war in between the British Empire and the
Third Reich. But of course the British people never reacted positively to these gestures,
they believed their press and radio.
The problem is real wars are fought and real people die, all for the pleasure of these
oligarchs.
Sad but true. International politics is a stage with nations as actors. But for the common
man the suffering is real.
@Anon > their highest-level of Western Neanderthal (non-human
So Africans, who have the least Neanderthal genes of modern humans, are the most human of
all hominids? It's an interesting hypothesis you have there. It does correlate with the fact
that Neanderthals had bigger brains (1410 cm3, 6 cups) than modern humans (1350 cm3, 5.7
cups), and Africans have the smallest (1267 cm3, 5.3 cups.) Although Al Sharpton's is
slightly bigger.
@Johnny Walker Read I have come across this theory of Christianity as a Roman invention.
The reality is most likely to be exactly opposite. Christianity was a Jewish invention to
infect the Roman Empire, a movement on which they lost control but attempted to bring under
control from time to time in history. The ideology eventually infected the Northerners
(Celts, Germanics, Slavs etc ) and spread all the way down to Africa (North Africa,
Ethiopia).
Professor Revilo Oliver (Professor of the Classics; University of Illinois) wrote about this
in his book 'The Origins of Christianity'.
You can read it for free here. http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_NewChrist/toc_ol.htm
Also his 'Reflections on the Christ Myth' http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Reflections.html
From the above:
"The Christ myth is puzzling, an historical problem that is still unsolved. Indeed, if
considered a priori as an historical phenomenon, it is astounding. The Jesus of the composite
legend was a would-be christ, who anticipates the basic doctrine of the Talmud, that Jews are
a unique form of life, vastly superior to all other peoples, who, at best, if totally
submissive to God's People, may aspire to the status of dogs. He boasts that he brings not
peace, but a sword, so he probably wanted to rouse the Jews scattered throughout the world as
well as those in Palestine to start slaughtering the civilized peoples, as did his successors
in the great Jewish Conspiracy of 117. Yet this implacable enemy of the Aryans was
transformed by the Christ myth into a god that Aryans worshipped!"
snip
"Now, if, in the coming century, say by the year 2100, the Jews begin to venerate Hermann
Goering or Alfred Rosenberg or Julius Streicher as their divinely inspired Saviour and
worship him as a Son of God and an incarnation of their Yahweh, that would be astounding,
wouldn't it? Yes, but not more incredible than the transformation of a Jewish christ into a
Saviour of Aryans and a god."
@Isabella Whilst I agree with your sentiment I must point out that beneath the surface of
Brexit are powerful and organised Anti Muslim and Pro Israel actors positioning themselves to
take advantage of what's left of a friendless, broken apart Britain.
See Tommy Robinson and his Jewish backers fomenting anti Islamic sentiment so the Sun
Newspaper doesn't have to keep pushing daily stories about how Sharia Law is upon us and no
go areas are everywhere. I am from Northern England and its a shit hole. A Crime infested,
drug addled rat race through concrete and dog shit. I don't blame Muslims for that. I blame
Lawyers, Bankers and Globalists for they're the ones who encoraged Globalist Economics,
created Israel, who allow immigration from victims of Israeli wars, who let criminals run
free with pathetic sentences and fostered a general sense of lawlessness in all circles.
To blame Muslims is cowardly, shortsighted and rather dumb considering they are natural
allies against Zionism. There are no-go areas in Britain but they're multi ethnic and rarely
Muslim only. I'm not blind to Muslim criminality like BBC and MSM in general. Muslims are
involved in as much crime as anyone else. To single them out is scapegoating them and playing
to Israels benefit.
Britain was left with a shit sandwich by Globalists that have rigged the outcome as
usual.
A) Remain in the EU and be drowned in immigrants, loss of identity, low wages, high crime,
zero punishment leading to the destruction of the Nation State.
B) Leave and join the US decent into madness. Flailing its arms about blindly striking out
at whichever Muslim Country Zionism tells her too until the world erupts in flames leading to
the destruction of the Nation State.
Soft Nexit v Hard Nexit.
We wanted Sovereignty but we are nothing but the US's bitch now and the US is a failure in
every sphere! So strap in and wind down your window because this is going to get very bumpy
and very hot.
Britain should have limped off the Global Stage, secured itself into some kind of
Scandinavian Economic and Social restructuring program. Live to fight another day. Instead
she booked herself an active front row seat in the biggest collapse since Ancient Rome.
@Anthony Aaron All 3 Abrahamic religions are supremacist in nature and completely
mis-leading to the masses.
I finally relinquished my entire Christian background (which was not fundamentalist) because
the entire religion is overly concerned with form and doctrine.
Christian fundamentalists, like the ones in this article, are just as supremacist as the
Jews; both believe they are the "blessed" and the only ones in Gods favor.
Christianity did a bad number on Europeans. Best to let go of it entirely. Jesus's message
was not anything like what the "church" teaches. He discovered the "experience" of God and
tried to teach others without getting himself killed.
Paganism, Pantheism, Taoism, Zen .are much better philosophies to live by. Jesus was
actually more in line with some of those philosophies than anything the Catholics,
Protestants, or Evangelicals prescribe.
"if you can name it, it's not Tao" Tao te Ching
(If you can name what God is, it is not God)
@freedom-cat Christians do not believe in supremacy. Christianity is universal and open
to all of mankind. It's the very rare (and misinformed Christian) that believes in supremacy.
Roman's 11 warns against such pride.
Judaism and Islam are both supremacist religions. The Talmud in particular preaches a
virulent form of supremacism and this is why the western world is in so much trouble today.
If Christians believed they were superior, they wouldn't be getting replaced. If anything,
Christians today believe they are obligated to serve the entire non-white world, thanks to
the brainwashing of marxist jews. Christians in the past might have felt some pride in their
faith but that was destroyed a long time ago.
@freedom-cat > Christianity did a bad number on Europeans.
I agree, and I also think the foreign desert religion was best adapted to European culture
when reading, owning, or distributing the Bible was as strictly forbidden as it was in the
Soviet Union. Once that damned Holy Hook got printed -- and European
society's "Tradition" became secondary to the Jewish authors -- all Heck broke loose.
> Pantheism
Suits me! Classical
(Stoic/Epicurean) naturalistic pantheism is already embedded into the most popular
Western document of all time, the Declaration of Independence, invoking the Laws of Nature
and Nature's God, i.e., "Deus, sive Natura." Sadly, there are few who understood him.
"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." ( T. Jefferson, 1819
)
A religion can't be made up that easy. Christianity was an
underground religion for three hundred years. It spread by the means of Pax Romana, its great
roadworks and its great sea transport system. This is the only time that the Mediterranean
Sea area was so peaceful in all its history. The ZUS never created a Pax Americana anywhere
in the world. The ZUS has only created Pox Americana everywhere. Today it is more obvious
than the cold war era.
In Caesar's Messiah, Atwill argues that Christianity was invented by the Flavian Roman
emperors as a kind of counter-propaganda to prevent the spread of militant Jewish
messianism. The book has a lot of problems, but the most serious flaw with his argument is
that there is documentary evidence that Christianity was already in existence before
Vespasian, the first Flavian emperor, ever came to power. According to Tacitus and
Suetonius, there was a large Christian community already living in Rome during the reign of
Nero, who blamed them for starting the Great Fire of Rome that occurred in 64 AD. Vespasian
didn't become emperor until after Nero's death.
@Malla > Yet this implacable enemy of the Aryans was transformed by the Christ myth
into a god that Aryans worshipped!
You nailed it; that is the key concept. It doesn't matter if it was Romans Jewing the
Romans (Johnny Walker's theory) or Jews Jewing the Romans (your theory), it was quite the
Jewing of Roman society, i.e., a corruption. And the part of Classical Greek/Roman society
most corrupted was Epicureanism. The Jewish authors of the Bible copied and
turned-on-its-head much of Epicurus' teachings, for example
" an Epicurean sage will on occasion will even perform what may be termed the ultimate
act of self-sacrifice; he will die for a friend."
Warren, J. (2004) Facing Death: Epicurus and his Critics. Oxford University Press. pp.
186-187.
But Christianity cheapened the self-sacrifice of laying down one's life for a friend;
Rabbi Jesus had only a bad weekend for our sins. Well halle-fukkin-lujah, I had a
buddy endure more suffering in traction recovering from a rolled-over tractor accident.
Christians do believe they are superior in the fantasy afterlife realm, and that
getting replaced in this life does matter one whit, because it's just another one of those
"cares of this world" they're taught to ignore. If you actually care about your family,
you're definitely not one of Rabbi Jesus' disciples, and he specifically says so in Matthew
19:29 and Luke 14:26.
@Anonymous You're confused about the time of day because you can't calculate sidereal
time. Geesh, kids these days! Humor aside, it looks like you're quite upset discovering
that the "New Covenant" pitch you're shilling comes straight from the Old Testament, Jeremiah
chapter 31. The NT is nothing but warmed-over OT, with some paganism and corrupted Greek
philosophy in the mix. Why settle for stale left-overs from Jewish authors?
@anon Well .you do have a point that Christians are told not to worry too much about this
world because life is temporary. We are just passing through. Actually this is a standard
concept for many of the world's religions.
But Christians do not see themselves as supreme. They see Christ as supreme. But Christ
set the standard for behavior when He washed the Disciples feet, and modeled the sort of
sacrificial mind set that He expected of His followers.
The problem is that some people take it too far, and the term for this is "doormat
Christianity."
The scripture you quote about the family is meant as hyperbole to make people understand
that God comes first. You have to remember that honoring your father and mother is one of the
Ten Commandments.
While it's true that many Christians have turned into pussies, I do not think it's the
fault of the Bible. Doormat Christianity means that people have lost touch with basic common
sense.
This was not always the case, as Christians found the balls to fight muslim invasions, and
Germany tried to fight against communism.
Again, the nose is to blame for the demise of Christendom, and it's fairly obvious if you
take a bit of time to look into it. KMAC says that Christianity was the only cohesive group
strategy that white people had and I think this is correct. That is WHY the nose worked
overtime to destroy Christianity and banish it from the public square. Christianity provided
the social infrastructure for whites to prosper, fostering high trust cultures, solid two
parent families, high investment parenting, etc.
If Christianity wasn't such a powerful force, the nose wouldn't have bothered to wreck
it.
@Jake Those Scots Calvinist followers of Knox were just as insane as the Puritans. They
made " "covenants" with God, just as the OT jews did. They spoke with God (lol) and God spoke
with them. Their one and only God ordered them to genocide the native catholic Irish because
the Catholics were pagan idol worshippers, not wanna be jews
450 years later they are still the heart and soul of the Christian Zionists. And they were
a lot more vicious than any Puritan ever was because of centuries of cattle and sheep
rustling, kidnapping for ransom, extortion of both villages and warlords treason murder for
hire I don't know what the Scots Gaelic term for how they made a living was. Italian term for
how they made a living is mafia.
Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson
CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in
Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future
business that is unlikely to come.
A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker,
completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build subway
cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.
But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on
Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation that
would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States, citing
national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for the
effort.
Washington's attempt to block a Chinese company from selling train cars inside America is
the latest escalation in a trade war that has quickly expanded from a spat over tariffs and
intellectual property to a broader fight over economic and national security.
President Trump and lawmakers from both parties are increasingly anxious about the economic
and technological ambitions of China, which has built cutting-edge global industries, including
those that produce advanced surveillance technology. Those fears have prompted Washington to
take an expansive view of potential risks, moving beyond simply trying to curtail Chinese
imports.
In addition to slapping tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese products, the
administration has banned Chinese companies like Huawei, the telecom giant, from buying
sensitive American technology. It is moving to curb the ability of firms to export technology
like artificial intelligence and quantum computing from the United States to China. And
Congress has given the administration expansive power to block Chinese investment on national
security grounds.
Now lawmakers have added a provision to a military spending bill that would prevent the use
of federal grants to buy subway trains from state-owned or state-controlled companies, a
measure that would effectively block CRRC's business.
The bill has gained bipartisan support from lawmakers who say companies like CRRC pose a
threat to the United States. Part of the concern is economic: Flush with cash from its rapid
growth, China has pumped money into building globally competitive businesses, often creating
overcapacity in markets like steel, solar panels and trains.
That has lowered prices for consumers -- including American taxpayers who pay for subway
cars. While a subway car has not been manufactured solely by an American company in decades,
CRRC's low prices have raised concerns among American freight train companies that the company
could ultimately move into -- and demolish -- their business.
CRRC has consistently underbid its competitors, winning over urban transit agencies that
are saddled with aging infrastructure and tight budgets. For the Chicago L, CRRC's Chicago
subsidiary bid $1.55 million per car, compared with a bid of $1.82 million per car by
Bombardier, the Canadian manufacturer. And CRRC also proposed to build the Chicago facility and
create 170 new jobs.
Legislators argue that Chinese state-owned companies are not pursuing profit, but the policy
aims of the Chinese government to dominate key global industries like electric cars, robotics
and rail.
"When you can subsidize, when you can wholly own an enterprise like China does, you can
create a wholly unlevel playing field," said Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is
a co-sponsor of the legislation. "We're used to that unlevel playing field existing between the
U.S. and China, but now it's happening in our own backyard."
Another more nefarious worry is also at play. Lawmakers -- along with CRRC's competitors --
say they are concerned that subway cars made by a Chinese company might make it easier for
Beijing to spy on Americans and could pose a sabotage threat to American infrastructure, though
CRRC says it surrenders control of all technology in the cars to its buyers. Nonetheless,
critics speculate that the Chinese firm could incorporate technology into the cars that would
allow CRRC -- and the Chinese government -- to track the faces, movement, conversations or
phone calls of passengers through the train's cameras or Wi-Fi.
Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents
manufacturers and the United Steelworkers, said the risks of giving a Chinese company the
ability to monitor or control American infrastructure could not be understated given recent
laws requiring Chinese companies to turn over data to Beijing upon request.
"I just think it would be irresponsible to assume the Chinese government to which this firm
must answer would be a reliable security partner, given its well documented track record," Mr.
Paul said.
Whether those fears are justified remains uncertain. Proponents of the bill have not made
clear how subway cars manufactured by a Chinese company would pose a greater espionage threat
than everything else that China makes and sells in the United States, including laptops, phones
and home appliances.
Dave Smolensky, a spokesman for CRRC, said the company was being unfairly targeted by
companies that wanted to legislate a competitor out of business under the guise of national
security. He said the firm was a victim to "an aggressive multimillion-dollar media
disinformation campaign," funded mostly by domestic freight train companies, intended to play
on popular fears about China's rise.
Employees at the Chicago factory also dismissed the concerns, saying they had not seen any
evidence that they were working to construct "spy trains."
"I haven't seen any secret wires yet," said Perry Nobles, an electrician for CRRC who was
rigging wires in the interior of the trains. "With the world full of cellphones and computers,
I'd think there's an easier way to get information."
Rising fears of China's ambitions in Washington have prompted officials to adopt an
unsparing view, with policymakers and national security officials warning domestic and foreign
governments not to trust Chinese equipment.
American officials have waged a global offensive against Huawei, telling other countries
that allowing a Chinese company to build the world's next generation of wireless networks would
be akin to handing national secrets to a foreign agent.
Like CRRC, the fear surrounding Huawei is largely based on concerns about technological
dominance by China's authoritarian government. No one has yet disclosed finding a backdoor in
Huawei's products that would allow it to snoop -- but officials say by the time one is
discovered, it may be too late.
"The Chinese are working to put their systems in networks all across the world so they can
steal your information and my information," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview
in May. "This administration is prepared to take this on."
As Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, introduced the provision in March, he said,
"China poses a clear and present danger to our national security and has already infiltrated
our rail and bus manufacturing industries."
Representative Kevin McCarthy, a Republican whose California district is home to a Chinese
bus maker, BYD, had opposed a version of the provision that would apply to buses as well as
trains. House lawmakers dropped the bus provision, but the Senate bill would apply to both.
Congress will take the issue up again in the coming weeks as part of the annual defense
bill.
The legislation would not affect the thousands of American subway cars that CRRC previously
won contracts to build, including an 846-car order for the Chicago L. But it would block the
company from future contracts, such as those under consideration by the Chicago Metra and the
Washington Metro.
The Chicago facility is the company's second in the United States. A factory in
Massachusetts that employs more than 150 people is already building trains for Boston, Los
Angeles and Philadelphia, prompting concerns that the company plans to expand rapidly in the
United States as it has in other foreign markets.
Like many Chinese state enterprises, CRRC is guided by Beijing's Made in China 2025 plan,
which lays out an agenda to dominate key industries.
In its 2018 annual report, Liu Hualong, the company's chairman and party secretary, pledged
to pursue the dual goals of "Party construction as well as developing into a world-leading
company with global competitiveness."
"We conscientiously followed the important instructions of General Secretary Xi Jinping,"
the report said, referring to the Chinese president and Communist Party leader.
The last American firm to make passenger rail cars, the Pullman Company, produced its final
car in 1981. Since then, major American cities have bought subway cars from Bombardier and
Japanese manufacturers like Kawasaki, Hyundai and Hitachi.
But American manufacturers of freight rail cars, including the Greenbrier Companies and
TrinityRail, which is based in Mr. Cornyn's home state of Texas, say CRRC could use its footing
in the United States to steal its business. Together with unions and others, they have mounted
a lobbying campaign against CRRC under an umbrella group known as the Rail Security
Alliance.
The group says American taxpayer dollars should not be spent in China, where the empty rail
cars are made before being shipped to the United States for further work at the company's
facilities in Illinois or Massachusetts.
"We think those dollars should stay here," said Erik Olson, the vice president of the Rail
Security Alliance.
CRRC sends over experts from its giant headquarters in Qingdao, China, to plants in other
countries. In Chicago, the American employees call these Chinese citizens "shifu," a polite
term for a skilled worker meaning "master" or "teacher."
On a sunny day in July, the company break room was split between shifus, wearing white
jumpsuits and eating stuffed buns, and American workers, many of whom had joined the company in
the last few months. The gleaming concrete factory floor was bare, save for a few dozen people
installing wiring, air ducts and other components into the empty shells of two rail cars.
"We are a little concerned because it's our livelihood," said Mr. Nobles, who was hired in
March from a previous factory job making frames for the Ford Explorer.
This summer, CRRC replaced the Chinese flag outside the factory with a Chicago flag. It has
also retained two Washington lobbying firms, Squire Patton Boggs and Crossroads Strategies, to
plead its case in Congress.
It may be too late. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he helped sponsor the bill
to prevent the American transit system from being "controlled by a foreign country that is not
particularly friendly to us."
"They spell out in black and white they're going to use foreign investment as a weapon, and
we're taking action to defend ourselves," Mr. Brown said.
See Women's
rights in Iran - Wikipedia . Iran ranked 116 out of the 153 countries in terms of legal
discrimination against women. 90% of women in Iran use cellphones and have "access to financial
accounts" in Iran. In other South Asian regions, "less than 2 in 5" have this access, and a
similar high share of women using cellphones
Under Reza Shah women were banned the wearing of the Islamic hijab in public. It was announced that in the
beginning of 2018, women would no longer be arrested for wearing 'bad hijab' in public. In
August 2019, Iranian civil rights activist Saba Kord Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind
bars, including a 15-year term for taking off her hijab in public, which Iranian authorities
say promoted "corruption and prostitution." [30][31]
Theocratic of neo-theocratic states do not last long. So Gilad Atzmon is probably right. The writing for theocratic Israel
might well be on the wall, much like it was for the USSR. At some point the majority of population just became sick
and tied of the theocratic elite and stops believing the official propaganda. .
Trump strong connecting and deference to Zionists means that he will lose certain strata of voters that previously voted for
him. Will money form Zionist billionaire donors outweigh this factor is difficult to say.
This conflict at the heart of Israeli politics is a window into the Jewish state and its
fears. Israel is rapidly becoming an Orthodox Jewish state. Israel's Orthodox Jews are the
fastest growing group in the country. They are also the country's poorest population,
45 percent live below the poverty line in segregated communities. Ordinarily, one would
expect the poor to support the left, but Israeli Torah Jews are rabid nationalists and openly
lend their support to Benjamin Netanyahu and his party.
Prof. Dan
Ben-David of Tel Aviv University warned recently that Israel could cease to exist in a
couple of generations. He pointed to the astonishingly high birth rate among ultra Orthodox
Jews and predicted that, based on current trends, they will comprise 49% of Israel's population
by 2065. The ultra Orthodox parties are destined to dominate the Knesset within a generation or
less. Ben David predicts that their dependence on Israel's welfare system will lead to a rapid
decline is Israel's economy. This is economically damaging enough and is made worse by the
refusal of most rabbinical schools to incorporate standard Western subjects such as
mathematics, science and English into their core curriculum. Consequently, Israel is educating
a growing percentage of its population in a fashion that fails to equip them to contribute to
the needs of a hi-tech society that is immersed in a conflict for survival.
The picture that comes across is peculiar. As Israel becomes increasingly Jewish and
fundamentalist in its nationalist and religious ethos, it has also become more divided on
everything else. The Russian immigrants find it impossible to live alongside the ultra Orthodox
and vice versa. The secular enclave in Tel Aviv is committed to seeing their metropolis as an
extension of NY.
The Israeli Left has morphed into an LGBT hasbara unit. It has practically removed itself
from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Jewish settlers adhere to the concept of a 'Two Jewish
States Solution.' They want to see the West Bank become a Jewish land. Orthodox Jews are barely
concerned with any of these political issues. They well know that the future of the Jewish
state belongs to them. All they need to do is sustain a productive secular Jewish minority to
serve as their milk cow. On top of all of that we face Bibi's survival wars that threaten to
escalate any minute into a world conflict.
This is why I'm more optimistic the more Trump embraces Israel. He seems to have clearly
decided not to get caught in Syria and so has to keep them off his back in some other way,
moving the embassy and presumably giving Netanyahu the greenlight for annexation of more of
the West Bank is a good thing.
It means Israel incorporates more and more Palestinians that it can't disengage from by
keeping within it's existing borders and it means damaging the bi-partisan consensus with
Trump's polarising association.
Everything Netanyahu does is just pulling back the sinews for the final reckoning. Instead
of staying within reasonable borders and seeking a reconciliation with neighbours, Israel
just gets more demanding, more unreasonable, breaks more promises and makes itself impossible
to negotiate with and runs headlong into more and more Palestinian citizens.
What's unfortunate is that Europe and the US will be forced to put up with the millions of
vagrant Sabras when it all goes kaput. Instead of becoming less anti-social, the Sabra became
a magnificent compilation of every annoying and anti-social habit of the nations. Israelis
make Sicilians look like Swedes.
@Altai I agree Altai .
at the end of the day this entire mess will fall on Europe and The USA but if I read the map
correctly the tolerance and empathy to the primacy of Jewish suffering is running out..the
situation is getting complicated
@Altai I agree Altai .
at the end of the day this entire mess will fall on Europe and The USA but if I read the map
correctly the tolerance and empathy to the primacy of Jewish suffering is running out..the
situation is getting complicated
@Robert Dolan
Absolutely correct. If not for the US and it's Jewish Controlled Congress that never met a
money bill for the Magic Jews Israel would be under water already. Our infrastructure is
collapsing but we continue to find money for Israel no matter that we have cities with
thousands of homeless people with the threat of disease and Middle Age plagues on our door
step. Orthodox Jews are like Muslims in many ways because they love the "Welfare State" and
they stay on it forever. Sections of New York are saturated with these Orthodox Welfare Jews
and idiots like DeBlasio caters to them.
There is now a backlash by both blacks who hate them and want to kill them for their
business practices in real estate and upper middle class residents that refuse to allow them
to build their so called "Jewish Orthodox Communes" and take over the areas.
Israel may have overplayed their hand but that doesn't mean they will just disappear. They
are sick enough to take mankind with them with their eternal wars. Hopefully Netanyahu is
crazy enough to start a conflict with Iran who will bomb the shit out of them and then
Hezabollah will destroy the wimp military the IDF.
We can only hope and perhaps mankind will have a chance .
It is more accurate to call them Talmudists. They are not "Jews". Jew is a recent
abbreviation of Judean. The Ashkenazi came from Asia. They don't follow the Old Testament.
They follow the Talmud, which is Maciavellian to the core. Pure evil. Since God made the man
Jesus to be Lord, eventually, their works will be judged, they are headed for destruction
morally, you reap what you sew. Israel is the most anti-Semitic country on earth. Which makes
them hypocrites. The Arabs and Palestinians are a Semitic people and no one hates and kills
them more that Israel.
@Colin Wright As you
may know Zionism was born as a reaction to antisemitsm and this fact alone suggests that
people including Jews were aware of the problem before Israel was formed
I don't want to ruin the party but as far as I can tell Israel is not the problem it is
just a symptom of the problem peculiarly, Israel was born to fix the problem
Interesting point of view, actually, one of the most profound things I have ever read. If
this is their calling, and I too somehow believe it is, they need to turn around, because
they are kind of falling down on the job. So I look forward to that great day of turning.
However, when they call you names, anti-Semite, self-hating Jew, or whatever else they might
dig up, they greatly err, because you are a watchman on the wall.
@Saggy Gilad has
expressed his views on this topic many, many times. The early Zionists desired a Jewish State
to make Jews human. By this, I mean that they were well aware of the Jewish Question and the
repeated bad behavior of Jews in host societies, both Muslim and Christian. They were
conscious of the economic role of powerful Jews, particularly with their usurious financial
practices, but also as tax collectors and enforcers for the aristocracy. This, along with
their tilted ethnocentric business practices, favoring their own while fleecing the goyim,
invariably led to their control of what were traditionally local businesses, creating a
growing resentment in local societies that reached critical mass. What followed were pogroms
and expulsion. This occurred in both Muslim and Christian lands, but were especially
pronouncrd in Christian Europe, which took more aggressive protective actions to shield
itself.
The early Zionists wanted to be the midwives of a Jewish State that would solve the JQ by
making a nation of Jews, in which Jews carried out all of the work, took all the jobs, from
garbage collecting to farming, from street cleaner to bank president. They wanted to stop the
pogroms and expulsions, but at the same time they were keenly aware that these were effects
of Jewish behavior and actions, not senseless anti-Semitism of the goyim. So, yes Israel was
conceived and born to solve the problem.
As you may know Zionism was born as a reaction to antisemitsm and this fact alone
suggests that people including Jews were aware of the problem before Israel was formed
Was it? Or was antisemitism the solution by the jewish leadership to the dissolution of
their community in modern arreligious society? Was antisemitism the virtual ghetto wall?
Tell the people within that those outside want to kill them, at the same time having a small
faction of very cunning Jews who go outside and produce trouble that then by necessity falls
back on the whole community?
I find it quite astonishing when I read how privileged certain Jews were in European
states, compared to what was the norm for regular Christian folks.
And indeed, also Christians were butchered, expelled etc in more religious times.
I have heard you say this before and remain surprised that you seem to believe this. The
whole " people like any other people" hasbara may have been a sales approach tailored to a
particular audience at some point, but any sincerity behind it has been demonstrably beside
the point. Israel has been a projection of raw power from the start.
@niteranger Are you
sure => "we continue to find money for Israel" <=unless you are among the elected 527
that run the USA you probably are not included in the WE.. did you vote (either yes or no) to
send money to Israel?
Three votes (one to select a person to fill one of (1/425) jobs in the house of
representatives, and 1 vote to select each of 2 persons to fill two senate jobs (2/100) does
not make most Americans into deciding members of the USA. Not only that, at election time,
American votes for President or VP do not count, because the electoral college vote decides
who shall be President or vice President? So why do the candidates spend billions on the
presidential elections?
350,000,000 Americans are governed by 527 salaried persons, who are elected to work at the
USA.
Israel is a product of the bankers and their corporations; it began in earnest in 1897 in
Switzerland.
The great success of Zionism (not racially or religiously connected) has been its
networking ability. It can identify and intercept opposing forces, transport resources($, and
people) in invisible ways, to/from multi many places, to focus on and to support a target
project (local, regional, national or international) . The network that facilitates this
"always win intention" works like a newspaper on one side, keeping all elements informed, and
on the other side, like a powerful, but invisible government; seeking or willing to invade,
protect or promote a place, project or person on the other side.
The network can concentrate fire power, vote power, impose political pressure, control the
media, and develop the means to take advantage of, or put down, situation or opportunity or
it can protect a friend in need. In a few days, a local situation or a massive opportunity
can be "crowd funded" or "petition protected" via the network. For hypothetical example, say
the NYT comes up for sale, in a short while a person with meager credit, tenders a
multi-billion dollar offer backed with financing sufficient to acquire the opportunity? So
how did the credit come to make this possible?
Its not Israel per se..that the USA congress supports: its the banking establishments and
their powerful multi nation corporations, seeking to control the middle east, seeking to use
"in the course of commerce" as their excuse for invisible weapon, mind control, and spy
technology development. Its Economic Zionism that explains the foreign nation state support
for Israel. IMO except for the propaganda value, race or religion has little to do with
it.
@Gilad Atzmon Why not
infuse Israel with the tons of fanatical leftist(godless) Jews we have in Germany and Europe?
They could counter the orthodox leeching by providing work force, and could additionally work
their bottoms off on "racism", transform settlements in gay discos and do all the other
professional complaints they make in Europe, like open borders.
The Jews in Europe are always scared, if Netanyahu calls them to Israel due to
"anti-semitism". If a non Jew says something similar, its evil and "anti-semitic" of course.
It is quite interesting to note, that Israel develops in a theocracy(always has been in my
view), while the Jews outside Israel seek to disprove/kill god and are in rebellion against
god, nature, more or less play god.
@FvS"It is the
patriotic duty of all American Jews to relocate to Israel and help their nation thrive.
Remember the holocaust. Also, democracy is garbage."
You could be an American patriot who doesn't want to pay 3.8 billion per year.
@Gilad Atzmon The issue
is that regular Europeans have diminishing rates of sympathy for Jews and the only reason
European politics don't trash Israel is largely vassalage to America and not having an
independent foreign policy.
With Americans ruining their relations with everyone, this will most likely change since
there's no real reason for Europeans to source military equipment from outside the EU, have
sanctions on Iran or Russia instead of backing their infrastructure projects, not back China
in the Pacific if it offers a better deal etc.
Essentially, Jews will be America's problem and rightfully so considering right wing
Americans can't seem to stop sucking Jewish dick.
@A123 The only
realistic plan would probably involve Israel not violating the fourth Geneva convention
anymore which would mean the Jewish settlements on territories outside the pre-1967 borders
will cease to exist as Jewish in any way.
Once you reject international law, you can't appeal to it anymore, but you must be Jewish
if you think you can pick and choose what suits you. Lol
The loonie Avi Lieberman is salivating at the thought being Israeli PM, and the loonie
Nuttyahoo is salivating at the thought of staying PM and using that power to keep his sorry
ass out of prison.
Presented with those two choices is like a robber asking its victim, "Do you want to be
stabbed with a knife or shot with a gun?"
@Robert Dolan America
will never be shed of this parasite until the fundamentalist Christian Zionist/NeoCons are
swept from power. They are every bit as insane as the radicalized Muslims. You tell me which
country this clown truly servers!!
Few goyim will make the leap to figure out the modern implications of the Moses
mythology.
You should discuss that with @ Dennis Gannon, who
appears to be tangled in a ball of misunderstanding or ignorance, especially of Machiavelli,
evident when he wrote:
The Ashkenazi came from Asia. They don't follow the Old Testament. They follow the
Talmud, which is Maciavellian to the core. Pure evil.
Crack open The Prince: Machiavelli "figured out the modern implications of the
Moses mythology." Of three candidates Machiavelli considered, he selected Moses as the model
Prince. Certain "evil" behavior that became necessary to save his beloved city, Florence, and
make it a Republic of and for the people of Florence, was acceptable, inasmuch as Moses,
whose chief counselor was god himself, used whatever means necessary to achieve the wellbeing
of the conquerors of Canaan.
If only the people of the USA had a Prince as evil, and as dedicated to the
wellbeing of the American people, as Machiavelli was to Florence.
@Brewer "Zionism was
born as a reaction to antisemitism." Gilad is correct, but I believe that implicit in his
statement is the understanding that the "antisemitism" is reactionary: it is born out of the
anti gentile behavior and actions of Jews in gentile host societies. Gilad, please correct me
if I've misrepresented you.
Israel is a terrorist state ran by terrorists for terrorists and its goal is to destroy the
mideast for its greater Israel agenda and with the help of the zionist controlled zio/US
government and the American taxpayers funding of these wars and providing the military muscle
the zionists are now their way to armageddon!
Israel is not an ally of the United States of America.
Israel is a client-state millstone of the American Empire that uses diasporan Jews such as
Shelly Adelson to buy off politicians such as President Trump.
Andrew Jackson and George Washington would immediately sever all ties to Israel and they
would make sure that diasporan Jews that put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the
interests of the USA were strongly encouraged to permanently leave the USA. Those Jews who
put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the interests of the USA should be disallowed
from gaining entry into any other European Christian nation such as Canada, Australia,
Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain etc.
It would also be a no-go Blavatsky for these diasporan Jews who put the interests of
Israel ahead of the interests of the USA to go to South America or Asia or anywhere else.
Israel must be made into a receptacle that will contain and constrain the ability of
diasporan Jews and Israeli Jews from interfering in the governmental affairs of any other
nation.
One of the reasons I will not vote for Trump and the Republican Party is that Trump and
the Republicans put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the interests of the United
States of America.
Trump seems to get the fact that the American Empire is a completely and totally separate
entity from the United States of America. Trump seems to understand that resistance to Shelly
Adelson's demands about foreign policy decisions regarding Israel is the best way to show
patriotism to the USA.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the
safety, security and sovereignty of the United States of America
Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the
USA.
Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to President
Trump and the Republican Party over the years.
What has all that loot bought for diasporan Jew Adelson?
Is Adelson buying the foreign policy of the USA?
How come that dumb boob Chris Christie
used the word "occupied" in front of Adelson when Christie was trying to pry some loot out of
Adelson's checkbook? DUMMY!
The ruling class in Israel wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars
on behalf of Israel.
The ADL puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States of
America.
The ADL is an evil and immoral JEW PRESSURE GROUP that pushes mass legal immigration and
mass illegal immigration and REFUGEE OVERLOAD and ASYLUM SEEKER INUNDATION and multicultural
mayhem and all manner of other anti-White crud.
@Charles Pewitt Agree,
the zionists have controlled the American people since 1913 when they fastened their
privately owned central bank aka the FED and IRS on to the American people and then came the
foreign wars and debt and total control of the American people by the zionists and their
banking kabal.
Nathan Rothschild infamously said; I care not what puppet is place on the throne of
England for the man who controls the money supply controls the British Empire, and I am that
man!
The same holds true here in the zio/US the zionists have control of the money supply via
the FED and we are slaves on the zionist plantation aka America, and a central bank and the
income tax are 2 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, and zionism = communism!
So the Orthodox will turn Israel into a big shtetl within the span of next fifty years with
the financial help of the "secular" Jews in the West and then they would want to do away with
the LGBTQ crowd out of Tel Aviv you reap what you sow!
According to the great military thinker, Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, 'the object of war is not
victory. It is to achieve political goals.'
Too bad President Donald Trump does not read books. He has started economic wars against
China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela without any clear strategic objective beyond inflating
his ego as the world's premier warlord and punishing them for disobedience.
Trump's wars are economic. They deploy the huge economic and financial might of the United
States to steamroll other nations that fail to comply with orders from Washington. Washington's
motto is 'obey me or else!' Economic wars are not bloodless. Imperial Germany and the Central
Powers were starved into surrender in 1918 by a crushing British naval blockade.
Trade sanctions are not making America great, as Trump claims. They are making America
detested around the globe as a crude bully. Trump's efforts to undermine the European Union and
intimidate Canada add to this ugly, brutal image.
Worse, Trump's tariff war against China has damaged the economy of both nations, the world's
leading economic powers, and raised tensions in Asia. The world is facing recession in large
part due to Trump's ill-advised wars. All to prove Trump's power and glory.
Trump and his advisors are right about China's often questionable trade practices. I did 15
years of business in China and saw a kaleidoscope of chicanery, double-dealing, and corruption.
A favorite Chinese trick was to leave imports baking in the sun on the docks, or long delaying
them by 'losing' paperwork.
I saw every kind of craziness in the Wild East Chinese market. But remember that it's a
'new' market in which western-style capitalism is only one generation old. Besides, China
learned many of its fishy trade practices from France, that mother of mercantilism.
China indeed steals technical and military information on a mass scale. But so does the US,
whose spy agencies suck up information across the world. America's claims to be a victim are
pretty rich.
What Trump & Co don't understand is that China was allowed into America's Greater Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere by the clever President Nixon to bring it under US influence – just
as Japan and South Korea were in the 1950's. China's trade surplus with the US is its dividend
for playing by Washington's rules. If China's trade bonus is stripped away, so will China's
half-hearted acceptance of US policies. Military tensions will rise sharply.
In China's view, the US is repeating what Great Britain did in the 19th century by declaring
war to force opium grown in British-ruled Burma onto China's increasingly addicted people.
Today the trade crop is soya beans and wretched pigs.
Trump's ultimate objective, as China clearly knows, is to whip up a world crisis over trade,
then dramatically end it – of course, before next year's elections. Trump has become a
master dictator of US financial markets, rising or lowering them by surprise tweets. No
president should ever have such power, but Trump has seized it.
There is no telling how much money his minions have made in short or long selling on the
stock market thanks to insider information. America's trillion dollar markets have come to
depend on how Trump feels when he wakes up in the morning and watches Fox news, the Mother of
Misinformation.
It staggers the imagination to believe that Trump and his minions actually believe that they
can intimidate China into bending the knee. China withstood mass devastation and at least 14
million deaths in World War II in order to fight off Japanese domination. Does the White House
really think Beijing will cave in over soya beans and semi-conductors in a daft war directed by
a former beauty contest and casino operator? China's new emperor, Xi Jinping, is highly
unlikely to lose face in a trade war with the US. Dictators cannot afford to retreat. Xi can
wait it out until more balanced minds again occupy the White House.
Trade wars rarely produce any benefits for either side. They are the equivalent of sending
tens of thousands of soldiers to be mowed down by machine guns on the blood-soaked Somme
battlefield in WWI. Glory for the stupid generals; death and misery for the common soldiers
This fool's war of big egos will inevitably end in a face-saving compromise between
Washington and Beijing. Get on with it.
"... The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks. ..."
"... "The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage". ..."
"... A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy. ..."
"... This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ). ..."
There is consensus amongst the Washington foreign policy élite that all factions in
Iran understand that – ultimately – a deal with Washington on the nuclear issue
must ensue. It somehow is inevitable. They view Iran simply as 'playing out the clock', until
the advent of a new Administration makes a 'deal' possible again. And then Iran surely will be
back at the table, they affirm.
Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in
'deals' with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics
(from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt
at Iran's economic strangulation). They are
quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.
The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism,
but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out',
it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is
running down, and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage that the 'sea is
always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines,
whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US
Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.
And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the
hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US
has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured
forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President).
But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path
opening out. Trump is in a 'China bind': a trade deal with China now looks "tough to
improbable", according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating
environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:
"It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended
or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce
halved the number of
licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering
projects.
"[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move
towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing
convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership,
policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand
the aftershocks.
"The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing
consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This
expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential
threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its
citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage".
Trump's China 'bind' is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White
House as a major tool for 'goosing' the US stock market upwards, during the crucial
pre-election period. But as that is now said to be "tough to improbable" – and as US
national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs,
is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump's prime political asset:
the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University
survey last week
found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting
worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say
the president's policies are hurting the economy.
This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in
respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to
an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with
Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China
'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ).
No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing 'war' in the
Middle East, sparked by Israel's simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut,
and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want
this 'war', at least not now. America, as Defense One
noted , is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from
"sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy".
The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif's sudden summons to
Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears
within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at
the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu's anti-Iran,
political 'identity' . The fear was that Trump could begin a 'bromance' with the Iranian
President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some
Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran's
leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode
subsided.
Trump's Iran 'bind' therefore is somehow similar to his China 'bind': With China, he
initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be 'anything but'. With Iran,
Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new 'deal'
(much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so
vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even
aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).
Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won't do this, and he is peeved by the snub.
Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.
Well, maybe the Iranians just don't want to do it. Firstly, they don't need to: the Iranian
Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has
steadied. China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country's oil imports
data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2
May, but rather, it has
steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up
from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.
And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing
where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred
billion (according to
one report ), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) 'Road and Belt'
transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike
America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to
fathom out the Iranians, too.
But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed
"a new normal" now
taking a hold in Washington:
"To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to
ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks Unlike the President's trade
war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely
bipartisan, and likely here to stay.
with many of the president's top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national
security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it's poised to affect huge parts of
American life, from the cost of many consumer goods to the nature of this country's
relationship with the government of Taiwan.
"Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he
gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that
go well beyond trade."
"The angrier he gets with Beijing" Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have
lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed
book', let alone a 'Byzantine' Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in
Washington; a loss of conscious 'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows
no empathy, no outreach, to 'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have
retreated into their 'niche' consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from
having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.
To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and
technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme
Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a 'toolkit' in which the US
intends to be global leader.
This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not
so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is
this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn't understand it; he
hasn't the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn't want to bomb it. And the China
'bind' is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
Your tariffs are 10-25 percent, that means the great workers in the U.S. are paying the
bill.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
"China is eating the Tariffs." Billions pouring into USA. Targeted Patriot Farmers getting
massive Dollars from the incoming Tariffs! Good Jobs Numbers, No Inflation (Fed). China having
worst year in decades. Talks happening, good for all!
When President Donald Trump wants to convey that something is a big deal, he often reaches
for the same big number: 10,000.
He says it's the number of points the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be up had the
Federal Reserve not raised interest rates. It's the number of people attending his rallies --
or the number forced to wait outside because they couldn't get in.
It's also the number of jobs a company plans to create, the headcount of captured Islamic
State fighters, the number of migrants in a caravan headed to the U.S., and the Allied casualty
count on D-Day.
Sometimes the number is accurate. Other times, it's a wild guess -- or wildly wrong.
Trump on Wednesday predicted the Dow would be up -- another 10,000 points -- if he hadn't
embarked on a trade war with China.
"If I wanted to do nothing with China, my stock market -- our stock market -- would be
10,000 points higher than it is right now," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
That would be a dramatic rise. With the Dow closing at 26,728 on Thursday, another 10,000
points would represent a 37% increase.
Memorable Number
From a marketing standpoint, there's a great reason to use 10,000: It's memorable.
"He uses this round number in particular because it seems big," said Jonah Berger, marketing
professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, which Trump often boasts of
attending.
"He wants to convey something is a big problem, or something would be quite different, so he
uses a big round number to try and sway his audience," said Berger, author of "Contagious: Why
Things Catch On."
Trump has used the number since his 2016 campaign -- in speeches, remarks to reporters and
one-on-one interviews -- but it could take on new significance as he seeks to burnish his
record with the approach of the 2020 election.
The president has repeatedly sought to use 10,000 to his political advantage, even when it
doesn't neatly match reality.
'Horrible People'
For instance, he said in January that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last year
removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members whom he described as "horrible people." (The
agency actually reported arresting that number but removing 5,872 known or suspected gang
members in fiscal year 2018.)
The White House declined to comment on Trump's use of 10,000.
The president has other verbal habits. He has often cited self-imposed two week deadlines
for major announcements.
While Trump is often faulted by fact-checkers for making false statements, his spokeswoman
has said journalists take the president's words too literally.
"I think the president communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren't
necessarily comfortable with," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told the
Washington Post in a recent interview. "A lot of times they take him so literally. I know
people will roll their eyes if I say he was just kidding or was speaking in hypotheticals, but
sometimes he is."
'Truthful Hyperbole'
Trump defended his use of what he called "truthful hyperbole" in his 1987 book "The Art of
the Deal," calling it an "innocent form of exaggeration."
"People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those
who do," Trump wrote. "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest
and the most spectacular."
Wittingly or not, Trump has taken to a number that comes up often in history, religion and
culture.
The army of the Ten Thousand marched against Artaxerxes II of Persia. During the conquest of
Mecca, Muhammad was said to have 10,000 soldiers. The King James Bible has dozens of references
to 10,000. Minnesota's nickname is the Land of 10,000 Lakes. A television game show called "The
$10,000 Pyramid" debuted in the U.S. in the early 1970s.
But Trump's references typically are rooted in current affairs.
The president used the number in July to talk about attendance at a North Carolina rally
where his supporters chanted "Send her back!" after he invoked the name of Representative Ilhan
Omar, a Minnesota Democrat.
"We had thousands and thousands of people that wanted to come, and we said, 'Please don't
come,'" Trump said. "It held 10,000 people. It was packed. We could've sold that arena 10
times."
Authorities said 8,000 people got into the arena in Greenville, filling it to capacity,
according to WITN-TV in North Carolina. About 2,000 were denied entry and between 750 and 1,000
were in an overflow area, the station said, citing police estimates.
Booing Ryan
In July, Trump used the number to attack former House Speaker Paul Ryan after the Wisconsin
Republican was quoted in a book saying the president doesn't know how government works.
"I remember a day in Wisconsin -- a state that I won -- where I stood up and made a speech,
and then I introduced him and they booed him off the stage -- 10,000 people," Trump told
reporters at the White House.
The president appeared to be referring to a December 2016 post-election rally in West Allis,
Wisconsin, where he publicly thanked Ryan, who was in the crowd. Audible, but not deafening,
boos were heard as Trump tried to quiet his supporters by telling them that Ryan had improved
"like a fine wine."
Then there's job creation -- a Cameron LNG liquefied natural gas export facility in
Louisiana or an Intel Corp. semiconductor plant in Arizona.
In separate statements, Trump said they'd each create 10,000 jobs.
Bringing Credibility
Whether Trump's use of the number is accurate or not, the specificity can bring credibility
to the president's claims, said Manoj Thomas, a behavioral scientist and marketing professor at
Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business.
"Using a number to quantify a claim -- even implausible numbers -- makes it more credible
because numbers are concrete," Thomas said. "Claims without any numbers, for example, 'The Dow
would be much higher if not for the trade war,' are more difficult for the human mind to
instinctively process because the information is abstract and lacks specificity."
Trump could add even more credibility to his claim by making the number even more specific,
Thomas said.
For instance, Thomas suggested: "The Dow would be 4,600 points higher if not for the trade
war."
Markets Soar on News of China Talks, but Hopes
for Progress Are Low https://nyti.ms/2LrdVwH
NYT - Ana Swanson and Matt Phillips - September 5
WASHINGTON -- President Trump's decision to renew talks with China in the coming weeks
sent financial markets soaring on Thursday, as investors seized on the development as a sign
that both sides could still find a way out of an economically damaging trade war.
The rally sent the S&P 500 up more than 1 percent, underscoring just how much
financial markets are subsisting on hopes and fears about the trade war. Shares fell through
most of August, as Mr. Trump escalated his fight with China and imposed more tariffs, only to
snap back on Thursday after news of the talks.
But expectations for progress remain low, and many in the United States and China see the
best outcome as a continued stalemate that would prevent a collapse in relations before the
2020 election. Both Mr. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China are under pressure from
domestic audiences to stand tough, and the talks will happen after Mr. Trump's next round of
punishing tariffs take effect on Oct. 1.
"Continuing to talk soothes markets a little bit," said Eswar Prasad, the former head of
the China division at the International Monetary Fund. "But the political cost to making
major concessions is, I think, too high for either side."
The skepticism stems in part from what is emerging as a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump,
for whom China is both a source of leverage and a potential vulnerability heading into an
election year. The president has so far imposed tariffs on more than $350 billion worth of
Chinese goods and routinely shifts from blasting China and threatening additional punishment
to trying to calm the waters in the face of jittery markets and negative economic news.
Over two weeks, Mr. Trump has called Mr. Xi an enemy of America, ordered companies to stop
doing business in China and suggested the United States was in no rush to reach a trade deal.
On Sunday, he moved ahead with his threat to eventually tax every golf club, shoe and
computer China sends into the United States, placing tariffs on another $112 billion of
Chinese goods.
Stock investors have zeroed in on the threat the trade war poses to the economy, buying
and selling in tandem with Mr. Trump's trade whims. Thursday's rally was the fifth positive
performance for the market in the past six sessions. It brought the S&P 500 to within
striking distance -- less than 2 percent -- of its high of 3025.86, reached on July 26.
The coming weeks could result in more of the same, analysts say: tough words when the
president wants to rally his base and a temporary cooling off when it seems to be hurting an
economy that is one of his main arguments for re-election.
Mr. Trump and his advisers are wary of a potential challenge from Democrats who will try
to paint the president as weak on China. Officials are cognizant that striking a deal based
on the kind of limited concessions China is currently offering would most likely be a
political liability in the president's bid for re-election. Democrats, along with some
Republicans, have previously accused Mr. Trump of buckling on China after he reached a deal
that allowed ZTE, the Chinese telecom company, to avoid tough American punishment.
Yet as collateral damage from the trade war increases, Mr. Trump is facing pressure to
relent. The bond market has been flashing warning signs of a potential recession, and both
consumer confidence and the manufacturing sector have slowed.
The trade war is also clearly weighing on the Chinese economy, which is growing at its
slowest pace in more than two decades. But China has responded defiantly, imposing
retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of American goods. The country is preparing to
celebrate the 70th anniversary of its founding on Oct. 1, and analysts say Beijing would be
unlikely to make concessions at such a politically delicate moment.
People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking have said in recent weeks that Chinese
leaders remain interested in reaching a trade deal with the United States, but that they are
wary of what appear to be ever-increasing demands from the United States and what they
describe as frequent shifts in the American negotiating position.
The Chinese government continues to insist that it will not accept any agreement that is
unequal, or that prevents it from pursuing economic policies that it needs for continued
growth.
While both countries have motivation to come to an agreement, each is still insisting the
other will be the first to bend.
"China and the US announced new round of trade talks and will work to make substantial
progress," Hu Xijin, the editor of the state-run Global Times, wrote on Twitter. "Personally
I think the US, worn out by the trade war, may no longer hope for crushing China's will.
There's more possibility of a breakthrough between the two sides." ...
Mexico. Mexican criminal groups based in Mexico smuggle bulk quantities of methamphetamine
via couriers traveling in private and commercial vehicles, usually equipped with hidden
compartments, or by foot through and between land POEs along the Southwest Border. These
criminal groups also smuggle small shipments (2 kg to 4 kg) via couriers aboard commercial
flights and via mail services. Methamphetamine shipments often are transported to stash sites
and staging areas, primarily in California and Arizona, before the drug is distributed
locally, regionally, or nationally.
Methamphetamine transported from production areas in Mexico to the Southwest Border
typically has been smuggled through and between POEs in California; however, recent data
indicate that more methamphetamine may now be smuggled through or between POEs in Arizona
than other Southwest Border states. According to EPIC seizure data, the combined amount of
methamphetamine seizures from 2001 through 2003 at or between POEs in California (1,725 kg)
was much higher than the amount seized at or between POEs in Texas (1,145 kg), Arizona (1,120
kg), or New Mexico (60 kg). However, in 2003 the amount seized in Arizona (640 kg) surpassed
seizures in the other Southwest Border states including California (593 kg), Texas (484 kg),
and New Mexico (16 kg) possibly because of specific law enforcement operations conducted in
Arizona (see Figure 11).
-------
Pick an index then call it something vague like crime.
Are these immigrants importing meth? Mostly, immigrants crossing back and forth across the
border.
The number of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to methamphetamine
is "truly frightening", Western Australia's Chief Justice says.
Justice Wayne Martin said 95 per cent of armed robberies and up to half of all murders
could be attributed to people taking methamphetamine, also known as ice or crystal meth.
---
The number I hear is about half of all crime.
So, sure, pick a particular index, generate the result you want, and if it meets the
delusional demands of Economist View then it is printed.
I didn't even need to read it, I already know what result he engineered, otherwise it
never would have appeared here.
"... Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a] ..."
"... The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of China. ..."
A structural crisis is chaotic. This means that instead of the normal standard set of
combinations or alliances that were previously used to maintain the stability of the system,
they constantly shift these alliances in search of short-term gains. This only makes the
situation worse. We notice here a paradox – the certainty of the end of the existing
system and the intrinsic uncertainty of what will eventually replace it and create thereby a
new system (or new systems) to stabilize realities .
Now, let us look at China's role in what is going on. In terms of the present system,
China seems to be gaining much advantage. To argue that this means the continuing functioning
of capitalism as a system is basically to (re)assert the invalid point that systems are
eternal and that China is replacing the United States in the same way as the United States
replaced Great Britain as the hegemonic power. Were this true, in another 20-30 years China
(or perhaps northeast Asia) would be able to set its rules for the capitalist
world-system.
But is this really happening? First of all, China's economic edge, while still greater
than that of the North, has been declining significantly. And this decline may well amplify
soon, as political resistance to China's attempts to control neighboring countries and entice
(that is, buy) the support of faraway countries grows, which seems to be occurring.
Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are
two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could
jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a]
The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of
reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their
investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of
China.
In addition, there have been, and will continue to be, wild swings in geopolitical
alliances. In a sense, the key zones are not in the North, but in areas such as Russia,
India, Iran, Turkey, and southeastern Europe, all of them pursuing their own roles by a game
of swiftly and repeatedly changing sides. The bottom line is that, though China plays a
very big role in the short run, it is not as big a role as China would wish and that some in
the rest of the world-system fear. It is not possible for China to stop the disintegration of
the capitalist system. It can only try to secure its place in a future
world-system.
As far as Wallerstein's bottom line: The proof is in the pudding. That said, there seems to
be a tendency to regard Xi as all-powerful. IMNSHO, that's by no means the case, not only
because of China's middle class, but because of whatever China's equivalent of deplorables is.
The "wild swings in geopolitical alliances" might play a role, too; oil, Africa's minerals.
NOTES [a] I haven't seen this point made elsewhere. [b] Crisis, certainly. "Ending the
entire economic edge"? I'm not so sure.
Three Iranian women held in Tehran's notorious Qarchak prison were sentenced recently
to what could amount to more than 10 years in prison. Their "crime"? Failing to wear
headscarves, thereby defying the country's Islamic dress code.
The women were apprehended after a video they posted online during International
Women's Day went viral. In the clip, they are seen walking bear-headed on a Tehran metro
and distributing flowers to female passengers.
"The day will come when women are not forced to struggle," one of them is heard
saying, while another expresses hope that one day women in hijabs will be able to walk
side-by-side with women who choose not to wear them.
The battle on behalf of a woman's right not to cover her head spurred Iranian-American
journalist and award-winning activist Masih Alinejad – author, most recently, of
The Wind in My Hair: My Fight for Freedom in Modern Iran -- to found a
social-media movement called "My Stealthy Freedom."
a farmer has at least 3 PhD qualifications just to contend in the business
No need for a tongue-in-cheek, you're on track, if manufacturing food is akin to other
manufacturing.
. . .from last year
August 2018, The fall of employment in the manufacturing sector
Today's manufacturing output is at least 5 percent greater than it was in 2000, but it has
become much more capital intensive and much less labor intensive. Accordingly, workers in
the sector are more likely to have at least some college education than their counterparts
of years past. But there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5
million jobs lost since 1980.
What is most responsible for the manufacturing job losses? Rising trade with China is often
cited as a possible culprit. But competition from China only accounts for about a fourth of
the decline in manufacturing during the 2000s. This theory is further eroded by the fact
that local markets that did not compete with Chinese imports also saw employment
declines.
A skills mismatch -- the gap between the skills workers have and the skills employers need
-- has also contributed to the decline of manufacturing employment.
Prime age men and women with less than a high school degree have been hit particularly hard
by changes to manufacturing employment. As the manufacturing sector has shifted from
low-skilled to high-skilled work, workers who possess higher skill levels (e.g., engineers,
computer programmers, software developers, etc.) have become more sought after than before.
. . here
And the US supply of STEM graduates for any technical profession seems to be wanting.
Meanwhile we must recognize that employment is not directly tied to the economy, given
mechanization.
"... That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit as firm as its headline: Repeat After Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods targeted. Key sections: ..."
"... But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along. ..."
"... Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well. ..."
"... The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the top of his to-do list. ..."
"... The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks, intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see here , for instance) and even making a full-throated defense of protectionism . ..."
"... In April, China made a concession to the US by designating all fetanyl products as controlled substances, in the hope that that would reduce shipments to the US. The DEA has stated that China is the main source of US fentanyl . Fentanyl accounted 18,000 overdose deaths in 2018, one fourth of the total. If you count all synthetic opioids, the toll rises to 28,000. China nevertheless claimed even then that fentanyl shipments to the US were "extremely limited" . ..."
"... Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat (even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese fentanyl to the US). ..."
"... In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that "everybody's moving out" (of China). ..."
"... A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China" pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government. ..."
"... I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? ..."
"... I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride. ..."
Trump has been up to what he seems to like to do best: whipsawing those who might be affected by his plans. On Friday, he put
Mr. Market and huge swathes of Corporate America in a tizzy by retaliating against China's tariff increases. China announced that
it would impose new tariffs on $75 billion of US goods and the restart of tariffs on autos and auto parts. Trump tweeted that he
would increase tariffs on Chinese goods already subject to tariffs: the $250 billion at 25% would go to 30% on October 1and the $300
billion at 10% would go to 15% in phases, on September 1 and December 1. Trump also "hereby ordered" US companies to pull out of
China, suggesting that he'd rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
Then, as most of you have likely heard, Trump made remarks at the G-7 summit that we widely interpreted as an indicator that he'd
back off again, by admitting to regrets about how the trade spat was going. When the press took up that line, Trump doubled down,
with the White House releasing a statement that Trump's sole regret was not raising tariffs higher.
Needless to say, the all-too-typical Trump to-ing and fro-ing made for an easy target.
From the Washington Post :
Former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, said the White House's conflicting
statements were just the latest in a string of mixed messages that had made it impossible for people to understand its agenda.
"Deeply misguided policy and strategy has been joined for some time by dubious negotiating tactics, with promises not kept
and threats not carried out on a regular basis," Summers said in an interview. "We are at a new stage now with very erratic presidential
behavior and frequent denials of obvious reality. I know of no U.S. historical precedent."
And despite rousing himself to make a show of his resolve, the Administration did back down on one part of Trump's Friday missives,
that of "ordering" US companies to get out of Dodge, um, China.
From
the Wall Street Journal :
Aides to President Trump said Sunday he has no plans to invoke emergency powers and force companies to relocate operations
from China
"What he is suggesting to American businesses," [economic adviser] Mr. [Larry] Kudlow said, is that "you ought to think about
moving your operations and your supply chains away from China and secondly, we'd like you to come back home."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also weighed in, telling "Fox News Sunday" that the president didn't have plans to invoke
emergency powers to force U.S. companies out of China.
"I think what he was saying is he's ordering companies to start looking," Mr. Mnuchin said."
The Journal also pointed out that Trump might have trouble forcing companies to exit:
Both Messrs. Mnuchin and Kudlow said that the president could theoretically force U.S. companies to leave China by invoking
a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA .
According to the Congressional Research Service, IEEPA can be used to deal with "any unusual and extraordinary threat" outside
the U.S. "to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency
with respect to such threat."
The president is required "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before exercising authorities granted by IEEPA,
and to specify in a report to lawmakers why the circumstances constitute a threat and why the actions are necessary, CRS said
in a briefing paper on the law issued earlier this year. The president must submit follow-up reports every six months .
Rod Hunter, a partner at Baker McKenzie and expert on international trade, said Mr. Trump could declare a state of emergency
and issue the order, but that doesn't mean it will stand.
"Congress could effectively override such a decision, and private parties would certainly challenge the action as an unconstitutional
takings, a violation of due process rights and beyond the statutory authority granted to the president by Congress," Mr. Hunter
said in an email.
Mind you, just like Brexit, there is a way to do what Trump wants to do that would not be so destructive and shambolic. Trump's
China policy appears to be intended to make American more economically self-sufficient so as to improve the prosperity of US workers,
as well as curb a competing imperialist.
But as we've described at some length in earlier posts, restoring America's manufacturing capabilities isn't just a matter of
weaning itself off cheap Chinese imports. The US has ceded a tremendous amount of know-how, from the factory floor on up. Getting
that back is a generation-long undertaking, requiring commitment to a national strategy that would include significant government
investment in fundamental research, renewed emphasis on education, including much cheaper higher education and vocational training
for those that aren't suited or inclined to go to college, and a reorientation of government spending and subsidies to favor productive
sectors over the connected. Not only would it be difficult to get any Administration to embrace open industrial policy, particularly
one that would break a lot of rice bowls (such as in our hugely wasteful arms industry and our bloated financial sector), maintaining
it beyond even a two-term Presidency would be an even taller order.
But where is the Trump tariff cage match likely to wind up? Given how often Trump has backed off when Mr. Market has had a hissy,
most commentator appear to have assumed before Friday's tit for tat that Trump would back down, if nothing else, in the form of allowing
a lot of exceptions, and the US and China would find a way for Trump to get enough concessions from China that he could declare peace
with honor.
That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who
specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit
as firm as its headline:
Repeat After
Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods
targeted. Key sections:
The US-China Trade War Is and Will be the New Normal
I hate to say we told you so, but for nearly a year, WE TOLD YOU SO. Since October, 2018 we have been all but screaming at
anyone and everyone who has product made in China and sold into the United States to get out of China fast, if at all possible.
We say this and we set out the below timeline to prove this not so much to show that we have been right all along, but to try
to convince you that we are right when we now say there will be no resolution to the US-China trade war for a very long
time and you need to act accordingly.
The below is our timeline/proof of our having predicted a straight-line decline in US-China trade relations
But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative
to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China
trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult
that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my
firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along.
Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which
is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China
trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing
airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets
for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer
is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been
to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia,
Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in
Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well.
This latest Trump "order" does not have the force of law, so in that respect it is not an order at all. But in most other respects
it is. This order indicates Trump's passionate desire to rid the United States of what he sees as the China
scourge . More importantly, it is yet another
clear signal that he will continue to escalate this war with China until such time as he considers the United States to be victorious.
The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the
top of his to-do list.
So in terms of what this means for your business, it means that you must stop believing there will be a solution to the trade
war that will allow you to go back to doing business with China the way you used to do business with China. You need to instead
recognize that this situation is the New Normal as between the United States and China and that, if anything, things are way more
likely to get worse than they are to get better.
I'm persuaded by this point of view because these writers have adopted the perspective that we've found to be very useful in other
geopolitical negotiations, which is to look at the bargaining position of both sides and see if there is any overlap. If there isn't,
there won't be an agreement unless one of both parties makes a significant concession.
One reason that other observers have likely missed what the China Law Blog discern is that there's an Anglo-American tendency
to assume that differences can be settled and a deal can be had. But as Sir Ivan Rogers pointed out with Brexit, and you have similar
dynamics with the US and China, there aren't precedents for trade deals where the two sides want to get further apart rather than
closer. Sir Ivan is of the point of view that the desire to disengage makes it much harder to come to terms.
The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks,
intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert
put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served
in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long
history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see
here , for instance)
and even making a full-throated defense of
protectionism .
A part of the trade spat that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants and seems to confirm the China Law Blog's thesis is the
arm-wrestling over China's fetanyl exports to the US. It's not hard to see that this is an inherently important issue, since as I
understand it, fentanyl is so potent that it is very easy to overdose on it, making it markedly more dangerous than other addictive
drugs. In other words, the high death rate of fentanyl may make reducing supply a more effective strategy than it normally is in
"the war on drugs". Substitution with just about any other controlled substance would be less dangerous. And if Trump were to make
a dent in this problem, it would serve as a PR offset to some of the costs of his China strategy, like lost soyabean exports.
Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat
(even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers
to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese
fentanyl to the US).
In other words, it's not clear where this row ends, but there doesn't seem to be a path to depressurization, much the less resolution.
President Trump said China called U.S. officials on Sunday evening and said "let's get back to the table," a day after the
White House said the president regretted not escalating tariffs further on Chinese goods.
Speaking to reporters alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Mr. Trump called the discussions a "very positive
development." .
The Chinese government didn't immediately respond to Mr. Trump's remarks or to requests to corroborate the president's account
of a phone call having taken place. Chinese government officials have repeatedly said that Beijing wants to negotiate differences
on trade. On Monday, Beijing's lead trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He, told a conference that China still wants to continue
trade talks with the U.S. following heightened tensions in the past few days.
In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He
has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that
"everybody's moving out" (of China).
The ones who can have not waited for Trump's message of Friday.
A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China"
pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was
to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the
front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government.
I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh,
etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? Do they have a trained,
educated workforce to man these factories? Is there a will to move to such places? As far as those countries are concerned, these
new companies could be seen as a two-edged sword. Yes they will bring investment and opportunities in those countries. But how
will they know if a Trump or someone like him later on will not order those factories out if there is a dispute or if the US demands
that those countries change their laws and open themselves up to financial exploitation? Trump is demanding the same of China
right now. And will Trump demand that all the other western countries move out of China?
I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its
vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they
are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated
on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion
of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride.
This is all pretty interesting. More theater than trade. And the reason is that there is no demand. Demographics has a lot
to do with it as well. It might not make any difference now how much a company can cut costs by moving to SE Asia because nobody
will be very eager to buy more crap anyway. And manufacturing cannot up and move cheaply if they have to reinvent and retool their
processes to make them more environmentally acceptable. It's a sea change. And a tap-dance.
According to this article,"
The DEA has stated that
China is the main source of US fentanyl. " I followed the link, and found "The DEA has said China is a main
source of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids." Which I take as meaning that even if the US could totally shut down Chinese
synthetic opioid production, someone will still be making and supplying it.
So, if the facts as given above are reconfigured, all it would take is for the Chinese producers of synthetic opioids to pay
the US patent holders their due. Problem solved! All kidding aside, the demands to get intellectual property paid for requires
a very pliant judicial system to actually recognize that an idea should be rightfully owned by a person.
Individual agency is a product of 'enlightenment' thinking which opened the pathway for an idea to be the creation of a person
who willed the idea into existence. A few steps later, a corporation becomes a person and then a group of people can somehow own
a single idea and be able to rent that idea out. To think that the Chinese would accept this cockamamie/historically embedded/English
common law idea would be to deny their own culturally based motivated reasoning.
I don't know how this situation will be resolved, but it is quite laughable that the diversion through tariffs of IP revenues
which in US legal logic should be paid to Corporations is actually going to go to the US Treasury.
"All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then
work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China,
as well"
That is about right, and I do not doubt that this is the desire of Trump's negotiating team. Nor do I doubt that they can easily
steer talks to fail as described (by asking for concessions on market access favorable to the US side, AND by refusing to back
down on Huawei etc).
However, while effectively forcing a decoupling of China and US is straightforward, controlling its speed is not. Pull the
plug too fast (which China can threaten to accelerate), and some big US companies eat it. While Lighthizer and friends may be
willing to pay that price, it will make a lot of others very nervous.
Then, perhaps more importantly, is forcing the rest of the world to follow suit (or else there is no point). JP, ROK, DE (the
high tech suppliers besides US) all trade at least as much with China as US. The world market buying Chinese made goods is also
bigger than the US. It would take some skillful diplomacy to make it happen. This is not only beyond the level of the Trump admin,
but I would say all US administrations since the year 2000, with the Iran deal maybe the only exception I can think of.
China will end up defending itself by getting the overly aggressive and self-discrediting Team Trump reelected. By openly provoking
a small proxy conflict for example. Trump gets to do his Ronald Reagan act, which is what his audience wants. It will be a weird
political symbiosis. (an oversized personality can't survive without a suitably inflated enemy, and Joe Biden is no Hillary Clinton.
The media will play along – such drama is the only thing keeping them in business now.)
Anyway, if there is a counterbalancing force to prevent this, I would think it is wall street.
Apparently the US federal workers pension plan has started investing in index funds which include some Chinese companies that
have been in Trump & Co's target list. From the FT this morning:
The letter -- a copy of which was seen by the Financial Times -- said an impending investment shift by the FRTIB would mean
that about $50bn in US government pensions becomes exposed to the "severe and undisclosed" risks of being invested in selected
Chinese companies.
The letter, dated August 26, was copied to senior US officials including Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Steven
Mnuchin, Treasury secretary.
"The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board made a short-sighted -- and foolish -- decision to effectively fund the
Chinese government and Communist party's efforts to undermine US economic and national security with the retirement savings
of members of the US Armed Services and other federal employees," Mr Rubio told the Financial Times.
One thing I remember from early on in this dispute was the US wanting more opportunities to invest in the Chinese market beyond
just exports/manufacturing. If pension funds are getting involved I would think that private investors would like to do the same
thing, which would make long-term decoupling more difficult, especially if US businesses also want to sell things to people in
China even if those things are made elsewhere.
As always your post was very informative and helpful and I certainly believe that pulling the US out of China is the goal of
this whole trade dispute. I just wonder if things like this will put a damper on their plans.
i just re-read all your posts on the last thread..
U.S. Decoupling From China Forces Others To Decouple From U.S. thanks for those posts..
they were very informative! there was no mention of usa going off gold in that same time
frame - 1972 area.. i was mildly curious about your thoughts on that and gold in general.. it
seems china, india and russia continue to acquire it...i am not a gold bug and don't want to
detract from the many informative ideas you bring in the last thread..
here is a quote from your first link @34.. "The US accounts for only 10 per cent of global
trade and 15 per cent of global GDP but half of trade invoices and two-thirds of global
securities issuance, the BoE governor said. As a result, "while the world economy is being
reordered, the US dollar remains as important as when Bretton Woods collapsed" in 1971." this
is what i was trying to tell grieved in the previous thread... the usa mimics a bank and this
is a lot of it's gdp and growth - in derivatives, currency exchange, and etc. etc. banking /
wall st stuff.. the usa has also relied on the imf / world bank providing the loans in us$
thru wall st.. i think this game is coming to an end, as more and more see it for what it
is..
i want to ask you what you think the way forward is here, given mark carney and trumps
comments at this juncture... what do you envision as a way forward??
Capitalism is the first system where wealth gains life, becomes a consicious subject. It
doesn't matter which country produces what and which country prints what: all it matters is
the profit rate. Since capitalism reduces all forms of social labor into an abstract
substance called "value", they only difference it sees is quantitative: more or less value.
Hence capitalism is a system that can be better illustrated as an unstoppable pump of labor
and natural resources (labor is only labor when natural matter is transformed on the human
image) -- it needs infinite growth to exist (as Marx demonstrated in book II).
Neither Trump's nor Carney's plans will solve capitalism's profitability crisis. Money
doesn't have a race or gender, so just exchanging the nationality of the global elite and of
the factory worker won't solve the problem.
China Did Not Trick the US -- Trade Negotiators Served Corporate Interests
By Dean Baker
The New York Times ran an article * last week with a headline saying that the 2020
Democratic presidential contenders faced a serious problem: "how to be tougher on trade than
Trump." Serious readers might have struggled with the idea of getting "tough on trade." After
all, trade is a tool, like a screwdriver. Is it possible to get tough on a screwdriver?
While the Times's headline may be especially egregious, it is characteristic of trade
coverage which takes an almost entirely Trumpian view of the topic. The media portray the
issue of some countries, most obviously China, benefiting at the expense of the United
States. Nothing could be more completely at odds with reality.
China has a huge trade surplus with the United States, about $420 billion (2.1 percent of
GDP) as of 2018. However, this doesn't mean that China is winning at the expense of the
United States and because of "stupid" trade negotiators, as Trump puts it.
The U.S. trade deficit with China was not an accident. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations signed trade deals that made it easy to manufacture goods in China and other
countries, and then export them back to the United States.
In many cases, this meant that large U.S. corporations, like General Electric and Boeing,
outsourced parts of their operations to China to take advantage of low-cost labor there. In
other cases, retailers like Walmart set up low-cost supply chains so that they could undercut
their competitors in the U.S. market.
General Electric, Boeing, Walmart and the rest did not lose from our trade deficit with
China. In fact, the trade deficit was the result of their efforts to increase their profits.
They have little reason to be unhappy with the trade deals negotiated over the last three
decades.
It is a very different story for workers in the United States. As a result of the
exploding trade deficit, we lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, 20
percent of the workers in the sector. This is before the collapse of the housing bubble led
to the Great Recession. We lost 40 percent of all unionized jobs in manufacturing.
This job loss not only reduced the pay of manufacturing workers, but as these displaced
workers flooded into other sectors, it put downward pressure on the pay of less-educated
workers generally. This is a pretty awful story, but it is not a story of China tricking our
so-called stupid negotiators; it is a story of smart negotiators who served well the interest
of corporations.
For some reason, the media always accept the Trumpian narrative that the large trade
deficits the U.S. runs with China (and most of the rest of the world) were the result of
other countries outsmarting our negotiators, or at least an accidental result of past trade
deals. The media never say that large trade deficits were a predictable outcome of a trade
policy designed to serve the wealthy.
The fact that trade is a story of winners and losers within countries, rather than between
countries, is especially important now that our trade conflicts are entering a new phase,
especially with China. While not generally endorsing Trump's reality TV show tactics, most
reporting has taken the position that "we" in the U.S. have genuine grounds for complaint
with China.
The complaints don't center on the under-valuation of China's currency, which is a problem
for manufacturing workers. Rather, the issue that takes center stage is the supposed theft by
China of our intellectual property.
While this sort of claim is routinely asserted, the overwhelming majority of people in the
United States have never had any intellectual property stolen by China. It is companies like
Boeing, GE, Pfizer and Merck that are upset about China not respecting their patent and
copyright claims, and they want the rest of us to have a trade war to defend them.
If the goals of trade policies were put to a vote, these companies would be hugely
outnumbered. However, they can count on the strong support of the media in both the opinion
pages, and more importantly, the news pages. The issue is entirely framed in their favor, and
dissenting voices are as likely to be heard as in the People's Republic of China.
There is a lot at stake in preserving the myth that ordinary workers were hurt as just an
accidental byproduct of globalization. The story is that it just happens to be the case that
hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are willing to do the same work as our
manufacturing workers for a lot less money.
Yes, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs is a sad story, but is just part of the
picture. There are also millions of smart ambitious people in the developing world who are
willing to do the same work as our doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professions for a lot
less money.
But the people who design trade policy have made sure that these people don't have the
opportunity to put the same downward pressure on our most highly paid workers, as did their
counterparts working in families. And, for what it's worth, the trade model works the same
when we're talking about doctors as manufacturing workers. Less pay for U.S. doctors means
lower cost health care, just as lower pay for textile workers means cheaper clothes.
The key point is that winners in the global economy, along with the big corporations, got
their good fortune because they rigged the process, not because of anything inherent in the
nature of globalization. (This is the point of my book Rigged: How the Rules of Globalization
and the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. ** )
On this basic point, the media have no more interest in truth than Donald Trump. Hence, we
can expect further media parroting about being "tough" on trade.
"... Still, even if Trump isn't making sense, will China give in to his demands? The short answer is, "What demands?" Trump mainly seems exercised by China's trade surplus with America, which has multiple causes and isn't really under the Chinese government's control. ..."
"... Others in his administration seem concerned by China's push into high-technology industries, which could indeed threaten U.S. dominance. But China is both an economic superpower and relatively poor compared with the U.S.; it's grossly unrealistic to imagine that such a country can be bullied into scaling back its technological ambitions ..."
"... Which brings us to the question of how much power the U.S. really has in this situation. ..."
"... So while Trump's tariffs certainly hurt the Chinese, Beijing is fairly well placed to counter their effects. China can pump up domestic spending with monetary and fiscal stimulus; it can boost its exports, to the world at large as well as to America, by letting the yuan fall. ..."
"... At the same time, China can inflict pain of its own. It can buy its soybeans elsewhere, hurting U.S. farmers. As we saw this week, even a mostly symbolic weakening of the yuan can send U.S. stocks plunging. ..."
"... And America's ability to counter these moves is hindered by a combination of technical and political factors. The Fed can cut rates, but not very much given how low they are already. We could do a fiscal stimulus, but having rammed through a plutocrat-friendly tax cut in 2017, Trump would have to make real concessions to Democrats to get anything more -- something he probably won't do. ..."
"... So Trump is in a much weaker position than he imagines, and my guess is that China's mini-devaluation of its currency was an attempt to educate him in that reality. But I very much doubt he has learned anything. His administration has been steadily hemorrhaging people who know anything about economics, and reports indicate that Trump isn't even listening to the band of ignoramuses he has left. ..."
China Tries to Teach Trump Economics
But he doesn't seem to be learning.
By Paul Krugman
If you want to understand the developing trade war with China, the first thing you need to
realize is that nothing Donald Trump is doing makes sense. His views on trade are incoherent.
His demands are incomprehensible. And he vastly overrates his ability to inflict damage on
China while underrating the damage China can do in return.
The second thing you need to realize is that China's response so far has been fairly
modest and measured, at least considering the situation. The U.S. has implemented or
announced tariffs on virtually everything China sells here, with average tariff rates not
seen in generations. The Chinese, by contrast, have yet to deploy anything like the full
range of tools at their disposal to offset Trump's actions and hurt his political base.
Why haven't the Chinese gone all out? It looks to me as if they're still trying to teach
Trump some economics. What they've been saying through their actions, in effect, is: "You
think you can bully us. But you can't. We, on the other hand, can ruin your farmers and crash
your stock market. Do you want to reconsider?"
There is, however, no indication that this message is getting through. Instead, every time
the Chinese pause and give Trump a chance to rethink, he takes it as vindication and pushes
even harder. What this suggests, in turn, is that sooner or later the warning shots will turn
into an all-out trade and currency war.
About Trump's views: His incoherence is on view almost every day, but one of his recent
tweets was a perfect illustration. Remember, Trump has been complaining nonstop about the
strength of the dollar, which he claims puts America at a competitive disadvantage. On Monday
he got the Treasury Department to declare China a currency manipulator, which was true seven
or eight years ago but isn't true now. Yet the very next day he wrote triumphantly that
"massive amounts of money from China and other parts of the world is pouring into the United
States," which he declared "a beautiful thing to see."
Um, what happens when "massive amounts of money" pour into your country? Your currency
rises, which is exactly what Trump is complaining about. And if lots of money were flooding
out of China, the yuan would be plunging, not experiencing the trivial (2 percent) decline
that Treasury condemned.
Oh well. I guess arithmetic is just a hoax perpetrated by the deep state.
Still, even if Trump isn't making sense, will China give in to his demands? The short
answer is, "What demands?" Trump mainly seems exercised by China's trade surplus with
America, which has multiple causes and isn't really under the Chinese government's
control.
Others in his administration seem concerned by China's push into high-technology
industries, which could indeed threaten U.S. dominance. But China is both an economic
superpower and relatively poor compared with the U.S.; it's grossly unrealistic to imagine
that such a country can be bullied into scaling back its technological ambitions .
Which brings us to the question of how much power the U.S. really has in this
situation.
America is, of course, a major market for Chinese goods, and China buys relatively little
in return, so the direct adverse effect of a tariff war is larger for the Chinese. But it's
important to have a sense of scale. China isn't like Mexico, which sends 80 percent of its
exports to the United States; the Chinese economy is less dependent on trade than smaller
nations, and less than a fifth of its exports come to America.
So while Trump's tariffs certainly hurt the Chinese, Beijing is fairly well placed to
counter their effects. China can pump up domestic spending with monetary and fiscal stimulus;
it can boost its exports, to the world at large as well as to America, by letting the yuan
fall.
At the same time, China can inflict pain of its own. It can buy its soybeans elsewhere,
hurting U.S. farmers. As we saw this week, even a mostly symbolic weakening of the yuan can
send U.S. stocks plunging.
And America's ability to counter these moves is hindered by a combination of technical and
political factors. The Fed can cut rates, but not very much given how low they are already.
We could do a fiscal stimulus, but having rammed through a plutocrat-friendly tax cut in
2017, Trump would have to make real concessions to Democrats to get anything more --
something he probably won't do.
What about a coordinated international response? That's unlikely, both because it's not
clear what Trump wants from China and because his general belligerence (not to mention his
racism) has left America with almost nobody willing to take its side in global disputes.
So Trump is in a much weaker position than he imagines, and my guess is that China's
mini-devaluation of its currency was an attempt to educate him in that reality. But I very
much doubt he has learned anything. His administration has been steadily hemorrhaging people
who know anything about economics, and reports indicate that Trump isn't even listening to
the band of ignoramuses he has left.
So this trade dispute will probably get much worse before it gets better.
""You think you [Trump] can bully us [Xi]. But you can't. We, on the other hand, can ruin
your farmers and crash your stock market. Do you want to reconsider?""
Krugman is putting his "liberal" thinking in to Xi's mind.
US farmers are the darling of the "liberal"? I suspect not so much unless to oppose
Trump.
To see the mechanism that China could crash the stock market requires some thinking.
How could China do such a thing? Tariffs on $100B (in a $19,000B economy) in US exports is
emotional to the exchanges. Dumping US debt would raise interest rates and make T Bills
attractive over stocks, which is not a bad thing. The "liberals" know a 'deplorable' 36000
Dow is a dream. Then what does China do with all those USD?
The issue is a lot of "liberals" do not want Trump to succeed in efforts to reverse the
MNC expulsion of labor from the US to developing countries.
I look forward to Trump asking the DNC select why he or she "wants Xi to win over labor in
the US?"
The underlying loser in the Trump scheme are the MNC's so will the DNC go all in for MNC's
at the expense of the worker?
Nostalgia for a past that never was; Part 1 review of Paul Collier's "The future of
capitalism"
Paul Collier's new book "The future of capitalism" is a very hard book to review. It is
short (215 pages) but it covers an enormous area, from social and economic interpretation of
the past seventy years in the West, to pleas for "ethical" companies, "ethical" families and
even an "ethical" world, to a set of proposals for reform in advanced economies.
The most uncharitable assessment would be to say that, at times, the book comes close (I
emphasize "close") to nationalism, "social eugenics", "family values" of the moral majority
kind, and conservativism in the literal sense of the word because it posits an idealized past
and exhorts us to return there. But one could also say that its diagnosis of the current ills
is accurate and remarkably clear-sighted. Its recommendations are often compelling,
sophisticated and yet common-sensical.
I have therefore decided to divide my review in two parts. In this part I will explain the
points, mostly methodological and historical, on which I disagree with Collier. In the second
part, I will discuss the diagnoses and recommendations on which I mostly agree.
Pragmatism. Collier positions himself as a "pragmatist" battling both (1) ideologues:
Utilitarians, Rawlsian (who are accused, somewhat strangely, of having introduced identity
politics) and Marxists; and (2) populists who have no ideology at all but simply play on
people's emotions. All three kinds of ideologies are wrong because they follow their script
which is inadequate for current problems while populists do not even care to make things
better but only to rule and have a good time. It is only a pragmatic approach that, according
to Collier, makes sense.
Pragmatism however is an ideology like any other. It is wrong to believe oneself exempt
from ideological traps if one claims to be a "pragmatist". Pragmatism collects whatever are
the ruling ideologies today and rearranges them: it provides an interpretative framework like
any other ideology. Pragmatists are, as Keynes said in a similar context "practical men, who
believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, [but] are usually the
slaves of some defunct economist [or ideologue; my addition]."
Adam Smith. The second building block of Collier book is based on his interpretation of
Adam Smith, which has become more popular recently and tries to "soften" the hard edge of the
Adam Smith of the "Wealth of Nations" (self-interest, profit, and power) by a more congenial
Smith from "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". This is an old debate that goes almost 200 years
back ("Die Adam Smith Frage").
There are, I think, if not two Smiths, then one Smith for two sets of circumstances: in
TMS, it is the Smith for our behavior with family, friends and community; in the WoN, it is
the Smith of economic life, our behavior as "economic agents". I discuss this in "Capitalism,
Alone". David Wootton in "Power, Pleasure and Profit" very persuasively makes the same point.
And even Collier says exactly the same thing towards the end of his book, but in the early
parts he argues that the Adam Smith of TMS applies to economics as well.
Now, for an economist only the Smith from the WoN matters. Economists do not claim (or
should not claim) to have particularly valuable insights regarding how people behave outside
of economics. So it is fully consistent for economists to use a model of Smith's homo
economicus who is pursuing monetary gains only, or more broadly, his own utility only. That
of course does not exclude, as Collier and some other writers (e.g., Peter Turchin) seem to
believe, cooperation with others. It is obvious that many of our monetary objectives are
better achieved through cooperation: I am better off cooperating with people at my university
than setting my own university. But whether I do one or the other, I am pursuing my own
selfish interest. I am not doing things for altruistic reasons -- which perhaps I might do in
my interactions with family or friends.
My point in "Capitalism, Alone" is that under hyper-commercialized globalization Smith's
economic sphere is rapidly expanding and "eating up" the sphere where the Smith of TMS
applies. Commodification "invades" family relations and our leisure time. Both Collier and I
agree on that. But while I think that this is an inherent feature of hyper-commercialized
globalization, Collier believes that the clock can be turned back to an "ethical world" which
existed in the past while somehow keeping globalization as it is now. This is an illusion and
leads me to Collier's nostalgia.
Social-democracy. In Collier's view of the Golden Age (1945-75), social-democracy that
brought it about did this for ethical reasons. In several places he repeats more of less this
breathtaking sentence "[Roosevelt] was elected because people recognized the New Deal was
ethical". He argues that the origin of social-democracy lies in a (nice) co-operative
movement, not that the reforms in capitalism after WW1 and WW2 were the product of a century
of often violent struggle of social democratic parties to improve workers' conditions. It is
not because ethical leaders decided suddenly to make capitalism "nicer" but because the two
world wars, the Bolshevik revolution, the growth of social-democratic and communist parties,
and their links with powerful trade unions, exacted the change of course from bourgeoisie
under the looming threat of social disorder and expropriation. So it is not through the
benevolence of the right that capitalism was transformed, but because the upper classes,
chastised by past experience, decided to follow their own enlightened self-interest: give up
some in order to preserve more. (For similar interpretations, see Samuel Moyn, Avner
Offer,)
This difference in the interpretations of history is important because Collier's view
applied to today basically calls for ethical rulers -- to somehow appear. This is why at the
end of the book he discusses how political leaders should be elected (not by party members or
primaries, but by the elected representatives of their parties). My interpretation implies
that unless there are strong social forces that would push back financial sector excesses,
tax evasion, and high inequality nothing will be changed. What matters is not ethics or
ethical leaders but group/class interest and relative power.
The facts. And finally the Arcadia of the trente glorieuses * when Collier holds that
moral giants strode the Earth, companies cared about workers, families were "full" and
"ethical", never really existed, at least not in the way it is described in the book. Yes,
like many others I have pointed out that the trente glorieuses were very good years for the
West both in terms of growth and surely in terms of narrowing of wealth and income
inequalities. But they were no Arcadia and in many respects they were much worse than the
present.
The period of Collier's "ethical family" in which "the husband was the head" when every
member cared for each other, and several generations lived together, was a hierarchical
patriarchy that even legally forbid any other types of family-formation. (I remember that in
my high school in Belgium, only fathers were allowed to sign off on pupils' grades or school
absences. Not mothers.)
In the USA, the Golden Age was the age of social mimicry and conservatism, widespread
racial discrimination, and gender inequality. When it comes to politics, it is often
forgotten that during the Golden Age, France was basically twice on the edge of a civil war:
during the Algerian war and in 1968. Spain, Portugal, and Greece were ruled by quasi-fascist
regimes. Terrorism of RAF and Brigate Rosse came in the 1970s. Finally, if these years were
so good and "ethical" why did we have the universal 1968 rebellion, from Paris to
Detroit?
That imagined world never was, and we are utterly unlikely to return to it; not only
because it never was but because the current word is entirely different. Collier overlooks
that the world of his youth to which he wants people to return was the world of enormous
income differences between the rich world and the Third World. It is for that reason that the
English working class could (as he writes) feel very proud and superior to the people in the
rest of the world. They cannot feel so proud and superior now because other nations are
catching up. Implicitly, regaining self-respect for the English working class requires a
return to such worldwide stratification of incomes.
The book is thus built on the quicksand of a world that did not exist, will not exist, and
on a methodology that I find wanting. 2020s will not be the imagined 1945, however loudly we
clamor for it. But this does not mean that the analyses of current problems and the
recommendations are wrong. Many of them are very good. So I will turn to them next.
How to create an ethical county, if not the world: Part 2 review of Paul Collier's "The
future of capitalism"
This is the second part of my review of Paul Collier's "The future of capitalism". The
first part is here. *
In this review of Collier's policy recommendations, I will break the discussion into three
parts, following Collier's own approach: how to make companies more ethical, families
stronger, and the world better.
Ethical firm. Collier argues that, in order for companies to be seen as ethical and to
offer their workforce meaningful jobs, companies should include workers in management, give
much more power to the middle-level management, and do profit-sharing. These are all
well-taken recommendations, and I believe, like Collier, that they would increase companies'
profitability in addition to providing "better" jobs. The question however is how many
companies nowadays can afford to provide such meaningful and (relatively) stable jobs because
of fast-evolving changes driven by globalization. Nevertheless the idea is correct.
Collier then moves to what may be the most intriguing recommendation in the book and that
goes beyond the usual "let's have higher and more progressive taxes". He looks at the big
divide between the successful global cities (like New York and London) and their left-behind
hinterlands. The success of metropolises comes from economies of scale, specialization, and
complementarity (gains of agglomeration). People can specialize because the demand for
specialized skills is high (the best tax accountants are located in New York not in small
dilapidated cities). Companies can enjoy economies of scale because the demand is high and
specialized workers benefit from complementarity in skills from other workers with whom they
are in close geographical and intellectual contact.
So who are the main winners from metropolises' success, asks Collier? People who own land
and housing (as housing prices skyrocket) and highly skilled professionals who, after paying
higher rents, still make more in global cities than elsewhere. Collier's suggestion then,
based on his work with Tony Venables, is to tax heavily these two groups of people, i.e., to
introduce supplemental taxes which would be geographical: tax housing and high income
individuals living in London.
How to help hinterland catch up? Use the money collected in London or New York to give
subsidies to large cluster-like companies (like Amazon) if they set they businesses in the
left-behind cities like Sheffield or Detroit. One can quibble with this idea but the logic of
the argument is, I think, quite compelling, and the taxation suggested by Collier has the
advantage of going beyond the indiscriminate increase in taxes for all. We are talking here
of targeted taxation and targeted subsidies. This is the lieu fort of Collier's book.
Ethical family. I am less enthusiastic about the suggestions in this area. Here Collier is
at his most conservative although that social conservatism is masked under the cover of
scientific studies that show that children living in "full" families with two heterosexual
parents are doing much better than children living with one parent only.
Collier almost implies that (say) mothers should stay in unloving or abusive relationships
so that there would be both parents present in the family. Such families should, according to
Collier, be given support and for all children public pre-K and K education should be free
(very reasonable). Collier also very persuasively describes manifold advantages that the
children of the rich receive, not only through inheritance but through intangible capital of
parental knowledge and connections. This type of social capital inheritance is not a
well-researched topic and I hope this changes since its importance in real life is
substantial.
Collier displays clear preference for "standard" families and even some "social eugenics"
as when he criticizes UK policy that provides free housing and since 1999 extra benefits for
single mothers to have encouraged "many women...to bear children who will not be raised
well".
The argument that parents should sacrifice themselves (regardless of the psychic cost) for
children is also dangerous. It leads us to a family formation of the 19th century when women
often lived in terrible marriages because of social pressure not to be seen as abandoning or
not caring for their children. This is neither a desirable nor a likely solution for today.
An ethical family should consider interests of all members equally, not subjugate the
happiness of some (mostly mothers) to that of others.
Ethical world. Collier has surprisingly little to say about the ethical world. His ethical
world is a world largely closed to new migration which Collier rejects based on a not
unreasonable view going back to Assar Lindbeck and George Borjas of cultural incompatibility
between the migrants and the natives. Interestingly, Collier does not quote either of these
two authors nor any others. (The book is directed at the general audience so the mentions of
other authors are extremely rare except when it comes to Collier himself and a few of his
co-authors).
It is slightly disconcerting that Collier who has spent more than three decades working on
Africa has almost nothing to say about how Africa and African migration fits into this
"ethical world". There are only two ways in which he addresses migration.
First, migrants or refugees should stay in countries that are geographically close to the
source countries: Venezuelans in Colombia, Syrians in Lebanon and Turkey, Afghanis in
Pakistan. Why the burden of migrants should be exclusively borne by the limitrophe countries
** that are often quite poor is never explained. Surely, an ethical world would require much
more from the rich.
Second, he argues that the West should help good companies invest in poor countries in
order to increase incomes there and reduce migration. But how is this to be achieved is never
explained. It is mentioned almost as an afterthought and is considered deserving of two
sentences only (in two different parts of the book). This is in contrast with a detailed
explanation, discussed above, of how governments should encourage and subsidize large
companies to relocate to second-tier cities. Could a similar scheme be designed for
investments in Africa? Nothing is said.
Further, where does it leave African migrants crisscrossing the Mediterranean as I write?
There are no geographically close countries where they could go (surely not to Libya) nor can
they wait for years in Mali for the Western companies to bring them jobs. Again, nothing is
said on that. It is not surprising that Collier is very supportive of Emmanuel Macron whose
anti-immigration policy is quite obvious, and of Danish Social Democrats that are in the
process of creating a kind of national social democracy with new laws that practically reduce
immigration to a trickle. Collier favors Fortress Europe although he does not say so
explicitly.
In keeping with his anti-immigration stance, Collier argues that migration is not an
integral part of globalization. Why –in principle– goods, services and one factor
of production (capital) should be allowed to move freely while another factor of production
(labor) is to remain stuck is not clear. Surely, the fact that trade is driven by comparative
advantage and migration by absolute is not the reason to be against migration. On exactly the
same grounds, one could be against movement of capital too.
In conclusion, I think that the recommendations regarding the "ethical firm" and
metropolis-hinterland divergence are spot on; the recommendations on "ethical family" are a
combination of very perceptive and sensible points, and a view of the family that at times
comes from a different age, and almost nothing is said about an "ethical world". This latter
is a big omission in the era of globalization, but perhaps Collier was solely interested in
how to improve nation-states.
** Territories situated on a border or frontier. In a broad sense, it means border
countries -- any group of neighbors of a given nation which border each other thus forming a
rim around that country.
"... This strategy is not popular with US corporations and will earn Trump some more opposition. Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) on Sunday announced he would mount a primary challenge to President Trump ..."
Trump has put US companies on alert that he might force them to withdraw from China, where
they have $256 billion invested. He says he is given this power by the 1977 law called the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
The Republican Party has spent over a century warning against government involvement in
the private sector, but now their leader is doing it big time. Trump ordering companies
around about where they can invest is a form of fascism or rightwing national socialism. Left
socialism is about public sector economic activity for the good of people. National socialism
is the state usurping economic resources on behalf of a small corporate and high-official
elite.
Tara Golshan at Vox explained how Trump unilaterally raised China tariffs in the first
place by 25% (he is threatening to go to 30%):
"Trump's White House cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a provision
that gives the secretary of commerce the authority to investigate and determine the impacts
of any import on the national security of the United States -- and the president the power to
adjust tariffs accordingly."
So one thing that is going on is that measures passed by Congress for limited and extreme
situations are being misused by presidents for everyday policy-making. . . here
This strategy is not popular with US corporations and will earn Trump some more
opposition. Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) on Sunday announced he would mount a primary
challenge to President Trump . . .
here
"... Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60% higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's. And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's $27.7bn. ..."
John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. This reminds me of an
under-appreciated fact – that it is not trade rules that are significantly holding back
UK exports.
Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same
trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK
exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60%
higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany
exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of
over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita
difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's.
And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's
$27.7bn.
Now, these numbers refer only to goods where Germany has a comparative advantage over the
UK. But they tell us something important. Whatever else is holding back UK exports, it is not
trade rules. Germany exports far more than the UK under the same rules.
As for what it is that is holding back exports, there are countless candidates – the
same ones that help explain the UK's relative industrial weakness: poor management; a lack of
vocational training; lack of finance or entrepreneurship; the diversion of talent from
manufacturing to a bloated financial sector; the legacy of an overvalued exchange rate. And
so on.
If we were serious about wanting to revive UK exports, we would be discussing what to do
about issues such as these. Which poses the question: why, then, does the possibility of
trade deals get so much more media attention?
One reason is that the right has for decades made a consistent error– a form of
elasticity optimism whereby they over-estimate economic flexibility and dynamism. Back in the
80s, Patrick Minford thought, mostly wrongly, that unemployed coal miners and manufacturers
would swiftly find jobs elsewhere as, I dunno, astronauts or lap-dancers. The Britannia
Unchained crew think, again wrongly, that deregulation will create lots of jobs. And some
Brexiters in 2016 thought sterling's fall would give a big boost to net exports.
In the same spirit, they think free trade deals will raise exports a lot. But they won't -
and certainly not enough to offset the increased red tape of post-Brexit trade with the EU.
Jobs and exports just aren't as responsive to stimuli as they think. The economy is more
sclerotic, more path dependent, than that.
Secondly, the BBC has a bias against emergence. It overstates the extent to which outcomes
such as real wages, share prices or government borrowing are the result of deliberate policy
actions and understates the extent to which they are the emergent and largely unintended
result of countless less obvious choices. In this spirit, it gets too excited about trade
deals and neglects the real obstacles to higher exports.
But there's something else. Perhaps the purpose of free trade deals is not to boost
exports at all. It is instead largely totemic. Such deals are one of the few things we'll be
able to do after Brexit that we couldn't do before. They are therefore a symbol of our
new-found sovereignty. They are, alas, largely just that – a symbol.
"John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. "
---
Clueless. The US and the UK do not need a trade deal, Brexit is happening because the UK
decided it didn't need any trade deals, open market trading on whatever restrictions foreign
government makes is fine with brexiters.
Way back when we were a smarter people, we assumed that trade deals are a restriction on
trade. They exist to overcome protectionism which was there prior.
"... What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour." [link above] ..."
"... It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit their ideology... ..."
"... How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies ..."
"... Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China... FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is a chicken, which egg is not important. ..."
"... Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk. ..."
"A new assessment of the role of offshoring in the decline in US manufacturing employment,"
by Christoph Boehm, Aaron Flaaen, Nitya Pandalai-Nayar 15 August 2019 What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were
a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a
reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed
labour." [link above]
It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit
their ideology...
As for kurt, expect him to continue to deny the fact that 'free' trade has cost a
significant number of jobs and caused enough economic disruption to tilt the election to
Trump in 2016.
Further, expect the Democratic leadership to continue to tout the benefits of 'free' trade
without acknowledging its severe adverse effects, both economically and politically. And of
course, as long as they never acknowledge the adverse effects, they will never have to
address it which will allow Trump to continue to bludgeon them on the issue.
How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies
Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China...
FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is
a chicken, which egg is not important.
The US worker lost in the evolutions. Aside from Trump who has tried anything for the US
working stiff?
Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not
doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference
toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that
there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk.
"... During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any second thoughts about the tariff move. ..."
While one may accuse the US president of many things, having second thoughts is hardly one
of them: once Trump has decided on a course of action, he tends to follow through. Which is why
the global press gasped when a rare case of doubt emerged this morning during Trump's breakfast
meeting with the UK's Boris Johnson at the Biarritz G-7, when the US president acknowledged
having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China... only for his top
spokeswoman to later retract and say Trump meant he regretted not raising tariffs even
more.
During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised
eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any
second thoughts about the tariff move.
Every president of the USA for the past 50 years has cultivated US exports to China. You
want to just throw it away, only two or three years before the purchasing power of China
exceeds that of the USA???
China - 1.5 billion.
USA - 326 million
China growth rate 2018: 6.4%
USA growth rate 2018: 2.8% source
China now produces twice as many graduates a year as the US source
As of 2015, China had already taken global lead in manufacturing output:
source
China - $2,010 billion
USA - $1,867 billion
World market size, based on population:
source
China - 18.7%
USA - 4.3%
Greedy US corporations have been in bed with China robbing the US citizen with all those
job exports to China.
If things were produced in US, the corporations would have made less money, but the US
citizen would have been better off. The trade deficit which has been running for decades
wouldn't have been that much.
Anyone with a lick of commonsense knew Trump's detractors would be gunning for him during
his trip to Europe. Trump has not disappointed these people by continuing his effort to come
across as too clever for his own good. Trump gave these people more ammunition when he said
he has doubts about his actions.
During breakfast with the UK's Boris Johnson at the G-7 meeting in Biarritz, France Trump
acknowledged having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China. The
article below explores how this may cause Trump a great deal of grief.
Beijing just might be able to doom the president's chance of reelection. They can tune
tariffs to hurt Trump base.
Notable quotes:
"... China's tariff threats take aim at the heart of Trump's political support -- factories and farms across the Midwest and South at a time when the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing down. Soybean prices sank to a two-week low ..."
"... The tariffs beginning in September include 10% on pork, beef, and chicken, and various other agricultural goods, while soybeans will have the extra 5% tariff on top of the existing 25%. Starting in December, wheat, sorghum, and cotton will also get a 10% tariff. ..."
Some of the countermeasures will take effect starting Sept. 1, while the rest will come into
effect from Dec. 15, according to the announcement Friday from the Finance
Ministry. This mirrors the timetable the U.S. has laid out for 10% tariffs on nearly $300
billion of Chinese shipments
An extra 5% tariff will be put on American soybeans and crude-oil imports starting next
month. The resumption of a suspended extra 25% duty on U.S. cars will resume Dec. 15, with
another 10% on top for some vehicles. With existing general duties on autos taken into account,
the total tariff charged on U.S. made cars would be as high as 50%.
China's tariff threats take aim at the heart of Trump's political support -- factories and
farms across the Midwest and South at a time when the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing
down. Soybean prices sank to a two-week low
.... ... ...
The tariffs beginning in September include 10% on pork, beef, and chicken, and various other
agricultural goods, while soybeans will have the extra 5% tariff on top of the existing 25%.
Starting in December, wheat, sorghum, and cotton will also get a 10% tariff.
"... "The 2008 experience demonstrated that the U.S. dollar as the global reserve and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use it. Currently any hickup in the U.S. economy leads to large scale recessions elsewhere." ..."
"... It has also become a primary tool for the US to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over the world to enforce extreme uses of sanctions, as in blowing up the Iran deal. Already the EU has explored ways to get around that to work with Iran. ..."
"... The over use of sanctions, and abuse of the US financial position in order to govern others, reinforces the desire to deal with fears that dependence on the dollar risks vulnerability to economic depression due to US irresponsibility. ..."
"... The US is creating a perfect storm for the dollar, with is exactly what it would take to make others undertake the expense and difficulty of replacing it as the world reserve currency and presumed standard of exchange. ..."
"... I just had a thought. The USSA has been doing it all wrong for all these decades. There are at least two responses the USSA could have applied to the obviously impending debacle of simply allowing the Chinese to thoroughly undermine its industrial system. The most obvious response would have been tariffs, which could be perceived as an aggressive policy, but certainly not as the outright aggression of sanctions. ..."
"... Or probably even much better, a 'negative sales tax' on USSA manufactured products, which could in no way be perceived as aggressive at all. Note that there is (I presume) a vast difference between simply subsidizing companies (since subsidies coud then flow directly into the pockets of the companies' capitalists) and providing the companies' customers with a 'negative tax' on USSA produced products (basically an instant rebate). This could effectively provide price parity for the goods produced for the two countries, and could maintain the viability of the USSA manufacturing system. ..."
"... The US ruling class cannot grow out of its desire to extend its rule to the rest of the planet. But humanity is not as malleable as the American people-with their dreams of sharing in the dividends when America (Great Again) (aka its ruling class) orders the rest of the world around and exploits everyone the way that it exploits the working people in the United States. ..."
"... Are you not aware that the Bank of Japan basically owns 70% of the Japanese stock market in the from of ETFs? ..."
"... While Europe and Japan are failing economically at least America is at war with the second biggest power on the planet, making drastic moves justified in the face of a national emergency. ..."
"... I imagine now that John Maynard Keynes'ghost, if it were observing our current global political and economic affairs, would be having a laugh. It was Keynes who suggested the notion of International trade using a common trading currency created purely for International trade purposes, in a system in which nations would not be allowed to build up continuous balance-of-payments surpluses or deficits over several years, but would be required to spend their surpluses on countries forced to go into deficit because of other countries' desires for annual surpluses, leading to trade policies or currency manipulations to achieve such a dubious goal. ..."
"... The real solution though is a different system with some global exchange medium that can not be manipulated by one country or a block of selfish countries. ..."
The U.S. is decoupling itself from China. The effects of that process hurt all global
economies. To avoid damage other countries have no choice but to decouple themselves from the
U.S.
Today's Washington Post front page leads with a highly misleading headline:
It was China, not Trump, which retaliated. Trump reacted to that with a tweet-storm and by
intensifying
the trade war he started . The piece under the misleading headline
even says that :
President Trump demanded U.S. companies stop doing business with China and announced he
would raise the rate of tariffs on Beijing Friday, capping one of the most extraordinary
days in the long-running U.S.-China trade war. ... The day began with Beijing's announcement that it would impose new tariffs on $75 billion
in goods, including reinstated levies on auto products, starting this fall. It came to a
close Friday afternoon with Trump tweeting that he would raise the rate of existing and
planned tariffs on China by 5 percentage points.
Beijing's tariff retaliation was delivered with strategic timing, hours before an
important address by Powell, and as Trump prepared to depart for the G-7 meeting in
Biarritz.
After Trump's move the stock markets had a sad. Trade wars are, at least in the short
term, bad for commerce. The U.S. and the global economy are still teetering along, but will
soon be in recession.
The Trump administration is fine with that. (As is Dilbert creator
Scott
Adams (vid).)
U.S. grand strategy is to prevent other powers from becoming equals to itself or to
even surpass it. China, with with a population four times larger than the U.S., is the
country ready to do just that. It already built itself into an economic powerhouse and it is
also steadily increasing its military might.
China is thus a U.S. 'enemy' even though Trump avoided, until yesterday, to use that
term.
Over the last 20+ years the U.S. imported more and more goods from China and elsewhere
and diminishes its own manufacturing capabilities. It is difficult to wage war against
another country when one depends on that country's production capacities . The U.S. must
first decouple itself from China before it can launch the real war. Trump's trade war with
China is intended to achieve that. As Peter Lee
wrote
when the trade negotiations with China failed:
The decoupling strategy of the US China hawks is proceeding as planned. And economic pain
is a feature, not a bug. ... Failure of trade negotiations was pretty much baked in, thanks to [Trump's trade
negotiator] Lightizer's maximalist demands.
And that was fine with the China hawks.
Because their ultimate goal was to decouple the US & PRC economies, weaken the PRC,
and make it more vulnerable to domestic destabilization and global rollback.
If decoupling shaved a few points off global GDP, hurt American businesses, or pushed
the world into recession, well that's the price o' freedom.
Or at least the cost of IndoPACOM being able to win the d*ck measuring contest in East
Asia, which is what this is really all about.
Trump does not want a new trade deal with China. He wants to decouple the U.S. economy
from the future enemy. Trade wars tend to hurt all involved economies. While the decoupling
process is ongoing the U.S. will likely suffer a recession.
Trump is afraid that a downturn in the U.S. could lower his re-election chances. That
is why he wants to use the Federal Reserve Bank to douse the economy with more money without
regard for the long term consequences. That is the reason why the first part of his tweet
storm yesterday was
directed at Fed chief Jay Powell:
In his order for U.S. companies to withdraw from China, some close to the administration
saw the president embracing the calls for an economic decoupling made by the hawks inside
his administration.
The evidence of the shift may have been most apparent in a 14-word tweet in which Trump
appeared to call Xi an "enemy."
"My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?" he said in a
Tweet posted after Powell gave a speech in Jackson Hole that contained implicit criticism
of Trump's trade policies and their impact on the U.S. and global economies.
Jay Powell does not want to lower the Fed interest rate. He does not want to increase bond
buying, i.e. quantitative easing. Interest rates are already too low and to further decrease
them has its own danger. The last time the Fed ran a too-low interest rate policy it caused
the 2008 crash and a global depression.
Expect Trump to fire Powell should he not be willing to follow his command. The U.S. will
push up its markets no matter what.
From Powell's perspective there is an additional danger in lowering U.S. interest
rates. When the U.S. runs insane economic and monetary policies U.S. allies will also want
decouple themselves - not from China but from the U.S. The 2008 experience demonstrated that
the U.S. dollar as the global reserve and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use
it. Currently any hickup in the U.S. economy leads to large scale recessions
elsewhere.
That is why even long term U.S. ally Britain warns of such danger and
looks for a way
out :
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney took aim at the U.S. dollar's "destabilising" role
in the world economy on Friday and said central banks might need to join together to create
their own replacement reserve currency.
The dollar's dominance of the global financial system increased the risks of a liquidity
trap of ultra-low interest rates and weak growth, Carney told central bankers from around
the world gathered in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in the United States. ... Carney warned that very low equilibrium interest rates had in the past coincided with wars,
financial crises and abrupt changes in the banking system. ... China's yuan represented the most likely candidate to become a reserve currency to match
the dollar, but it still had a long way to go before it was ready.
The best solution would be a diversified multi-polar financial system, something that
could be provided by technology, Carney said.
Carney speaks of a "new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC)" which, in a purely
electronic form, could be created by a contract between the central banks of most or all
countries. It would replace the dollar as the main trade currency and lower the risk for
other economies to get infected by U.S. sicknesses (and manipulations).
Carney did not elaborate further but is an interesting concept. The devil will be, as
always, in the details. Will one be able to pay ones taxes in that currency? How will the
value of each sovereign currency in relation to SHC be determined?
That the U.S. dollar is used as a global reserve currency under the Bretton Woods
system is, in the words of the former French Minister of Finance Valéry Giscard
d'Estaing, an "exorbitant privilege". It if wants to keep that privilege it will have to go
back to sane economic and monetary policies. Otherwise the global economy will have no choice
but to decouple from it.
Posted by b on August 24, 2019 at 19:22 UTC |
Permalink
"The 2008 experience demonstrated that the U.S. dollar as the global reserve
and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use it. Currently any hickup in the U.S.
economy leads to large scale recessions elsewhere."
It has also become a primary tool for the US to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over
the world to enforce extreme uses of sanctions, as in blowing up the Iran deal. Already the
EU has explored ways to get around that to work with Iran.
The over use of sanctions, and abuse of the US financial position in order to govern
others, reinforces the desire to deal with fears that dependence on the dollar risks
vulnerability to economic depression due to US irresponsibility.
The US is creating a perfect storm for the dollar, with is exactly what it would take to
make others undertake the expense and difficulty of replacing it as the world reserve
currency and presumed standard of exchange.
No one currency is quite as good now, but one could be improved, or a basket approach
could be used. In the ancient world, they used such a nominal currency as a standard by which
to value real currencies. We could again.
Trump does not want a new trade deal with China. He wants to decouple the U.S. economy
from the future enemy.
That may well be what is going on here. Something between total insanity and managed
insanity. The next president will unravel all of this in a year or so of effort. That is what
is so damaging. No business can plan on what is next. No policy is long term.
This is pure Trumpian logic unhinged. Hit them twice as hard as they hit you. I would not
dare to guess who is winding him up and pointing him in this direction. Trump has had one of
his busiest weeks yet.
I see Elisabeth Warren's crowd sizes are getting very large. I will feel better when no
one shows up to a Trump rally. China has time to wait this out and the ability to raise some
chaos on their own to help undermine Trump.
Sorry guys, it was the realization that the Empire had driven Russia into China's arms
that sparked the 'get tough' attitude on China.
The Empire HAD TO isolate China but their horrendous treatment of Russia provided an
opportunity for China to escape the coming 'smack down' by joining with Russia to challenge
Western global domination.
As usual, it is us 'little people that will suffer for the mistakes of our elites. And
elite propaganda means that most will suffer in silence, not realizing what really
happened.
It should be clear by now that elite adventurism is a choice that is not subject to
democratic controls. The sheeple will sleepwalk into WWIII.
Silver lining? Maybe a multi-lateral world saves us from the the more terrible dystopia of
a unilateral world.
I just had a thought. The USSA has been doing it all wrong for all these decades. There are
at least two responses the USSA could have applied to the obviously impending debacle of
simply allowing the Chinese to thoroughly undermine its industrial system. The most obvious
response would have been tariffs, which could be perceived as an aggressive policy, but
certainly not as the outright aggression of sanctions.
Or probably even much better, a 'negative sales tax' on USSA manufactured products, which
could in no way be perceived as aggressive at all. Note that there is (I presume) a vast
difference between simply subsidizing companies (since subsidies coud then flow directly into
the pockets of the companies' capitalists) and providing the companies' customers with a
'negative tax' on USSA produced products (basically an instant rebate). This could
effectively provide price parity for the goods produced for the two countries, and could
maintain the viability of the USSA manufacturing system.
But... no, we didn't do anything like that. Our Harvard trained economics geniuses hatched
the 'far superior' strategy of 'quantitative easing'. They simply eased all the money out of
the system and into the absurdly deep pockets of the oligarchs, supposedly in order to 'save
the system'. What a masterful strategy! So the options are all used up, and theres no sane
way forward. Great job.
So here's my plan. First, of course, we 'take care of' the lawyers. Well... no. First we
we bulldoze Harvard. Then we institute the mother of all class action lawsuits, the 99% as
plaintiffs and the 1% as defendants, and we clean them out (they will surely run off to
China, but good riddance). We will be left with all their fake money, but at least we can try
to start over.
From the article linked above...Just another model of political technology,....and of
civilization....
Titled 'Green is gold: the strategy and actions to China´s ecological civilization',
the plan that was analyzed during the UNEA assembly explains, in its beginning, its
starting point and destination: "Enjoying a beautiful house, a blue sky, a green land and
clean water is the dream of any Chinese citizen and, therefore, the center of the Chinese
dream (...) To achieve this vision, the government has decided to highlight the concept of
eco-civilization and incorporate it into every aspect of the economy, politics, culture and
social development of the country."
Definitely, a different political technology from that of Bannon...
Dianxi Xiaoge's YouTube channel is contemporary political technology at its finest.
Recommended viewing for all future world leaders.
Can one really get rid of one without just getting a new master? Contributor@4
Why not? Progress is not inevitable but it is possible.
The US ruling class cannot grow out of its desire to extend its rule to the rest of the
planet. But humanity is not as malleable as the American people-with their dreams of sharing
in the dividends when America (Great Again) (aka its ruling class) orders the rest of the
world around and exploits everyone the way that it exploits the working people in the United
States.
Somehow the profits of Empire never quite trickle down to the people who do the work
and man the armies.
Elsewhere, however the dream of ruling the planet either never occurred or was grown out of.
And people would be very happy to live good lives and make the earth a better place for
future generations.
Spot on in the first part of article about the inevitable new Cold War between China and
America and the serious fallout from the breakup of close economic ties. But not so good on
the second half wherein America central bankers are acting "insane"
while the rest of the developed world looks on in horror. Are you forgetting most of the
interest rates in Europe are now negative?
Are you not aware that the Bank of Japan basically owns 70% of the Japanese stock market in
the from of ETFs? America is way behind the curve when it comes to complete surrender to
"market forces." Trump wants Powell to play catchup now that it's game on with China. While
Europe and Japan are failing economically at least America is at war with the second biggest
power on the planet, making drastic moves justified in the face of a national emergency.
China is a bigger threat to America than Russia ever was because their economic model has
been so successful compared to the U.S. This is made more so because we no longer have a
government per se, only competing economic forces, while the Chinese have a government that
runs everything. If they lose this war, they still have a system. If we lose this war, we
lose everything.
I imagine now that John Maynard Keynes'ghost, if it were observing our current global
political and economic affairs, would be having a laugh. It was Keynes who suggested the
notion of International trade using a common trading currency created purely for
International trade purposes, in a system in which nations would not be allowed to build up
continuous balance-of-payments surpluses or deficits over several years, but would be
required to spend their surpluses on countries forced to go into deficit because of other
countries' desires for annual surpluses, leading to trade policies or currency manipulations
to achieve such a dubious goal.
The EU would be looking very different as a result, without a southern zone of debtor
nations with unstable economies and high unemployment, and a northern zone of smug nations
with full employment whose social welfare programs depend on an army of unemployed southerner
immigrants willing to work for peanuts.
When an American claims China has been behaving unfairly, what they really mean is that the
Chinese played America's rigged game and ended up outsmarting the dealer.
Why would others want to de-couple from US? What difference it would make to UK or other
EU vassals to serve FED/petro-dollar or to serve CCP/petro-yuan? Can one really get rid of
one without just getting a new master?
Posted by: Contributor | Aug 24 2019 20:02 utc | 4
The US$ is overvalued because there is, as it is the global reserve currency, a higher
demand for it than otherwise justifiable. In consequence U.S. companies buy up companies in
UK and Europe with an overvalued dollar. When the Fed lowers the price for US$ loans it
increases that effect. The Fed also creates bubbles, see the mortgage crisis, and the
currently overvalued stock markets, that have effects on foreign countries.
Said differently: The U.S. abuses is 'exorbitant privilege'. The hope is that China would
be less inclined to do so.
The real solution though is a different system with some global exchange medium that can
not be manipulated by one country or a block of selfish countries.
Here is an
interesting article entitled "The Dialectic of Globalization," that raises several important
questions pertaining to the phenomenon of globalism from the end of colonialism to the height
of "transnationalism" with the end of the cold war.
I can just about agree with its conclusions and provide my own opinion as to the end of
the "dialectic of globalism," that Trump seems to have, whether wittingly or not, ushered
into its next phase.
International neoliberalism needs vast amounts of regulating, but I do not believe that
Supranational governing agencies will be able to do this fairly and in the light of day. The
only other option then is to reassert state-controlled notions of legality which is what vast
proportions of the west seems to be clamoring for as can be seen with the
Trump-phenomenon.
Non-citizens accounted for 64 percent of all federal arrests in 2018, according to new data released
on Aug. 22 by the Justice Department. The surge was driven largely by immigration -crime arrests, which have soared
to the highest level in at least two decades.
Federal authorities conducted 108,667 arrests for immigration crimes in 2018, up more than
five times from the 20,942 arrests in 1998. Immigration arrests accounted for 95 percent of the
total increase in the number of federal arrests over the past 20 years, the data shows.
That data also
shows a flip in the percentage of arrests of noncitizens compared to arrests of U.S. citizens.
In 1998, arrests of citizens accounted for 63 percent of the total arrests. By 2018, arrests of
noncitizens had grown to 64 percent of the total.
In a press
release accompanying the data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) noted that while
noncitizens accounted for 7 percent of the U.S. population, they committed 24 percent of all
federal drug arrests, 25 percent of all federal property arrests, and 28 percent of all federal
fraud arrests.
... ... ...
In terms of prosecutions, more than 78 percent of noncitizens were prosecuted for illegal
reentry, alien smuggling, and misuse of visas. The most common prosecutions of noncitizens
outside of immigration-related offense dealt with drugs, at 13 percent of the total, and fraud,
at 4 percent.
Weall, they say it right out. 78% of those noncitizen arrests were for illegal
immigration, a "victimless" crime. Most prosecutions for robbery, murder, rape, assault, and
even drug trafficking are prosecuted under state laws. They'd only move it to federal court
specifically because non-citizens or cross-border activity was involved. So what this
really says is, "Hey, folks. Trump is actually enforcing immigration laws." That's it.
The only crimes that foreigners really commit more than citizens are immigration violations.
That and, historically, organized criminal gangs have used connections in other countries,
whether Mexico or Sicily, to escape American justice and facilitate smuggling of whatever's
profitable.
US: Noncitizens Commit Crime At 2.5X Their Population Share (2018)
"At least 21 percent of people convicted of non-immigration crimes in the United States
between 2011 and 2016 were non-citizens -- 2.5 times their share of the population, a new
study has shown."
High Numbers Of Indian Nationals Crossing Into US At Southern Border (2019)
"In the 2018 fiscal year, 8,997 people from India were apprehended at the Southwest
border -- more than triple the number from the year before, when 2,943 Indian migrants were
apprehended."
Starting on
October 1st, the
250 BILLION
DOLLARS of goods
and products from
China, currently
being taxed at
25%, will be taxed
at 30%.
Additionally, the
remaining 300
BILLION DOLLARS of
goods and products
from China, that
was being taxed
from September 1st
at 10%, will now
be taxed at 15%.
From the same flaw the western MSM must suffer: did the NYT really expected China would
just treat Trump like a child, wait for him to lose the 2020 election and suddenly make
amends with the USA?
Did it really think this trade war was just a bad taste joke? Did it really think China
would just cave in in order to "defend globalisation"?
Do they really think of America as some kind of transcendental, abstract idea, and not a
concrete entity made of real human beings?
China announces tit for tat tariffs as yuan sinks to new low against the dollar.
Also sinking is Trump's popularity among US voters. AP has him at 36% approval versus 62%
disapproval. Remarkably, Trump's highest mark of 46% approval is for his handling of the
economy.
A no deal Brexit which Trump supports is just the thing to set off a recession in the EU
which spreads to Asia and the US.
What will his approval rating be then?
donkeytale , Aug 23 2019 13:43 utc |
86vk , Aug
23 2019 13:47 utc |
87
Wrong configuration from the last post (#85). I politely ask the administer to delete it.
The plan to retaliate against President Trump's tariffs suggests that neither side in the
trade war is prepared to back down.
I doubted this theory for a very long time, but now I'm beginning to believe it: Americans
really don't think they are responsible for the politicians they elect. They expect the rest
of the world to interpret any wrongdoings of their country as individual flaws of random
politicians. They expect the rest of the world to swallow the abuses by their POTUS under the
idea that they will elect another one the next election cycle. They expect the rest of the
world to be suportive, loyal and patient with their contry forever.
From the same flaw the western MSM must suffer: did the NYT really expected China would
just treat Trump like a child, wait for him to lose the 2020 election and suddenly make
amends with the USA? Did it really think this trade war was just a bad taste joke? Did it
really think China would just cave in in order to "defend globalisation"? Do they really
think of America as some kind of transcendental, abstract idea, and not a concrete entity
made of real human beings? Are they really that dense?
That NYT article is not for the proles.. it is for the ten percent. They want their
hairdressers, lawn maintenance, nannies, and home health aides to make $10 an hour. It is
better for them to have a lower class pool of people's to do this work. This is why the
author didn't question the "$10-12 an hour for a CNA" statement. He/she wants that cheap
labor for themselves.
Typo in the text for your link s/b 44.5 million. The report makes a further adjustment for
illegal immigrants to obtain a total of "likely 46.4 million" immigrants. Then, from your
link:
Between 2010 and 2017, 9.5 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New
arrivals are offset by roughly 320,000 immigrants who return home each year and natural
mortality of about 2ha90,000 annually among the existing immigrant population.2 As a
result, growth in the immigrant population was 4.6 million from 2010 to 2017.
So net average about 12.6K per week, though the detail shows numbers increasing over the
time span.
As far as "overloading the social systems, welfare and finances" it would be helpful to
see some detail. There are often studies showing factors like the overall contribution of
immigrant labor to the economy, and comparative immigrant uses of social services which
illustrate these issues, pro and con. For example, a
recently proposed change would make it more difficult for military veterans to obtain a
green cards for themselves and their families if they had accepted public benefits, though
some would argue that military service is a valuable contribution to the country.
A key consideration for me is that there are powerful politicians, and those who vote for
them, who favor even the most inhumane versions of gutting or ending immigration who also
favor gutting or eliminating social programs and workers rights for non-immigrants.
This is NOT about immigration. Get the terms right and you can see the problem clearly.
Allow others to define the vocabulary and you get the mess we are in where illegally
trafficked, quasi-slaves are lumped together with legal immigrants.
The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working
conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen. And guess
what, both government and corporations work hard to make legal immigration difficult. It
costs thousands of dollars, takes years and if, at any time throughout that period you, or
– more likely your now teenaged kid – makes a mistake involving law enforcement,
then YOURROUT.
On the other hand we have human traffickers trawling around Guatemala, Nicaragua and
probably rural Mexico selling the American dream for your teenage son. And all you have to do
to get him trafficked to a life of luxury working fifteen hours a day in a battery chicken
shed for 4 bucks an hour .. is to give over the deeds of your Guatemalan shack. So if kiddo
doesn't work hard enough or, heaven forfend, says forget this and bails, then you're all
homeless.
Unfortunately, open borders proponents are partly to blame for the terminological
murkiness.
Pro illegal immigration advocates typically use slogans affirming the value of immigrants and
immigration. They correctly note that immigrants make the country great, etc. No argument
there. But they use these slogans and line of argumentation to advocate for illegal
immigration. They deliberately conflate the two processes of legal and illegal
immigration.
"The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working
conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen "
They..the legal immigrants also often enjoy protections from their original country and
dual citizenship. They have an escape route
Leaving the US citizen ass out with ZERO protections.
Just, ugh, to seeing rightwing talking point anti-immigrant comment thread on NC. Sorry.
Thanks to anyone attempting to correct the stirring-up-of-reactionary-resentments with some
critical thinking. Right now, I can't even.
That's fair, but you pay taxes at full rate with no rights for a decade, then you pay
thousands in legal fees to keep your legal status correct and you can't leave the job your in
till you get the green card – which can take years.
The "right" to go back to your own country" is indeed true. But now you have American kids
and likely/eventually American grandkids who know nothing of your "old country" – which
is itself unrecognizable from when you lived there – and maybe that "right" is less
valuable than you think.
Anyway, my aim was to point out the difference between a legal, organized system of
immigration and a cynical nasty system of wage suppression using quasi- slavery. They are
different things and conflating them serves to hide what is going on
"The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue." you mean the CIA democrats like Mark Warner? the
US has nothing to offer the world except war, which is why the people of the US must destroy this country. there is 1000% bipartisan
agreement on the war drive against both china & russia. both parties spend their days yelling at each other about who is the most
commie, like Moscow Mitch or Comrade Nancy, b/c they are unified in their war drive. as they are on anything else that matters.
this country exists to wage war, as the platform for projection of power, against competitors. nothing else. the illusion that
any of the operators w/in the system, any of them at all, are doing anything but crafting a persona in relation to power for self-aggrandizement,
not challenging power in the slightest, is not helpful.
b, what makes you think the Democrats are not in on the scam?
Also, just like the US funds NGOs in other countries, China too spends hugely and has bought many influential lobbyists and
think-tanks as well as media personalities and politicians in the US. Not very different than Israel lobbyists through AIPAC and
the massive Israel First big money. China influence operations in the US is likely significantly larger than US influence operations
in China since China is a closed CCP controlled system.
b wrote
"
The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue.
"
I agree with jb at comment #1
Yes there are "good" Democrats which are very much in the minority. The rest D/R are acolytes for the God of Mammon finance/war
based social order of the West.
Yes, we are in a very strange WWIII with lots of spinning plates and propaganda action and shedding of blood mostly where the
Western public does not "see" it
Excellent work b! Funding what on the surface appears to be a propaganda op aimed at another nation becomes a form of campaign
finance for a president's reelection campaign! I wonder how many such funds went to similar work on previous occasions?
It seems that at some point in time those within the Outlaw US Empire deemed it unimportant that other nations learn the funding
for numerous NGOs seeking to subvert them are overtly financed by the USG and are thus not NGOs at all but CIA appendages; and
that despite the overtness, the USG still claims those organizations to be legitimate NGOs.
I find it worthy in an ironic manner that the USA will soon be eclipsed by the nation it might have become had it not sought
to be a global empire. In fact, it's the very product of those Open Door policy advocates that will soon become the bane of their
descendants who opted for a financialized Free Lunch economy for themselves instead of a massively robust, resilient industrial/commercial
economy for all Americans.
Falun Gong is kinda like Scientology crossed with Amway. Get rich quick while simultaneously healing your goiters. In its best
days it was a terrible scam. Now it is just a blunt instrument that the US State Department uses to try and beat China with.
The Epoch Times' Jeff Carlson has been in the thick of uncovering the broad Democratic Party coup (in league with transnational
intelligence assets) against the Trump Presidency. Thus b's depiction here of the Dems potentially acting in the role of white
knight subverts mountains of evidence. As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite plausible
storyline altogether.
Funny thing, after watching a Vesti News video on youtube I saw a video ad for the Epoch Times. It had a young white millennial
saying a bunch of propaganda drivel about the evil communist Chinese with regards to the Hong Kong protests.
Without suppression of Wall Street speculators the renaissance on manufacturing is impossible...
Notable quotes:
"... A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back? ..."
If I lived in the past, I might assume that re-industrialization would be as easy as building a new plant and plopping it down
in my model town; "build it and they will come." But this America is not that America. Things aren't that frictionless. They are
not, because of a concept that comes with the seventy five-cent word hysteresis attached,
covered here in 2015. Martin Wolf wrote :
"Hysteresis" -- the impact of past experience on subsequent performance -- is very powerful. Possible causes of hysteresis
include: the effect of prolonged joblessness on employability; slowdowns in investment; declines in the capacity of the financial
sector to support innovation; and a pervasive loss of animal spirits.
(To "loss of animal spirits" in the entrepreneurial classes we might add "deaths of despair" in the working class.) And if there
were a lot of people like me, living in the past -- in a world of illusion -- that too would would cause hysteresis, because we would
make good choices, whether for individual careers, at the investment level, or at the policy level, only at random.
Our current discourse on a manufacturing renaissance is marked by a failure to take hysteresis into account. First, I'm select
some representative voices from the discourse. Then, I will present a bracing article from Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing Its Toolbox? " I'll conclude by merely alluding to some remedies. (I'm sure there's a post to be written
comparing the policy positions of all the candidate on manufacturing in detail, but this is not that post.)
"We're in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance -- something which nobody thought you'd hear," Trump said. "We're
finally rebuilding our country, and we are doing it with American aluminum, American steel and with our great electrical contractors,"
said Trump, adding that the original NAFTA deal "stole our dignity as a country."
Despite Trump's promises of a manufacturing "renaissance," the country is now in a manufacturing
recession
. The Federal Reserve just reported that the manufacturing sector had a second straight quarter of decline, falling below Wall
Street's expectations. And
for the first
time ever , the average hourly wage for manufacturing workers has dropped below the national average.
Amazingly, under Trump, America has experienced a 2½-year manufacturing jobs boom. More Americans are now employed in well-paying
manufacturing positions than before the Great Recession. The miracle hasn't slowed. The latest jobs report continues to show robust
manufacturing growth, with manufacturing job creation beating economists' expectations, adding the most jobs since January.
Obviously, the rebound in American manufacturing didn't happen magically; it came from Trump following through on his campaign
promises -- paring back job-killing regulations, cutting taxes on businesses and middle-class taxpayers, and implementing trade
policies that protect American workers from foreign trade cheaters.
But nothing has reversed the decline of the county's manufacturing base. From January 2017 to December 2018, it lost nearly
9 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and 17 other counties in Michigan that Mr. Trump carried have experienced similar losses,
according to a newly updated analysis of employment data by the Brookings Institution.
Perhaps the best reality check -- beyond looking at our operational capacity, as we are about to do -- is to check what the people
who will be called upon to do the work might think. From Industry Week, "
Many Parents
Undervalue Manufacturing as a Career for Their Children " (2018):
A mere 20% of parents associate desirable pay with a career in manufacturing, while research shows manufacturing workers actually
earn 13%more than comparable workers in other industries.
If there were a manufacturing renaissance, then parents' expectations salaries would be more in line with reality (in other
words, they exhibit hysteresis).
Another good reality check is what we can actually do (our operational capacity). Here is Tim Cook explaining why Apple ended
up not manufacturing in the United States (
from J-LS's post ).
From Inc. :
[TIM COOK;] "The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working
with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the US you could have a meeting
of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields.
"The vocational expertise is very very deep here, and I give the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on
that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said this is a
key thing and we've got to correct that. China called that right from the beginning."
With Cook's views in mind, let's turn to the slap of cold water administered by Michael Collins in Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing
Its Toolbox? ":
So are we really in the long-hoped-for manufacturing renaissance? The agency with the most accurate predictions on the future
of jobs is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Their projection to 2026
shows that US manufacturing sector will lose 736,000 manufacturing jobs. I spoke with BLS economists James Franklin and Kathleen
Greene, who made the projections, and they were unwavering in their conclusion for a decline of manufacturing jobs.
This prompted me to look deeper into the renaissance idea, so I investigated the changes in employment and establishments in
38 manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries from 2002 to 2018. I really hoped that the optimists
were right about the manufacturing renaissance, but
the data I collected in Table 1 (see link) shows some inconvenient truths -- that 37 out of the 38 manufacturing industries
are declining in terms of both number of plants and employees.
So, yeah. Mirage.
... ... ...
A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The
manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley
closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge
flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone
simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back?
So, when I see no doubt well-meant plans like Warren’s “Economic Patriotism” — and not to pick on Warren — I’m skeptical. I’m
not sure it’s enough.
Here are her
bullet points:
More actively managing our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing.
Leveraging federal R&D to create domestic jobs and sustainable investments in the future.
Production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States
Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.
R&D investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities.
Increasing export promotion to match the efforts of our competitors.
Deploying the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American-made products.
Restructuring worker training programs to deliver real results for American workers and American companies.
Dramatically scale up apprenticeship programs.
Institute new sectoral training programs.
There’s a lot to like here, but will these efforts really solve the hysteresis that’s causing our tooling problem? Just spit-balling
here, but I’d think about doing more. Start with the perspective that our tooling must be, as much as possible, domestic. (“If your
business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.” Similarly, if your industrial base depends on the tooling of others,
it’s not an industrial base.)
As tooling ramps up, our costs will be higher. Therefore, consider tariff walls, as used by other developing nations when they
industrialized. Apprenticeships and training are good, but why not consider skills-based immigration that brings in the worker we’d
otherwise have to wait to train?
Further, simply “training” workers and then having MBAs run the firms is a recipe for disaster; management needs to be provided,
too.
Finally, something needs to be done to bring the best and brightest into manufacturing, as opposed to having them work on Wall
Street, or devise software that
cheats
customers with dark patterns. It’s simply not clear to me that a market-based solution — again, not to pick on her — like Warren’s
(“sustainable investments,” “research investments,” “R&D investments,” “export promotion,” and “purchasing power”) meets the case.
It is true that Warren also advocates a Department of Economic Development “that will have a single goal: creating and defending
good American jobs.” I’m not sure that’s meaningful absent an actual industrial policy, democratically arrived at, and a mobilized
population (which is what the Green New Deal ought to do).
"... "The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these tariffs is mounting. ..."
"... The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement. ..."
American farmers are likely to feel the pain first. Soybean exports to China collapsed last year when the trade war began, and
agricultural exports will be hit harder when, or if, the new tariffs are imposed. Farmers are also suffering from extensive flooding
that has delayed planting.
"The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean
Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these
tariffs is mounting."
The new round of tariffs will hit other parts of the US food industry, with beans, lentils, honey, flour, corn and oats all on
the list of goods that will be taxed.
... ... ...
The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick
resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration
understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement.
Just days after Trump for the first time linked the ongoing Hong Kong protests with his
assessment of the US-China trade war, Beijing has issued an ultimatum to the White House: the
United States should not link trade negotiations with China to the Hong Kong protests,
denouncing such a move as a miscalculation.
In a short commentary published by Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily late on Monday,
the author said that events in Hong Kong were the internal affairs of China, and linking them
with trade negotiations was a "dirty" aim.
"Making a fuss about Hong Kong will not be helpful to economic and trade negotiations
between China and the US," the commentary said. " They would be naive in thinking China would
make concessions if they played the Hong Kong card " the oped cautioned.
Chinese diplomatic observers also said Beijing considered the worsening situation in Hong
Kong a sovereignty issue and would be highly unlikely to cave to Washington's pressure.
The remarks followed a statement by US Vice-President Mike Pence on Monday which reiterated
President Donald Trump's demand to tie the largely stalled trade talks with Hong Kong's
deepening crisis, a day after hundreds of thousands of people marched peacefully in defiance of
repeated intimidation from Beijing. In an address at the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, Pence
said the Trump administration would continue to urge Beijing to resolve differences with the
protesters peacefully and warned that it would be harder for Washington to make a trade deal
with Beijing if there was violence in the former British territory. Separately, Mike Pompeo
said that China should allow Hong Kong protesters the freedom to express themselves, in what
China saw as clear interference in its own internal matters.
The Chinese article countered by saying that the top priority for Hong Kong was to stop
violence and restore order, adding that US politicians should not send the wrong message to
people creating chaos in the city. "In the face of political intimidation, we not only dare to
say no, but also take countermeasures," it warned.
Global Times, a tabloid controlled by the flagship state-run newspaper People's Daily, also
warned in an editorial on Monday that American political and public opinion elites should not
harbour the illusion they could influence China's decisions on Hong Kong.
"Because of the trade war, the US has lost the ability to impose additional pressure on
China," it said.
"The US should stop its meaningless threat of linking the China-US trade talks with the Hong
Kong problem. Beijing did not expect to quickly reach a trade deal with Washington. More
Chinese people are prepared that China and the US may not reach a deal for a long time."
Chinese analysts noted Trump appeared to have hardened his stance on Hong Kong in the past
week or so, under growing pressure from US lawmakers and extensive media coverage of the
increasingly violent protests. Indeed, it was only a month ago when we reported that "
Trump Abandoned Support For Hong Kong Protests To Revive Trade Talks With Beijing ." Now
that trade war is once again front and center, with Trump using it as leverage for further Fed
rate cuts, the US president is once again refocusing his attention on Hong Kong.
As the
SCMP writes , Trump initially focused on making a deal with China ahead of his 2020
re-election bid and adopted a hands-off approach by characterizing the protests as "riots"
which were a matter for China to handle. Over the past few days, he suggested Chinese President
Xi Jinping should resolve the situation by meeting with protest leaders and warned that any
violence in the handling of the Hong Kong crisis would exacerbate difficulties for attempts to
bring an early end to the trade war.
"Trump's about-face on Hong Kong, from being neutral to piling pressure on Beijing, is
largely due to domestic political pressure ahead of the presidential elections," said Shi
Yinhong, an international relations expert at Renmin University and an adviser to the State
Council which is China's cabinet.
" But the Hong Kong issue concerns China's sovereignty and the government's ability to
maintain stability, which in Beijing's view is of superior priority . China cannot afford to
make much compromise and will do everything to fend off interventions from abroad, in spite of
all the risks and ramifications," he said.
Despite the soured mood between China and the US over their spiralling trade war – as
well as escalating tensions over Huawei, Taiwan and other geopolitical rifts – both sides
were planning further trade talks in the coming 10 days, according to White House chief
economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday.
Any progress would be virtually impossible with analysts cautioning that the US attempt to
"play the Hong Kong card" would further complicate the trade talks.
Meanwhile, in the latest significant escalation in diplomatic tensions, China responded
angrily to Washington's decision on a US$8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan and
Trump's warning against Huawei citing national security threats.
"When a long list of old problems between the two countries remains unsolved, the US side
is now ramping up the pressure on Hong Kong," said Shen Dingli, a professor of US studies at
Fudan University. "China has so far refused to make concessions in the absence of adequate
mutual respect and trust and I don't think we'll have much room to compromise on Hong Kong or
other issues. We'll have to wait and see what the US would do next," he said.
Shi also said none of the flashpoints in the bilateral ties – from Hong Kong, Taiwan,
to the South China Sea and the denuclearisation of North Korea – had any easy solution in
sight, with both sides showing little willingness to cooperate and accommodate the other's
interests. He said the increasingly hardline, confrontational approach on China by Trump
– who faced mounting pressure in his bid for re-election, especially amid signs of a
looming global economic recession – would only make a trade deal increasingly
unattainable.
"Even if there were no Hong Kong crisis, could the US and China reach a trade deal? Even if
Beijing caved into Washington's pressure on Hong Kong, would it make it easier for them to
bridge their glaring differences in the trade talks and cut a deal?"
Of course not, and since Trump is far more interested in keeping trade war simmering and on
the verge of a substantial escalation if only to keep the Fed on its toes and ready for far
more aggressive rate cuts, and even "some quantitative easing", that's precisely what the US
president wants.
Trump's claim that China is paying for the tariffs is completely false and basically serves
to redirect income from his poor supporters to his wealthy supporters.
Not only that, the policy will have the consequence of further isolating the United States,
says Michael Hudson.
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F08%2Fa-new-assessment-of-the-role-of-offshoring-in-the-decline-in-us-manufacturing-employment.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Christoph Boehm, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Aaron
Flaaen, Senior Economist, Research and Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Board, and Nitya
Pandalai-Nayar, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin. Originally
published at VoxEU
What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a
key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction
in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour.
One of the most contentious aspects of globalisation is its impact on national labour
markets. This is particularly true for advanced economies facing the emergence and integration
of large, low-wage, and export-driven countries into the global trading system. Contributing to
this controversy, between 1990 and 2011 the US manufacturing sector lost one out of every three
jobs. A body of research, including recent work by Bloom et al. (2019), Fort et al. (2018) and
Autor et al. (2013), has attempted to understand this decline in manufacturing employment. The
focus of this research has been on two broad explanations. First, this period could have
coincided with intensive investments in labour-saving technology by US firms, thereby resulting
in reduced demand for domestic manufacturing labour. Second, the production of manufacturing
goods may have increasingly occurred abroad, also leading to less demand for domestic
labour.
New Facts on Manufacturing Employment, Trade, and Multinational Activity
On the surface, the second explanation appears particularly promising. Manufacturing
employment declined from nearly 16 million workers in 1993 to just over 10 million in 2011,
shown by the black line in Figure 1. This large decline in manufacturing employment coincided
with a surge in outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by US firms (the blue line in Figure
1). Nevertheless, existing theories of trade and multinational production make ambiguous
predictions regarding the link between foreign production and US employment. Further, due to a
lack of suitable firm-level data on US multinationals, there has been limited research on their
role in the manufacturing employment decline (see Kovak et al. 2018 for a recent
exception).
Figure 1 US manufacturing employment and US outward FDI
Source : BEA for FDI; Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) and authors'
calculations for employment.
In a recent paper, we address the question of whether foreign input sourcing of US
multinationals has contributed to a decline in US manufacturing employment (Boehm et al. 2019).
We construct a novel dataset, which we combine with a structural model to show that US
multinationals played a leading role in the decline in US manufacturing employment. Our data
from the US Census Bureau cover the universe of manufacturing establishments linked to
transaction-level trade data for the period 1993-2011. Using two directories of international
corporate structure, we augment the Census data to include, for the first time, longitudinal
information on the direction and extent of firms' multinational operations. To the best of our
knowledge, our dataset is the first to permit a comprehensive analysis of the role of US
multinationals in the aggregate manufacturing decline in the US. With these data, we establish
three new stylised facts.
Fact 1: US-owned multinationals were responsible for a large share of the aggregate
manufacturing employment decline
Our first finding is that US multinational firms, defined as those US-headquartered firms with
foreign-owned plants, contributed disproportionally to the decline in US manufacturing
employment. While 33.3% of 1993 employment was in multinational-owned establishments, this
group directly accounted for 41% of the subsequent decline.
Fact 2: US-owned multinationals had lower employment growth rates than similar
non-multinationals
In Figure 2, we show that multinationals exhibited consistently lower net job creation rates in
the manufacturing sector, relative to other types of firms. Compared to purely domestic firms
and non-multinational exporting firms, multinationals created fewer jobs or shed more jobs in
almost every year in our sample. Of course, these patterns may not be causal, and other
characteristics of multinationals could be driving the low job creation rates. To address this
concern, we control for all observable plant characteristics, and find that multinational
plants experienced lower employment growth than non-multinational owned plants in the same
industry, even when the size and age of the plants are held constant.
Figure 2 Net US manufacturing job creation rates by type of US firm
Source : Authors' calculations based on the LBD, Directory of Corporation
Affiliations (DCA), and Longitudinal Foreign Trade Transactions Dataset (LFTTD)
Fact 3: Newly multinational establishments experienced job losses, while the parent
multinational firm expanded imports of intermediate inputs
An alternative way to assess the role of multinational activity on US employment with our data
is to use an 'event study' framework. We compare the employment growth trajectories of newly
multinational-owned plants to otherwise similar plants in terms of industry, firm age, and
plant size. As can be seen in Figure 3a, prior to the plants becoming part of a multinational,
their growth patterns are not different from the control group. However, in the years following
the multinational expansion, there is a brief positive but then sustained negative trajectory
of employment at these manufacturing plants. Ten years after the transition, these newly
multinational-owned plants have manufacturing employment that is about 20% smaller than an
otherwise similar plant.
Figure 3 US employment and import dynamics at new multinational plants
a) Relative imports
b) Cumulative relative employment (Index)
Source : Authors' calculations based on LBD, DCA, and LFTTD.
Further, these newly multinational firms increase imports following the expansion abroad. As
Figure 3b demonstrates, these firms substantially increase imports both from related parties
and other firms (at arms-length), relative to their control group. Taken together, Figures 3a
and 3b suggest that offshoring might explain the observed negative relationship between trade
and employment.
Structural Analysis: Did the Offshoring of Intermediate Input Production Result in a Net
Employment Decline in the US at the Firm Level?
While the patterns we identify above are suggesting that increased foreign input sourcing by
multinational firms led to a decrease in US manufacturing employment, they are not necessarily
causal. Standard models of importing, such as Halpern et al. (2015), Antras et al. (2017) or
Blaum et al. (2018), make ambiguous predictions as to whether foreign sourcing is associated
with increases or decreases in domestic employment. At the heart of this ambiguity are two
competing forces. First, a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing leads firms to have
access to cheaper intermediate inputs. As a result, their unit costs fall and their optimal
scale increases. This 'scale effect' raises their US employment. On the other hand, firms
respond by optimally reallocating some intermediate input production towards the location with
lower costs. This 'reallocation effect' reduces US employment. Theoretically, the scale effect
could dominate the reallocation effect and lead to positive employment effects of offshoring,
or vice versa.
We use our microdata to estimate the relative strengths of these two competing forces. We
show that in a conventional class of models and in partial equilibrium, the value of a single
structural constant – the elasticity of firm size with respect to firm production
efficiency – completely determines which of the two forces dominates. Our estimation
approach is to develop a method to structurally estimate an upper bound on this constant using
our data on the universe of US manufacturing firms. While a high value of the upper bound
leaves open the possibility that foreign sourcing and domestic employment are complements, a
low value of the bound unambiguously implies that the two are substitutes.
Our estimates of the bound are small, indicating that during the period 1993-2011, the
reallocation effect was much larger than the scale effect. In other words, during this period
of aggregate manufacturing employment decline, multinationals' foreign input sourcing was
leading to a net decline of manufacturing employment within these firms.
Aggregate Implications for US Manufacturing Employment
It is important to point out that the model we use only speaks to employment changes within
existing firms and does not take into account general equilibrium forces that can also affect
employment. Since such general equilibrium effects are inherently difficult to assess,
estimates of how much of the observed aggregate decline can be attributed to offshoring of
multinational firms are uncertain and often require strong assumptions. We thus proceed under
two alternative sets of assumptions. In the first, we conduct a simple partial equilibrium
aggregation exercise, which uses observed changes in firm cost shares of domestic inputs
together with our estimated parameter bounds to obtain model-implied predictions of the
employment loss due to foreign sourcing. This approach captures both the direct impact of
foreign sourcing by existing firms as well as the first-order impact on domestic suppliers,
holding all else equal. Under the second, we model these indirect, general equilibrium effects,
such as firm entry and exit, explicitly. In both of these scenarios, we find that the
offshoring activities of multinationals explains about one-fifth to one-third of the aggregate
US manufacturing employment decline.
Policy Implications
Our research shows that the global sourcing behaviour of US multinational firms was an
important component of the manufacturing decline observed in the past few decades. These firms
set up production facilities abroad and imported intermediate goods back to the US, with the
consequence of reduced demand for domestic manufacturing workers. While our research suggests
that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we caution that it does not support the
view that offshoring and trade should be contained with tariffs or other policy interventions.
Previous research has shown that both trade and offshoring are critical for consumers' access
to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our research implies that government assistance for
displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other
sectors.
Authors' note: Any opinions or conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the view of the US Census Bureau or the Board of Governors or its
research staff.
It's not just big-ticket manufacturing (appliances, etc) .little stuff that a nation uses
on a daily basis has been off-shored as well -- electrical wiring, capacitors, even
foodstuffs like cookies and candy.
I think an overlooked aspect is environmental protection and labor working conditions as
well as wages.
We are offshoring our pollution by moving manufacturing to other countries with much less
stringent environmental regulation. Similarly, labor rules in those countries don't require
as much worker safety, so we are offshoring injuries as well.
As the other countries become wealthier and more educated, they are starting to push for
more of these protections as well as higher wages which is forcing the companies to move
their production again to keep their costs low.
An interesting recent trend is the rejection of our "recycling" from countries that used
to receive it, so the feel-good greenwashing of filling the recycling bins is started to
boomerang back to North America as countries ship back the trash parts of the recycling. This
will likely require a second recycling revolution with more domestic processing of recycling
or an admission that it simply isn't going to happen in which case the righteousness quotient
of many suburbanites is going to plummet.
This is such an easy problem to solve from a policy standpoint- and it has been solved by
countries as small as the Netherlands.
Legally mandate a small list of fully recyclable materials for manufacturers to use in
production and packaging, and enforce it with punitive tariffs on non conforming goods. This
can take many forms, one logical option being that of holding companies responsible for the
costs of recycling their products.
This is as applicable to soda bottles as it is to large and complex products like
automobiles; BMW is a world leader in lifecycle waste reduction and recycling of
vehicles.
As usual, the impediment isn't technology or consumerism, it's corporate profitability and
one time costs of adjusting the supply chain.
So the writer says "that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors." I take it to mean that a policy
such as "free college" as advocated by Sanders which would involve government funded
vocational training in other sectors would go a long away toward helping those displaced by
outsourcing?
I remember all that BS back in the 80's and 90's everybody was on the bandwagon about
careers in computers, or any other hi-tech. I was one of those who had *some* training at
least .. right before they offshored all those jobs to India. It was a double kick in the
nuts.So, manufacturing went to China, computing went to India. And people wonder why I'm so
bitter and cranky sometimes.
Napoleon: "Money has no Fatherland. Financiers are without patriotism and without shame.
Their sole object is gain." IMHO US manufacturing is the reason why we're not all speaking
German today. And we gave all that capacity away like a bunch of lemmings over the
cliff
"that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their
transition to new jobs in other sectors."
This "implies" that there are "jobs in other sectors" that create as much economic value,
expertise and "innovation" as manufacturing jobs do. What are they–"service" jobs?
Taking in each other's laundry? Delivering McDonald's to your door? Netflix?
Manufacturing is not just a job category that can be changed out for something shiny and
new, it's vital infrastructure that represents a nation's ability to provide for itself, and
to create a standard of living that reflects that capability. Those "affordable goods" so
important to american "consumers" are manufactured goods. It's not just the price to
buy them, it's the ability to make them that's important.
Like it or not, the once mighty american economy was built on the mightiest manufacturing
capacity that the world had ever known. Trivializing it as being only about cheap stuff is a
colossal mistake. We used to know that, and we've only begun to pay the price for
forgetting.
We* might very well learn to make lasting things of value again .. on a lesser scale,
after half the population is dead from despair, war, and disease ..
Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs by multi-nationals contributed to job losses ..
Really! LOL!
30 years too late for this info.
Wasn't hard to see even way back in the 1980's how multi-nationals were working very hard to
export jobs and import their "anti-labor" behaviour they were excising outside the laws and
borders of the US.
Tariffs were historically used to protect domestic manufacturers. Both the fees and
increased price were use to boot domestic manufacturing, and hence domestic employment.
Yes, during the wave of industrialization. But they don't work so well once consolidation
starts. 1875-1925(roughly) was the golden age of US manufacturing, even the WWII bounce was
government DoD driven. Private ex-DoD manufacturing peaked in 1924 and was flat since then.
Then we have the 97-05 downwave which then has boosted us about back to 1925's ex-DoD high.
Just like the tech wave, it ended.
I mean, by 1925 Portsmouth Ohio was done by 1925, by 1950 they just bled manufacturing
while it consolidated around bigger cities after WWII.
We need self-efficiency not capitalists growth. It ain't happening people. Its over. We
need 10% contraction of GDP just to get manufacturing growing again from a much lower base.
Tariffs are dead in the water for growth now, and act like the opposite. They are also
creating a bubble in "base" consumption while killing domestic production and yes, eventually
overcapacity will kill base consumption and it crash again like last years 4th quarter
driving down domestic manufacturing further.
Anecdotally, in a field I worked in for a while, middle management in a small privately
owned "needle trades" firm, the "growth" among our competitors was in firms that (we assumed)
did their design work in US but manufactured overseas. Domestic manufacturers either adapted
to this, or closed down.
At least in this field, automation had next to nothing to do with it.
Instead, our research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing
workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
Ah yes, the subsidised retraining for manufacturing jobs that, in fact, do not exist.
Louis Uchitelle covered this policy failure in his 2006 book "The Disposable American:
Layoffs and their consequences". Is the phrase "got the T-shirt" relevant here?
For the government to re-employ workers who have lost their factories would be a form of
industrial policy. Ours is never clearly stated, if there is one. But one thing is clear and
that is the government gave the internationals every opportunity to offshore our national
productivity without any safety net for labor except unemployment insurance. Which runs out.
Michael Pettis has just backed a proposal to tax foreign capital saving and investment here
in this country. Because most of it is just financial "investments". Foreign investment for
long term capital projects would be virtually unaffected. It is claimed that this tax on
money parking would reduce out trade deficit and make it fluctuate within an acceptable
balance. By doing something that sounds like real-time exchange rate adjustments for every
transacted trade, now to include foreign investment and savings. So why didn't the
government, after offshoring all those jobs, re-employ all the laid-off workers as banking
and investment managers? So all this unproductive foreign money is skewing our trade balance.
Making our unemployment deeply structural. It is so bizarre that we are "trading" in money at
all. We are trading in the medium of exchange, which is fiat, which itself is susceptible to
exchange rate adjustments with other money and all of it supposedly backed by the
productivity of that country. That foreign productivity is frequently nothing more than IMF
money, stolen and taken out of the country. The P word. Because the world has reached
manufacturing overcapacity, I assume, all this money is totally skewing the ledgers. It's
laughable except for the fact that the bean counters take it seriously. The mess we are in is
something more fundamental than balanced exchange rates. It's more like hoarding at its most
irrational. Way over my head. And for us to fix unemployment here in the US will take far
more than a tax on all this loose international money.
Yeah it's nice to have it "officially" credentialed etc its not like I haven't been saying
this since they passed NAFTA, but then I wasn't "credentialed" so nobody listened . its like,
"No $#!t sherlock ???" pretty much *everyone* who has spent some time in the industrial
sectors knows this by heart without even needing to be told. Of course maybe now its OK to
say it out loud or something . smh.
===the Role of Offshoring in the Decline in US Manufacturing Employment===
It is not just the role of offshoring in the decline of US manufacturing employment, BUT
the effect the offshoring, and the competing with foreign manufacturers, had on the existing
US manufacturing workforce. The manufacturers and manufacturing workers that remain in the US
have to compete with their cheaper foreign competition for work.
I spent most of the last 25 years working in plastics injection molding. After spending
the first six years of my career in plastics/ polymer research and development, I
transitioned to injection molding. In the mid 90's when I started in injection molding,
globalization had already begun especially in the automotive sector. The car manufacturers
were already setting up global and domestic supply chains. But even then the Chicago area
(and the US in general) was heavy in mold making and injection molding businesses.
Then China became a major player in the world economy, NAFTA started, etc. and in the
early 2000's it was like the last manufacturer who gets stuck in the US gets to turn out the
lights!
There were a lot of small to medium size mold maker shops and plastic injection molders in
the Chicago area that went under because they could not compete with the cheaper foreign
competition. It was very sad as I knew many small mom and pop mold makers and injection
molders in the Chicago area who were in business for 20 – 30+ years that closed.
The fact that many businesses/corporations in the US, due to offshoring and globalization,
are forced to compete with foreign competitors that have cheaper labor, less regulation,
cheaper land costs, etc. etc. is beyond reason.
And to this day you can see the effects of neoliberal globalization in any manufacturing
or other business you visit as they are dealing with consequences of having to compete
directly with cheaper foreign competitors through cost cutting, low wages, and running the
employees into the ground.
The tables were tilted against manufacturers and manufacturing employees in the US. It is
like the US manufacturing (and other sectors) are trying to fight a battle with one hand tied
behind our backs.
There is a good book that relates to this post. The book is called Failure to Adjust: How
Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy by Edward Alden.
NAFTA killed a bunch of material extraction jobs, but boosted a bunch of auto production
jobs down the supply chain. You can see that on the data. Granted, auto sales have been flat
for 20 year which has led to a flattening of employment growth since 2005 after the material
extraction driven drop.
That is why the Trump Administration just basically rebooted it.
lol, but it created a bunch of debt finance jobs throughout the economy as well, that
boosted existing manufacturing. Offshoring accounts for .1% of the job loss. Most of it is
consolidation and technology. My great grandfather lost his job in 1925 during the first wave
of consolidation. What about that?
As someone working in manufacturing, while I am glad that there is some acknowledgement
that outsourcing is responsible, I strongly disagree about not implementing tariffs.
Effectively workers are competing for a race to the bottom in wages, working conditions, and
other factors like environmental laws.
Guess what if there are tariffs? Things will cost more, but there will also be more jobs
for the working class. Actually there will also be quite a few white collar jobs too.
Engineering, HR, Finance, Sales, etc, are all needed in any manufacturing industry.
I suspect that net, most workers would be better off even if prices were higher due to the
jobs. The thing is, the top 10 percent would not be and the 1 percent would not be. That's
the main reason for this outsourcing. To distribute income upwards so the rich can
parasitically take it.
While our research suggests that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we
caution that it does not support the view that offshoring and trade should be contained
with tariffs or other policy interventions. Previous research has shown that both trade and
offshoring are critical for consumers' access to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our
research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
This is where I strongly disagree. As discussed above, I think that the net effect might
be beneficial for the majority of society.
The other is the old retraining claims, which never pan out. What jobs are there? Visit
the communities in the Midwestern US and Southern Ontario. Retraining for what? For jobs that
are part time, minimum wage, with few or no benefits?!
Manufacturing may not have been perfect, but at least there were benefits, it was often
full time, and the salaries allowed a middle class existence.
When I read things like this, as much as I dislike Trump, I can understand why people
would support him.
For the life of me I don't see how any other outcome could have happened. With the
economic system we have embraced at least in my long lifetime, it was inevitable that
"capital" would seek the lowest level playing field in the long term. Nation's boundaries
kept that flow "fenced" to a certain limit for as long as there have been physical borders
between countries. Once the cat was let out of the bag of competing countries after WW2, for
example the Japanese with computer driven machinery (lathes) that crushed American companies
that in too many cases refused to invest and welcomed the slow destruction of organized labor
here in the US, it was inevitable that that condition would be the future of manufacturing
here. The advent of the Mexican maquiladoras gave a great push to the exporting of jobs.
NAFTA put the nails in the coffin so many more of those good paying jobs. "Labor" was never
invited to those global meetings that proved to be so destructive to so many countries.
But, again. The system we embrace can have no other outcome. "Tariffs" will eventually lead
to wars. So in the words of that famous Russian: "What is to be done?"
Anybody have a solution? You will be saving civilization from itself. We need a complete
rethinking of how we live on this planet. That will take better humans that we have now that
lead nations. In the meantime it's, "kill them all and let God sort them out!" The weak will
succumb; the strong will continue to battle for territory, in this case jobs, jobs, jobs.
"The Family': The Evangelicals Trying to Turn America Into a Theocracy"
'Netflix's new five-part series "The Family," now streaming, explores an elite coalition
of Christians with enormous influence in American politics'
by Nick Schager...08.14.19...7:07AM ET
"According to The Family, Netflix's unnerving new five-part documentary series, the most
powerful club in America is a consortium of religious true believers bound by their fanatical
love of Jesus. It has no official membership and requires no dues. It works overtime to avoid
publicity. Its ranks are comprised of both Republicans and Democrats.
And it seeks the eradication of the separation of church and state in its quest for its
most coveted asset: power...
...Think of it as a Christian mafia endeavoring to create a global theocracy under Jesus,
with grassroots enclaves around the USA (and planet) and a commitment to conducting
"non-consensual diplomacy" with tyrants -- by elected American officials who claim their
overseas efforts are just "Jesus stuff" -- as part of a "worldwide spiritual offensive." With
a depth and breadth that amplifies its terrifying conclusions, The Family lifts the veil of
secrecy surrounding this shadowy outfit, and what it reveals is a new world order that's not
only on its way -- it's already here."
"Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out"
'Newly unearthed documents reveal how an environmental-minded socialite became an ardent
nativist whose money helped sow the seeds of the Trump anti-immigration agenda'
By Nicholas Kulish and Mike McIntire...Aug. 14, 2019
"She was an heiress without a cause -- an indifferent student, an unhappy young bride, a
miscast socialite. Her most enduring passion was for birds.
But Cordelia Scaife May eventually found her life's purpose: curbing what she perceived as
the lethal threat of overpopulation by trying to shut America's doors to immigrants.
She believed that the United States was "being invaded on all fronts" by foreigners, who
"breed like hamsters" and exhaust natural resources. She thought that the border with Mexico
should be sealed and that abortions on demand would contain the swelling masses in developing
countries.
An heiress to the Mellon banking and industrial fortune with a half-billion dollars at her
disposal, Mrs. May helped create what would become the modern anti-immigration movement. She
bankrolled the founding and operation of the nation's three largest restrictionist groups --
the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration
Studies -- as well as dozens of smaller ones, including some that have promulgated white
nationalist views."...
"Trump Is Delaying Tariffs on China for Holiday Shopping Season"
by Shira Feder...08.13.19...11:04AM ET
"The Trump administration announced Tuesday that tariffs set to be imposed Sept. 1 on
Chinese consumer products like electronics, sneakers, and video game consoles will not go
into effect until Dec. 15."...
US to Delay Some China Tariffs Until Stores Stock
Up for Holiday Shoppers https://nyti.ms/2H50NMv
NYT - Ana Swanson - August 13
The Trump administration on Tuesday narrowed the list of Chinese products it plans to
impose new tariffs on as of Sept. 1, delaying levies on cellphones, laptop computers, toys
and other consumer goods until after stores stock up for the back-to-school and holiday
shopping seasons. Stocks soared on the news.
The move, which pushed a new 10 percent tariff on some goods until Dec. 15 and spared
others entirely, came as President Trump faces mounting pressure from businesses and consumer
groups over the harm they say the continuing trade war between the United States and China is
doing.
Mr. Trump's earlier tariffs on Chinese imports were carefully crafted to hit businesses in
ways that everyday Americans would mostly not notice. But his announcement this month of the
10 percent tariff on $300 billion of Chinese goods meant consumers would soon feel the trade
war's sting more directly.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump acknowledged as much.
"We're doing this for the Christmas season," he told reporters around noon. "Just in case
some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers." ...
... Mr. Trump's comments about the tariffs' impact on consumers followed the United States
trade representative's office announcement that while the new tariffs would take effect as
Mr. Trump had threatened, some notable items would not immediately be subject to them.
Consumer electronics, video game consoles, some toys, computer monitors and some footwear
and clothing items were among the items the trade representative's office said would not be
hit with tariffs until retailers had time to stockpile what they needed for their busiest
time of year.
The administration also said some products were being removed from the tariff list
altogether "based on health, safety, national security and other factors." A spokesman for
the trade representative's office said the products being excluded from the tariffs included
car seats, shipping containers, cranes, certain fish and Bibles and other religious
literature.
The S&P 500 climbed nearly 2 percent after the announcement, lifted partly by stocks
of retailers and computer chip producers that have been sensitive to indications that trade
tensions were getting either better or worse.
Best Buy, which gets a many of the products it sells from China, was among the
best-performing stocks in the S&P 500, up more than 8 percent in morning trading. The
Nasdaq composite index rose more than 2 percent. ...
The United States is openly encouraging a hard or radical split between the United Kingdom
and the European Union. This by way of John Bolton. Why the administration would take such a
position is a puzzle to me, and the openness is shocking.
U.S. supports no-deal Brexit with trade deals ahead, says Bolton
The United States would enthusiastically support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the
British government decided to do, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday
during a visit to London aimed at reassuring Britain over UK-U.S. ties.
"If that's the decision of the British government we will support it enthusiastically, and
that's what I'm trying to convey. We're with you, we're with you," Bolton told reporters
after his first day of meetings.
"They will have to figure out how to do what they can by October 31 or soon thereafter.
From our point of view, we would have been happy to do it before that," the official said.
"The previous government didn't want to do it, this government does. We're very happy about
it," he added.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union
on October 31 and Washington will be ready to work fast on a U.S.-UK free trade agreement,
Bolton told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
BBC quoted Bolton as saying that a bilateral agreement or "series of agreements" could be
carved out "very quickly, very straight-forwardly."
He said British officials had given him an unmistakable sense that they were determined to
honor the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.
"The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the
elites want to go, it's to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,"
Bolton said.
The central message Bolton was delivering is that the United States would help cushion
Britain's exit from the EU with a free trade deal that is being negotiated by U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer and his British counterpart, Liz Truss.
Bolton said Britain and the United States could agree trade deals on a sector-by-sector
basis, leaving more difficult areas in the trading relationship until later.
He said the ultimate aim was a comprehensive trade deal, but highlighted that financial
services could be one of the more difficult industries to reach an agreement on.
Bolton had been expected to urge officials from Johnson's government to align its policy
on Iran more along the lines of the United States, which has pushed a much tougher line
against Tehran since withdrawing from world powers' 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.
But, after his meetings Bolton said talks on some of these thornier diplomatic issues
could wait.
Johnson has told the European Union there is no point in new talks on a withdrawal
agreement unless negotiators are willing to drop the Northern Irish backstop agreed by his
predecessor Theresa May.
The EU has said it is not prepared to reopen the divorce deal it agreed with May, which
includes the backstop, an insurance policy to prevent the return to a hard border between the
British province of Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland.
Good to catch you around these economic matters. The WWIII is actually just being waged by
one side, I think. China is the caravan moving on. The fading bark of the dogs is the western
end of the deal, I think. But no time to enlarge on this right now, what with Europe having
the vapors...
Everybody got economics going on, it seems like, and Europe is no exception. Check out
below.
~~
Brexit and the EU
Alastair Crooke has a new piece out, riffing largely on a Pritchard Evans article in the
Telegraph, and including a very hot video clip from the heart of German concerns as the UK
executes Brexit.
I didn't realize how important the UK is to the EU and how its exit changes everything for
Germany. But the EU realpolitik illustrated in this Crooke article and in the 6-minute video
clip of the German speech is an entire facet of Brexit I had never seen until now. Check this
quote:
Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor
Merkel for her and the Brussels botched handling of Brexit (for which "she, Merkel bears
some responsibility"). Weidel pointed out that "the UK is the second biggest economy in
Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined". "From an economic
perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9." [My emphasis]
Crooke and co are saying that the UK departure from the EU changes the entire regime of
monetary controls within this economic union. Crucially, the lead is now shifting away from
Germany and to the failed economic model of France.
To make the chronic acute, now Trump cares, and the US has a stake in this - who knew? The
EU didn't know. It always thought the US was a partner, but maybe not.
If you want to dive straight into the German angst, here's the six-minute video of Alice
Weidel ripping German complacency apart with a call to attention from her constituency in
marginalized eastern Germany: German view of
Brexit
And for the containing article from Crooke - be warned that he quotes Paul Krugman but I
have to say it sounds pretty good to me - here's his article: Germany
Stalls and Europe Craters
You should try watching the recent documentary "Hail Satan?" by Penny Lane. It's about the
founding and evolution of The Satanic Temple, an organisation masquerading as a
Satan-worshipping religion, whose members stage various stunts that expose the hypocrisy of
governments and mainstream religious organisations in pushing for greater freedoms and rights
for themselves but denying freedom of speech and freedom of religious worship to others, and
in the lip service these institutions pay to the separation of religion and the state.
The only disappointing aspect of the documentary is that most of the in-fighting amongst
the different chapters of The Satanic Temple was edited out of the film to preserve its flow
and emphasise the documentary's main themes. You only get a hint of the differences that
developed among the members in how they interpret the organisation's agenda and tenets, and
in their attitudes towards working within the system to change it or not working within it
but challenging it instead. You do get a sense though that many people around the world must
have been waiting for an organisation like TST to come along, that the organisation taps into
a deep yearning among people for something or someone to challenge the authorities, and that
the organisation grew very quickly, perhaps too quickly for its founder members to get a
handle on.
Interestingly, the director became a member of The Satanic Temple after she completed
filming and editing the documentary.
J.M.Keynes addressed 'foreign exchange' between sovereign states in his original version
of World Bank and International Money Fund, both addressing the fundamental causes of the
Great Depression. These presentations to U.S. government authorities also included the
British application for war debt forgiveness at the termination of hostilities to avoid
repeating post WWI scenarios. These presentations were then made to the Bretton Woods
Conference as the American version of the proposals, reversing institution and purpose as
contrived by Washington's design. Makes interesting reading the cables between Keynes and
London. What exists since Bretton Wood is the American version and as usual it was all
screwed up, but Keynes original proposals contain policies needed for the EAEU's ability to
function (and to avoid the economic causes of the Great Depression).
I recalled it was tax collection that became the failure of the colonial confederation,
the failure of the Continental Congress to meet its obligations, but then interpretations can
vary.
Finally got around to reading Crooke's latest. Yes, the EU's surely in a fix; but IMO,
he's correct about the ultimate source of the problem and the inability of solving it without
a total reformation. However, I would argue that reforming the EU would be a massive error.
IMO, it makes far greater sense to learn from the mistakes and negotiate with Russia and
China to consummate Putin's proposal for an EAEU sans the strangulating aspects of an EAEU
Central Bank and currency--the Euro and EUCB being two of the EU's mistakes. Such a creation
would also see the demise of NATO and the freeing of monies for war to be used on debt
relief, infrastructure, and building public/human capital. Russo- and Sinophobia would
immediately cease. The issues of South Asia would become easier to handle. And to be included
in the club Occupied Palestine would need to become Palestine--one state--thus defusing the
last colonial imposition impeding Eurasian integration/unity.
Yes, the five anglophone entities would be left out in the cold, although I can't see The
City allowing its politicos to blow its opportunity to cash in by having a piece of the
action (but then the British are unpredictable) while Scotland, Ireland and Wales prosper.
Africa would see its future lies in joining with Eurasia.
I don't think either Merkel or Macron have the vision required to even imagine the above
possibility, although I'd be happy to get surprised. But would such a suggestion need to come
from either France or Germany; why not Central and Southern Europe as such a change would
really benefit those nations?
Don't forget the generation that formed the Treaty of Rome and conducted subsequent
negotiations were mostly replaced by the 1980's with a generation not sharing common
experiences that the war generation had. Also, by the 1980's the economic theories being
taught had substantially changed from the economic understandings and experiences of the war
generation.
The war generation had each sovereign country having sufficient and adequate laws governing
banking and finance that prevented most aberrations within that country. Each country had
developed from differing circumstances and had drafted their laws to those specific
circumstances. Finding a common legal denominator proved to be, as they say 'a bridge too
far' but as long as each country's laws were effective, no problems presented.
The subsequent generation under the neoliberal economic theories found the central EU
government devoid of economic governance or regulatory structures; an open field easily
commanded by removing the abilities of each country to provide such governance for their
state. Centralisation of economic power became the problem and the cause of problems that
remain unaddressed and unless address is done, the economic house of cards will not last for
long.
Agreed! That's why I made it a point to list the EUCB and Euro as the two main mistakes
that must be learned from if an EAEU is to be formulated. Both Russia and China are
determined that each nation must remain sovereign, which means each must have control over
its monetary and political systems. Instead of a Union implying a federal structure, the
proposed political entity would be better termed as a Confederation with each nation
retaining its homogeneity. The major difference being the proposed Confederation would have
no trade barriers and visa-free movement for its citizens. (Recall the main failing of the
initial Confederation of United States were the trade barriers erected between states that
prompted the businessmen's revolt that led to the 1787 Constitution and the formation of the
federal United States of America.) If a regional grouping of nations--say the former
Yugoslavian entities--wanted to reform into a larger political-economic unit to better
provide for their collective citizenry, there would be no objection; and the reverse would be
possible as sovereignty of people would remain a foundation of human rights.
Given future challenges, IMO the above makes the best sense for Eurasia and Africa. The
implosion of the Outlaw US Empire and its affect on its hemispheric neighbors remains
unknown. It's possible the once formidable economic magnet of the Empire's economy will
reverse its polarity and drive people out as it did during the Great Depression. The vast
amount and depth of corruption within the Empire will take several generations to be
extinguished, and only then will political reformation become possible.
"One bright side of our malignant political moment is that you never have to listen to
Political Christians again. Any moral authority these folks might've claimed prior to
becoming the number-one constituency for Donald Trump, American president, is gone. What
principles of Jesus Christ does the current president embody? Of course, that question
assumes the Son of God's words ever played a particularly prominent role in an Evangelical
political movement that for decades has devoted nearly all its energy to opposing marriage
equality and getting abortion banned. Matthew 25:35 has never been high on the list of
priorities, and Trump -- as he has in so many other areas of our social and political life --
merely laid that truth bare.
Still, it is...something to see a report in Politico outlining what some members of the
Evangelical movement found sickening about Trump' recent rally in North Carolina. You know,
the one where his fans started chanting, "Send her back!" about a sitting member of Congress
who just happened to be a woman of color whom Trump himself had told to go back to where she
came from. These Constitutional Conservatives were appalled at the idea of stripping someone
of her citizenship because she exercised her First Amendment rights to criticize the country
that her constituents had duly elected her to help run. They were gravely offended at the
prospect of expelling Ilhan Omar, who came here as a refugee from Somalia as a child, in
breach of Christ's edict about inviting in the stranger, the least of my brothers and
sisters.
Just kidding! They didn't like the salty language.
'The nation was gripped after the rally by the moment when a "send her back" chant broke
out as Trump went after Somali-born Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, an American citizen. But some
Trump supporters were more fixated on the casual use of the word "goddamn" -- an off-limits
term for many Christians -- not to mention the numerous other profanities laced throughout
the rest of the speech.
The issue has recently hit a nerve among those who have become some of the president's
most reliable supporters: white evangelicals...Coarse language is, of course, far from the
president's only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He's been divorced twice,
faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and
has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion, once saying "two Corinthians"
instead of "Second Corinthians." Yet to this point, Trump has maintained broad support from
evangelicals, including the unwavering backing of prominent conservative Christian
leaders.'
Did tearing children from their parents "hit a nerve"? It appears not, at least among the
73 percent of white Evangelicals who approve of the president's job performance. Neither, as
Politico pointed out, does the president's blatant non-religiosity that borders on outright
disdain for his religious audiences. After all, "Second Corinthians" doesn't tell the whole
story. Here's the line in full: "Two Corinthians, 3:17 -- that's the whole ballgame," he
said, adding: "Is that the one you like? I think that's the one you like." It's hard to
imagine a more condescending delivery.
The simplest explanation is that the most important part of White Evangelical Christian is
"white," and that the movement has always been about maintaining the United States as a
country by and for white people. No wonder these folks overlooked Trump's many affairs and
divorces and vulgarities. He might have "joked" on television about dating his own daughter,
or OK'd calling her a "piece of ass" on the radio, but he's on their side on the truly
important things, like federal judge appointments. It's kind of like how no one cares that
Trump employs -- and has always employed -- large numbers of undocumented immigrants while
railing against illegal immigration. He enforces the racial hierarchy, and that's what
matters. It's not really that no one should come. It's that they should be ruthlessly
exploited and forced to live in fear as a societal underclass.'
OK, I'm having a very nerdy moment. Trying to understand why US-China bilateral trade
imbalance is so large. NOT because it's important, but just because it's kind of a puzzle; I
guess it's my inner @Brad_Setser 1/
6:39 AM - 10 Aug 2019
So last year US goods imports from China were $539.5 billion, US goods exports $120.3
billion. That's 4.5 to 1. Why so much asymmetry? I think 4 reasons: Hong Kong,
macroeconomics, value-added, and oil 2/
Hong Kong: effectively part of the Chinese economy, and the US runs a large surplus - $37
b in exports, only $6 b in imports. Basically a lot of US goods appear to enter China via HK
(something similar in Europe, where US exports to Germany go via Belgium/Netherlands) 3/
Adding HK reduces the export imbalance to "only" 3.5 to 1. Now macro: the US runs overall
trade deficit, with imports 1.5 times exports. China runs overall surplus, with imports only
0.8 exports. On some sort of gravity-ish story, this suggests ratio "should" be around 2
4/
Now add China's role as "great assembler", with value-added in exports really coming from
elsewhere; famous case of iPhone. Much less true than it used to be, but still means that
Chinese surplus is partly optical illusion 5/
Lastly, China imports a lot of oil, which means other things equal needs to run a surplus
on everything else. Used to be true of US, but with fracking we're now almost self-sufficient
in hydrocarbons (but not exporting to China) This adds a further reason for bilateral 6/
Someone with more time and patience should try to do the full accounting, but I think the
US-China bilateral can mainly be explained by "natural causes"; doesn't have much to do with
either country's trade policy 7/
I guess that Krugman is just a natural law kind of guy wherein IP protectionism and arbitrage
seeking cross border capital flows in an exorbitantly privileged global reserve currency are
just natural phenomenon like meteor showers and rain.
"... "While there were measures that could have been chosen with larger direct effects on supply chains, the announcements from Beijing represent a direct shot at the White House and seem designed for maximum political impact," Krueger said. " We expect a quick (and possibly intemperate) response from the White House, and consequently expect a more rapid escalation of trade tensions." ..."
"... In a mid-day note, Krueger added that "the next stop on the currency manipulation road is probably off the map." Krueger expects Trump's "drumbeat on currency" will get louder, with the potential for the president to use a "charge of currency manipulation to justify some combination of (more) tariffs, investment restrictions and export controls." ..."
"... Instructing state-owned Chinese firms to halt U.S. crop purchases triggered "the obligatory flight-to-quality," which pushed 10-year yields to 1.74%, with two-year yields keeping pace. That was "an impressive move that suggests August will not experience the traditional summer doldrums. Who needs vacation anyway?" ..."
"... Bank investors' eyes were "glued to the yield curve last week," with Trump's tariff tweet on Thursday, Graseck wrote in a note. They're now asking about Morgan Stanley's net interest margin (NIM), outlook. ..."
Analysts continued to warn about the dangers of an escalating trade war on Monday, as
China moved to strike back at the U.S., hitting U.S. stocks and boosting Treasuries.
Semiconductors, with direct exposure to trade, and banks stocks, which are sensitive to
interest rates, were among the decliners. The biggest U.S. banks slid, with the KBW Bank
Index dropping as much as 4.1% to the lowest since June 4. Bank of America Corp. led index
decliners, with a drop of 5.5%, the most since Dec. 4, while Citigroup Inc. shed more than 4%
and JPMorgan Chase & Co. slipped 3.8%.
Micron Technology Inc. fell 6.2% while Texas Instruments Inc. lost 4.4% and Intel Corp.
was down 4%. Apple Inc. dropped 5.6%, the most since May 13. Shares in Chinese tech giants
Alibaba Group Holding and JD.com Inc. fell near two month lows in U.S. Trading.
Agriculture equipment makers Deere & Co. and AGCO Corp. tumbled as China suspended
imports of U.S. agricultural products. The escalating trade tensions are also a major risk
for the U.S. automotive industry, which has a significant exposure to the country. According
to UBS's Global Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer Mark Haefele, the latest spat
raises the possibility that "tariffs could also be placed on auto imports."
President Donald Trump tweeted about China and the Fed on Monday morning, saying: "China
dropped the price of their currency to an almost a historic low. It's called 'currency
manipulation.' Are you listening Federal Reserve? This is a major violation which will
greatly weaken China over time!"
Here's a sample of some of the latest commentary:
Cowen, Chris Krueger
Krueger called China's retaliation "massive," adding that "on a scale of 1-10, it's an 11."
He cited the Chinese government calling on state buyers to halt U.S. agricultural purchases,
while there's "increased anecdotal evidence that the Chinese government is tightening its
overview of foreign firms."
"While there were measures that could have been chosen with larger direct effects on
supply chains, the announcements from Beijing represent a direct shot at the White House and
seem designed for maximum political impact," Krueger said. " We expect a quick (and possibly
intemperate) response from the White House, and consequently expect a more rapid escalation
of trade tensions."
"There now will be increased expectations that the Fed will cut again in September to
offset the drag caused by this escalation in the trade war," he added. "Such moves will only
be a partial, lagged offset to the recessionary headwinds a cycle of retaliation would
cause."
In a mid-day note, Krueger added that "the next stop on the currency manipulation road is
probably off the map." Krueger expects Trump's "drumbeat on currency" will get louder, with
the potential for the president to use a "charge of currency manipulation to justify some
combination of (more) tariffs, investment restrictions and export controls."
BMO, Ian Lyngen
"The wait is over for those wondering how Beijing would respond to Trump's recent tariff
announcement," BMO said. "The result: the yuan was allowed to depreciate well beyond
7.0."
Instructing state-owned Chinese firms to halt U.S. crop purchases triggered "the
obligatory flight-to-quality," which pushed 10-year yields to 1.74%, with two-year yields
keeping pace. That was "an impressive move that suggests August will not experience the
traditional summer doldrums. Who needs vacation anyway?"
"The most significant unknown at this moment," Lyngen added, "is how much further the yuan
will be allowed to fall given that it's already the weakest since 2008."
Morgan Stanley, Betsy Graseck (bank analyst)
Bank investors' eyes were "glued to the yield curve last week," with Trump's tariff tweet on
Thursday, Graseck wrote in a note. They're now asking about Morgan Stanley's net interest
margin (NIM), outlook.
Graseck didn't change her NIM assumptions -- yet. "We bake one additional cut of 25 basis
points in 2019 in-line with our economist, and bake in the 10-year at 1.75% by mid 2020," she
wrote. She'll update NIM and earnings per share estimates "if it looks like these trade
tariffs are going through as September approaches."
Morgan Stanley, Michael Zezas (policy strategist)
"The dynamics of U.S.-China negotiation and macro conditions mean the next round of tariffs
will likely be enacted, and investors are likely to behave as if further escalation will
follow in 2019 until markets price in impacts," Zezas wrote. "This supports our core view of
weaker growth and skews the Fed dovish."
Zezas sees incentives for the U.S. to escalate quickly. If the administration "understands
the Fed's trade policy reaction function, then it may also perceive that a more rapid
escalation could deliver one or more of three beneficial points ahead of the 2020 election:
1) A quicker, potentially more aggressive Fed stimulus response that could help the economy
heading into the election; 2) More time to re-frame the potential economic downside; and 3) A
major concession by China (not our base case, but it is, of course, a possibility)."
Veda, Henrietta Treyz
"The U.S. and China are moving into one of their most aggressive phases yet in the year-plus
long trade war and we fully expect things to escalate from here," Treyz wrote in a note.
Treyz added that China's ability to quickly adjust their currency is an advantage they
have over the U.S. that "goes to the heart of the issue for the Trump administration." The
administration may view China's communist regime as a "systemic advantage" versus "free
markets and democracy" in the U.S., as the Chinese can "subsidize domestic industry, quickly,
enact lower tax rates and provide stimulus."
Furthermore, her conversations with Republicans point to the belief that "China's economy
is on the brink of collapse," she said, with turmoil in Hong Kong "considered evidence of an
organic domestic uprising that many believe the Chinese government cannot contain."
Republicans may also believe Trump will "galvanize" his base behind him, while attracting
"anti-trade and union Democrats in the Rust Belt as he takes on the mantle of a war time
president going into 2020 by engaging in this trade war." ...
On Monday, China announced new tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. exports, and the United
States threatened new tariffs on up to $300 billion of Chinese goods. These actions were
cited as the principle reason for a decline of more than 600 points in the Dow Jones
industrial average, or about 2.4 percent in broader measures of the stock market. With the
total value of U.S. stocks around $30 trillion, this decline represents more than $700
billion in lost wealth.
This was not an isolated event. Again and again in the past year, markets have gyrated in
response to the state of trade negotiations between the United States and China.
The market sensitivity to threats and counter-threats in the trade war is quite
remarkable. Monday's announcement by the Chinese, for example, would be expected to raise
China's tariffs by about $10 billion. Much of this will show up as higher prices for Chinese
importers, and some of it will be avoided by diverting exports of goods such as liquid
natural gas to other markets, so the impact on U.S. corporate profits will be far less than
$10 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs are likely to raise corporate profits as higher import
costs push some business to domestic producers.
There is the further consideration that reasonable market participants should not have
entirely discounted the possibility of tariff increases Monday and that there surely remains
some chance a trade deal will be reached. So, in fact, the market should not even have moved
in full proportion to the change in corporate profitability associated with new tariffs.
There is a revealing puzzle here. Events whose direct impact on corporate profits is a few
billion dollars seem to be driving market fluctuations that change the total value of
corporations by hundreds of billions of dollars. To be sure, there would be many ways of
refining my calculation of the profit impact to recognize various feedbacks, and certainly
the imposition of tariffs increases uncertainty, which in general depresses markets. But with
any plausible calculation of the direct impact of tariff changes on profitability or
uncertainty about profitability, it is not possible to justify the kinds of changes in market
value we observed Monday or on many other days when there was news about the status of the
U.S.-China trade negotiations.
Part of the answer to the puzzle, I suspect, lies in markets' tendency to sometimes
overreact to news, especially in areas where they do not have long experience. This idea is
supported by the tendency illustrated by the market's Tuesday rally, which took place without
any particularly encouraging U.S.-China developments.
A larger part of the answer probably lies in the idea that the current trade conflict is a
possible prelude to a far larger conflict between the two nations with the largest economies
and greatest power for as far as can be foreseen. When it appears less likely that a conflict
over well-defined and ultimately not-that-difficult commercial issues can be resolved,
rational observers conclude that it is also less likely the United States and China can
manage issues ranging from 5G wireless technology to North Korea, from the future of Taiwan
to global climate change, and from the management of globalization to the security
architecture of the Pacific region.
A world where relations between the United States and China are largely conflictual could
involve a breakdown of global supply chains, a splinternet (as separate, noninteroperable
internets compete around the world), greatly increased defense expenditures and conceivably
even military conflict. All of this would be catastrophic for living standards and would also
have huge adverse effects on the value of global companies.
It is, I suspect, the greater risk of catastrophic medium-run outcomes, rather than the
proximate impact of trade conflicts, that is driving the outsize market reactions to trade
negotiation news.
This carries with it an important lesson for both sides: It is risky to turn the pursuit
of even vital national objectives into an existential crusade. Rather, even when nations have
objectives that are in conflict, it is important to seek compromise, to avoid inflammatory
rhetoric and to confine rather than enlarge the areas where demands are being made.
Establishing credibility that promises will be kept and surprises will be avoided is as or
more important with adversaries as with friends.
As the Trump administration carries on the trade negotiations, and as the presidential
campaign heats up, Americans will do well to remember that there is no greater threat to the
success of our national enterprise over the next quarter-century than mismanagement of the
relationship with China. It is not just possible but essential to be strong and resolute
without being imprudent and provocative.
As has long been expected, the White House is preparing to release a new rule on Wednesday barring
government agencies from buying equipment or doing any kind of business with Chinese telecoms giant
Huawei - ratcheting up tensions between the world's two largest economies at an already precarious
time for the global economy.
The Trump administration is expected to release a rule Wednesday afternoon that bans agencies
from directly purchasing telecom, video surveillance equipment or services from Huawei.
The prohibition was mandated by Congress as part of a broader defense bill signed into law last
year.
"The administration has a strong commitment to defending our nation from foreign
adversaries, and will fully comply with Congress on the implementation of the prohibition of
Chinese telecom and video surveillance equipment, including Huawei equipment,"
said
Jacob Wood, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Per CNBC, the new rule is expected to take effect a week from Wednesday, and it applies not only
to Huawei, but also to a list of other telecom companies that have drawn security concerns, such as
ZTE and Hikvision.
The official said contractors will be able to seek waivers from individual federal agencies if
they believe their business with any of the targeted companies should be exempt from the rule.
Moreover, the new rule will also set a deadline of August 2020 for a broader ban
on
federal contractors doing business with Huawei and other firms.
The law passed by Congress is separate from the Trump Administration's own efforts to keep
Huawei in check.
The Commerce Department instigated the tensions between the US and China after it placed Huawei
on a blacklist that effectively bans the company from buying goods or doing any kind of business
with Huawei. A 90-day grace period that kept Huawei off the blacklist temporarily is now almost
over. And President Trump has apparently walked back his promised, made at the G-20 Summit in
Osaka, to ease the pressure on Huawei.
However, US chipmakers and tech firms can request waivers, and the CEOs of Google, Qualcomm,
Micron, Intel and others met with President Donald Trump at the White House last month and urged
the administration to issue those decisions quickly.
In an interview on CNBC, Huawei CSO Andy Purdy defended the company's track record, arguing that
European leaders in the UK and Germany had told their counterparts in the US that they had found no
evidence that Huawei was a security threat.
"We have tested the products of all vendors to international standards so that there's
trust through verification,"
Purdy said.
All Chinese government agencies
will be prohibited from buying CISCO and other American
telecommunications products. Furthermore, contractors dealing with
Chinese government agencies will also be so prohibited from buying
American telecom products.
America - population 329 million. Economic growth rate: 2.8%
China - population 1.4 billion. Economic growth rate: 6.5%
source:
Wikipedia
China is rapidly industrializing, and has the largest
manufacturing base in the world. The USA is already a mature
industrial economy, and since NAFTA has offshored most of its
manufacturing base. The USA leads the world in the design,
manufacture and export of weapons, but relies on coercive
political relationships (such as NATO) rather than the "free
market" to sell its overpriced and line of products to captive
satellite countries. China is rapidly expanding in the weapons
manufacturing sphere, as is Russia, and offer increasingly
competitive products at lower prices, and with fewer political
strings attached.
Something to think about before breastbeating and cheering
ourselves on.
Trump is getting the **** kicked out of him on CNBC and every
Financial media on the internet. When China dug in, that was the
end of the Trump bluff. For the first time, the absurd articles
about China losing are gone and now the new reality is that China
is going to squeeze the life out of Trump.
Huawei is just
another of Trump's wayward policies of getting Canadian poodles to
kidnap Huawei's founder's daughter. Nice dirty **** Trump. Women
already hate Trump this ices that cake.
Last week Huawei overtook Apple as the second largest smart
phone maker. Huawei announced it no longer had any dependence on
US manufacturers for 5G, another body blow to the blowhard.
Dozens of certifying agencies have no studied Huawei products
and have found zero instances of spyware or any instance of this
hardware being used for spying. In short, Trump and the NSA and
CIA look like a bunch of assholes. This will only accelerate
Huawei's 5G rollout.
Trump is being **** canned in every direction. The great part
of Trump von hitler's personality is that he knows his 10% Sept
Tariffs were essentially the end of his presidency, but is too
arrogant to reverse course. Instead, he is screaming at the Fed
for more loose money to support his bad policies. And he wants
more Farmer WELFARE. That dog don't hunt!
China is not going to roll over over for Trump. The financial
media is now tearing Trump a new ******* every hour. Markets are
not responding to Trump plunge team efforts. They continue to sell
off.
Where's the endgame they ask? This is the same deal as Trump
closing down the gov for nothing. Trumptards cheered as the orange
idiot painted himself in the corner and accomplished nothing. Not
one inch of wall has been constructed since Trump took office.
Trump floats on a raft of ********. Meanwhile Trump has a 20 year
history of hiring Illegals for Trump Organization. Total Fraud and
self dealer.
The GOP is now climbing the walls. Today Trump Screamed at the
Fed to reduce rates emergently and then said it had nothing to do
with China. Astonishing.
When China put an end to US Ag purchases effective immediately
they were basically saying they were tired of Trump's ********.
The farmer associations are turning on Trump round the clock.
Where is Trump? He's hiding out. But of course this has NOTHING to
do with China.
But here is Trump once again playing the phony national
Security card with Huawei when a dozen independent organizations
have published reports and cleared Huawei of the Trump
Administration's phony security claims.
Huawei Honor smartphones and tablets are really good. The top
models are even better than iPhones.
There were some Chinese
smartphones at Best Buy the last time I checked.
But I just bought the 128Gb Lenovo Zuk for $280 from Banggoog a
couple years ago when it was on sale. It's a little problematic to
update Android, but it works perfectly anyway. There is a forum
for Lenovo phones, though, with all answers.
Poland's state security agency arrested Huawei sales
director Wang Weijing and a Polish national over spying.
Dongfan Chung The 74-year-old former Boeing Co. engineer was
convicted in July of six counts of economic espionage and
other federal charges for keeping 300,000 pages of sensitive
papers in his home
Chi Mak He copied and sent sensitive documents on U.S.
Navy ships, submarines and weapons to China by courier.
Don't waste my time. A 20 second google search shows you
have no point, but the one on the top of your head.
Thus, Given the Chinese government's record on espionage,
"a good-faith assertion from Andy is not enough."
"In Huawei's
carrier business
, H1 sales revenue
reached CNY146.5 billion, with steady growth in production and
shipment of equipment for wireless networks, optical
transmission, data communications, IT, and related product
domains. To date, Huawei has secured 50 commercial 5G contracts
and has shipped more than 150,000 base stations to markets
around the world.
In Huawei's
enterprise business
, H1 sales revenue was
CNY31.6 billion. Huawei continues to enhance its ICT portfolio
across multiple domains, including cloud, artificial
intelligence, campus networks, data centers, Internet of
Things, and intelligent computing. It remains a trusted
supplier for government and utility customers, as well as
customers in commercial sectors like finance, transportation,
energy, and automobile.
In Huawei's
consumer business
, H1 sales revenue hit
CNY220.8 billion. Huawei's smartphone shipments (including
Honor phones) reached 118 million units, up
24% YoY
. The
company also saw rapid growth in its shipments of tablets, PCs,
and wearables. Huawei is beginning to scale its device
ecosystem to deliver a more seamless intelligent experience
across all major user scenarios. To date, the Huawei Mobile
Services ecosystem has more than 800,000 registered developers,
and 500 million users worldwide.
"Revenue grew fast up through May," said Liang. "Given the
foundation we laid in the first half of the year, we continue
to see growth even after we were added to the entity list.
That's not to say we don't have difficulties ahead. We do, and
they may affect the pace of our growth in the short term."
He added, "But we will stay the course. We are fully
confident in what the future holds, and we will continue
investing as planned – including a total of CNY120 billion in
R&D this year. We'll get through these challenges, and we're
confident that Huawei will enter a new stage of growth after
the worst of this is behind us."
WHAT A DUMB ****!: Thanks!!! That makes me 3 times
smarter than you because Huawei subcontractors do sell
Huawei products in the USA. You are an ignorant Asian
that should go back to his village and the one room
dirt floor hut... LOL
I'd be the first to say that I don't know everything about this
telecom but I will say this seems like a reasonable decision on
it's face for the US government not to put in Chinese
telecommunications equipment. Of course China is going to not like
it because with Hillary she just gave them direct access to damn
near anything through her email server.
First, Trump coerced the Fed into lowering interest rates which made US Dollars cheaper to
buy then he increased domestic taxation 10% though increasing the tariff on selected Chinese
goods. China then blocks the importation of all US foodstuffs and lowers the price of the
Yuan an amount equal to the tariff increase--and the US treasury and Trump have the gall to
call China the currency manipulator! NO, as usual with the Outlaw US Empire, it's accusations
are psychological projection of what itself does. Hudson discusses it
here . US financial markets have finally awakened to Trump's moves and have fallen 5%
over the last three trading days, with more likely to follow. Hudson on Trump:
"It's all a diversion so that people won't look at what's really happening, only at what
Trump is saying. But as people find that they have to pay higher prices, I don't think
they'll believe Trump. I think he's lost all credibility. That's why the stock market's
collapsing. They're aghast. They think that even Trump can't get away with this big a lie
when it's so obviously false."
As I commented last Friday on the AP article my local paper ran about the tariff hike, it
finally told the truth about who'll pay--US Consumers or China: US Consumers! AP, All
Propaganda, tore a gapping hole into Trump's narrative--but will people believe a media
outlet that's lied so often?
Trump can't win his global trade war. China won't capitulate; it's economy and society are
100x healthier than the Outlaw US Empire's and are resilient where the USA can only claim to
have been once upon a time. Why that is has been explained before. The transcript of this
interview's poor, but the topic covers the
answer by showing how Canada's economy became a victim of the same predators as the
USA's.
We know what happened, how and why. What we don't know how to do is reverse the situation
politically. Hudson compares the dire situation to that of Rome:
"So they obviously, the left-wingers such as Bernie Sanders, want to run for president as
a kind of educational campaign to make their policy clear to the people, but they know that
there's no way in which the ruling class will let them win.
"It's been very clear, if they did win, they would be assassinated very quickly. I've been
told that by presidential candidates. The threat is, you'll never be president, we have ways
of keeping you out, and should you succeed, we will do to you what the Romans did to every
advocate of democracy century after century, assassination."
It seems the best those of us residing within the Outlaw US Empire can hope for is that
Trump's policies will decimate US financial institutions worse than what occurred in 2008.
Hudson's perspective:
"I don't see any popular movement yet. You can very easily see why collapse is
inevitable....
"There's no way of knowing when there will be a break in the chain of payment. Usually
it's a bankruptcy of a big company, very often by fraud, as the 2008 crisis was bank mortgage
fraud. You don't know when people will fight back. Often, surprisingly, they only fight back
when things are getting better. But things still have a way to go to get much worse in
Canada, much worse in the United States, so I don't see any possibility of reform within the
next 4 to 8 years."
However, all that is about to change, because as Bank of America team of economists writes,
Trump's latest tariff announcement from last Thursday, when the president shockingly unveiled
10% tariffs on $300BN in Chinese imports starting September 1, "is a major escalation." The
reason for this is that past measures had mostly avoided consumer goods. By contrast, the
threatened tariffs would cover $120bn of consumer goods, out of $300bn in total, and since BofA
expects the tariffs to be implemented, either on schedule or later this year, the period of
dormant trade war inflation is about to end with a bang, not a whimper.
... ... ...
Was Trump's announcement a negotiating tactic?
For the past year, one of the points of
biggest contention among economists and traders is that despite what is now a 1+ year trade war
with China, inflation due to higher tariffs has been strangely missing, with some claiming that
the goods targeted in previous tariff rounds were either not "consumer" enough, or simply had
more affordable substitutes from other, non-Chinese supply chains, allowing US consumer to
avoid having higher prices passed upon them.
However, all that is about to change, because as Bank of America team of economists writes,
Trump's latest tariff announcement from last Thursday, when the president shockingly unveiled
10% tariffs on $300BN in Chinese imports starting September 1, "is a major escalation." The
reason for this is that past measures had mostly avoided consumer goods. By contrast, the
threatened tariffs would cover $120bn of consumer goods, out of $300bn in total, and since BofA
expects the tariffs to be implemented, either on schedule or later this year, the period of
dormant trade war inflation is about to end with a bang, not a whimper.
"... As the U.S. administration is ready to impose a 10 percent tariff on the remaining 300 billion U.S. dollars of Chinese imports, its sincerity in reaching a mutually beneficial trade deal with Beijing that can accommodate each other's major concerns has gone bust. It seems that in the eyes of Washington's China hawks, trade talks are no more than a formality with which to rip China off. ..."
"... While the White House is boasting about taxing China until a trade deal is reached, it should keep in mind that China will only accept a win-win agreement on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment. ..."
"... Beijing's position has been consistent and clear: China does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary. ..."
"... It is therefore hoped that Washington should drop its fantasy to bring Beijing down to its knees with its same and old tricks of maximun pressure. If it truly wants a deal, then they will need to show some real sincerity first. ..."
Despite calling the just-concluded China-U.S. trade talks in
Shanghai "constructive" and hoping for more "positive dialogue," the White House on Thursday
announced plans to impose extra tariffs on Chinese imports from Sept. 1.
Washington's unilateral escalation of trade disputes is a serious breach of trust after the
two sides reached in June consensus to restart trade talks on the basis of equality and mutual
respect.
Apart from undermining the momentum of the newly resumed China-U.S. trade talks, the U.S.
flip-flopping again exemplifies Washington's untrustworthiness in striking a deal and its
disturbing propensity for bullying.
The U.S. administration should bear in mind that its bullying and tariff threat, which has
not worked in the past, will not work this time.
For over a year, the U.S.-initiated trade disputes with China have bogged down not just
economic growth of the two countries but that of the whole world. Meanwhile, an increasingly
capricious Washington is harming the current world order with more uncertainties.
As the U.S. administration is ready to impose a 10 percent tariff on the remaining 300
billion U.S. dollars of Chinese imports, its sincerity in reaching a mutually beneficial trade
deal with Beijing that can accommodate each other's major concerns has gone bust. It seems that
in the eyes of Washington's China hawks, trade talks are no more than a formality with which to
rip China off.
Also, the new twist in China-U.S. trade talks shows that some Washington politicians are
trying to play tough against China on trade matters and gain cheap political points as the new
cycle of U.S. presidential election is looming.
Unlike previous rounds of taxing Chinese imports, the U.S. administration this time is
targeting a wide swath of consumer goods, and therefore, is "using American families as a
hostage" in its trade negotiations, according to Matt Priest, president of the Footwear
Distributors and Retailers of America.
While the White House is boasting about taxing China until a trade deal is reached, it
should keep in mind that China will only accept a win-win agreement on the basis of mutual
respect and equal treatment.
Beijing's position has been consistent and clear: China does not want a trade war, but it is
not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary.
In response to Washington's tariff assaults since March 2018, China has had to take forceful
counter measures. This instance will be no exception.
Still, Beijing remains committed to handling its trade problems with Washington as long as
the settlement is based on mutual respect and equality, and conform to China's core interests.
China, which still sees a steady economic growth and boasts enormous potential for further
development, will always find a way to withstand any pressure if there no deal is reached.
It is therefore hoped that Washington should drop its fantasy to bring Beijing down to its
knees with its same and old tricks of maximun pressure. If it truly wants a deal, then they
will need to show some real sincerity first.
"... US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism, as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it." ..."
"... Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. ..."
"... IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner. ..."
"... It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning. ..."
"... Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. ..."
"... I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance hegemony and fiat money. ..."
"... The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy. ..."
"... Trump hasn't proposed any new policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him. ..."
I will mention this again, to see what people here think, as they are intelligent people. I sent mails to Russian and Chinese
authorities about this.
"I will provide you with possible reasons behind the current trade wars and rejection of globalisation by the US. In short,
they think that they will save their hegemony, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate Change, so these GDP estimates are
important. The scenarios are with time horizon 2100.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic. They describe the scenarios for
the world.
There are 5 main scenarios, or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways". All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity.
Low cooperation, fragmented world, high conflict scenarios consistently lead to low growth in the developing world and thus
to the US and the West retaining some of its positions - a world with overall bad economy and low level of multipolarity.
Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation
means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing.
Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the
relative power of the West and empowering the developing world. The US now needs to kill globalisation if it is to stop its relative
decline.
So what do we see: exactly attempts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Climate Change Agreement (which if accepted would put constraints on the US economy),
on the UN, bullying of Europe, lack of care for european energy needs, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on
chinese students and scientists in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for
poor countries in the WTO, etc. This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well.
By destroying the world economy, the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism,
as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science
community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much
as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer
serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it."
You ask, "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private finance issue
and I am not of faith but of questions...."
"In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal."
The key point for the Chinese during negotiations as I understand them via their published White Paper on the subject is
development and the international rules put in place at WTO for nations placed into the Developing category, which
get some preferential treatment to help their economies mature. As China often reminds the global public--and officials of the
Outlaw US Empire--both the BRI and EAEU projects are about developing the economies of developing economies, that the process
is designed to be a Win-Win for all the developing economies involved. This of course differs vastly from what's known as the
Washington Consensus, where all developing economies kowtow to the Outlaw US Empire's diktat via the World Bank and IMF and thus
become enslaved by dollar dependency/debt. Much is written about the true nature of the Washington Consensus, Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man and Klein's Disaster Capitalism being two of the more recent and devastating, and many nations
are able to attest to the Zero-sum results. The result is very few nations are willing to subject their economies to the pillaging
via Washington Consensus institutions, which Hudson just recently reviewed.
The Empire is desperate and is looking for ways to keep its Super Imperialism intact and thus continue its policy aimed at
Full Spectrum Dominance. But the Empire's abuse of the dollar-centric institutions of international commerce has only served to
alienate its users who are openly and actively seeking to form parallel institutions under genuine multilateral control.
However as Hudson illustrates, Trump doesn't know what he's doing regarding his trade and international monetary policies. Today's
AP above the fold headline in Eugene's The Register Guard screamed "Trump threatens 10% tariffs;" but unusually for such
stories, it explains that the 10% is essentially a tax on US consumers, not on Chinese companies, which provides a message opposite
of the one Trump wants to impart--that he's being tough on the Chinese when the opposite's true. China will continue to resist
the attempts to allow the international financial sharks to swim in Chinese waters as China is well aware of what they'll attempt
to accomplish--and it's far easier to keep them out than to get them out once allowed in, although China's anti-corruption laws
ought to scare the hell out of the CEOs of those corps.
The Empire wants to continue its longstanding Open Door policy in the realm of target nations opening their economies to the
full force of Imperial-based corps so they can use their financial might to wrestle the market from domestic players and institute
their Oligopoly. China already experienced the initial Open Door (which was aimed at getting Uncle Sam's share of China during
the Unequal Treaties period 115 years ago) and will not allow that to recur. China invokes its right under WTO rules for developing
economies to protect their financial services sector from predation; the Empire argues China is beyond a developing economy and
must drop its shields. We've read what Hudson advised the Chinese to do--resist and develop a publicly-based yuan-centered financial
system that highly taxes privatized rent-seekers while keeping and enhancing state-provided insurance--health, home, auto, life,
etc--while keeping restrictions on foreign land ownership since it's jot allowed to purchase similar assets within the domestic
US market.
The Outlaw US Empire insists that China give so it can take. Understandably, China says no; what we allow you to do, you should
allow us to do. Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. Obviously,
the latest proposal was merely a repetition of what came before and was rejected as soon as the meeting got underway, so it ended
as quickly as it started. IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and
nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner.
It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same
since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning.
Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. D-Party Establishment
candidates have yet to let it be known they'll try to do what Trump's failing to do, which of course has nothing to do with aiding
the US consumer and everything to do with bolstering Wall Street's Ponzi Scheme.
Good comment, karlof1 , i think that the attack against China is attack against the heart of multipolarity. It will be good
if b could post about the escalation of the trade war. This is important. The US clearly intends to resist multipoarity, and tries
to stop it.
If I would have had my act together last night I would have posted another link fro Xinhuanet (can't find now) about how
China wants to retain developing nation status and provides as data that the (I think) per capita GDP had gone down....gotten
worse in relation to the US per capita GDP.
I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance
hegemony and fiat money.
Passer by @30--
The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates
what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it
all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it
to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy.
Thus, there's no need to sponsor the reindustrialization that would lead to MAGA. Indeed, Trump hasn't proposed any new
policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate
Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him.
In your outline, it's very easy to see why BRI is so attractive to other nations as it forwards SSP1. Awhile ago during a discussion
of China's development goals, I posted links to its program that's very ambitious and doing very well with its implementation,
the main introduction portal
being here .
psychohistorian @11 asked: "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private
finance issue and I am not of faith but of questions...."
karlof1 @31 covered it pretty well I think, but I want to try to answer in just a couple sentences (unusual for me).
Global private finance is driven by one thing and one thing only: making maximum profits for the owners quarter by financial
quarter. Global public finance is driven by the agendas of the nations with the public finance, with profits being a secondary
or lesser issue.
This boils down to private finance being forever slave to the mindless whims of "The Market™" (hallowed be Its name),
while public finance is, by its nature, something that is planned and deliberated. Nobody can guess where "The Market™"
(hallowed be Its name) will lead society, though people with the resources like placing bets in stock markets on the direction
It is taking us. On the other hand, if people have an idea which direction society should be heading in, public control
over finance is a precondition to making it so.
"The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire"
I'm not sure this will be the case anymore -
Former heads of DHS and NSA explain how the U.S. can keep Huawei at bay
"Perhaps more importantly, this proposal demonstrates one way the U.S. can reinforce elements of what the government calls
the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB), the collection of companies who design, build and supply the U.S. with vital
national-security related technologies."
he war of words between the world's top superpowers is getting more heated by the hour.
China's new ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, said on Friday that if the United
States wanted to fight China on trade, "then we will fight" and warned that Beijing was
prepared to take countermeasures over new U.S. tariffs, Reuters reports.
"China's position is very clear that if U.S. wishes to talk, then we will talk, if they want
to fight, then we will fight," he told reporters. Calling Trump latest tariff announcement an
"irrational, irresponsible act", Jun said that China "definitely will take whatever necessary
countermeasures to protect our fundamental right, and we also urge the United States to come
back to the right track in finding the right solution through the right way." The ambassador
also took a stab at the disintegration of good relations between the US and North Korea (with
Beijing's blessing no doubt), saying that "you cannot simply ask DPRK to do as much as possible
while you maintain the sanctions against DPRK, that definitely is not helpful" Yun said siding
the the Kim regime. It was more than obvious who the "you" he referred to was.
Pouring more salt on the sound, the Chinese diplomat said North Korea should be encourage,
and "we think at an appropriate time there should be action taken to ease the sanctions",
explicitly taking Pyongyang's side in the ongoing diplomatic saga between Kim and Trump.
When asked if China's trade relations with the United States could harm cooperation between
the countries on dealing with North Korea, Zhang said it would be difficult to predict. He
added: "It will be hard to imagine that on the one hand you are seeking the cooperation from
your partner, and on the other hand you are hurting the interests of your partner."
As North Korea's ally and neighbor, China's role in agreeing to and enforcing international
sanctions on the country over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs has been crucial.
However, it is what he said last that was most notable, as it touched on what will likely be
the next big geopolitical swan, namely Hong Kong. To wit, Jun said that while Beijing is
willing to cooperate with UN member states, it will never allow interference in "internal
affairs" such as the controversial regions of Xinjiang and Tibet, and - last but not least -
Hong Kong.
And in the latest warning to the defiant financial capital of the Pacific Rim, Jun virtually
warned that a Chinese incursion is now just a matter of time, he said that Hong Kong protests
are "really turning out to be chaotic and violent and we should no longer allow them to
continue this reprehensible behavior."
President Donald Trump's threat Thursday to put 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports that aren't subject
to his existing levies
sent markets tumbling from Asia to Europe and in the U.S. on Friday. The new tax would hit American consumers, and businesses
are going to face even more
supply disruptions . China has already vowed to retaliate if Trump follows through.
Bloomberg Economics ' initial estimate of the
additional costs of U.S. tariffs and Chinese retaliation sees both economies taking a 0.2% hit to GDP by 2021.
Meanwhile, a simmering trade fight between Japan and South Korea
is boiling over , putting the health of two Asian export powers at stake. In Europe, concerns are mounting for a
hard U.K. exit from the European Union.
The week ended with fresh numbers out of Washington that show
U.S. trade actually declined during the first
six months of the year as exports flattened out.
I think that 10 years from now the biggest impact from Trump will be from his cancellation
of the Iran nuclear accord and unilateral imposition of strict sanctions which the Europeans
were not able to bypass in any meaningful way due the prevalence of the US dollar in global
transactions.
There is now significant motivation in Europe and even China in creating a real
alternative to the US dollar for international transactions which bypasses US banks. If this
happens to any significant degree, it would undercut the US dollar as the world's reserve
currency, resulting in a permanent drop in its value.
Without international support, US Government deficits and trade deficits will become
unsustainable, and there will be a significant drop in the American median standard of
living.
The overwhelming correlation between austerity and Brexit
Jeff Spross
July 22, 2019
Across the pond, the Brexit disaster continues to unfold in newly disastrous ways. Theresa
May has resigned as prime minister, and the Trump-esque Boris Johnson looks like a lock to
replace her. Parliament members -- up to and including Johnson's own fellow Conservatives --
are panicking that the new prime minister may try hardline tactics to force Brexit through,
plan or no plan.
At this point, predicting how this mess will end is a fool's errand. But there are still
lessons to be learned from how it began.
In particular, the Conservatives might want to look in the mirror -- and not just because
it was their government that called the Brexit vote in the first place. It turns out the
brutal austerity they imposed on Britain after the global 2008 financial crisis probably goes
a long way towards explaining why Brexit is happening at all.
In the run-up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, much of the campaigning in favor of
"Leave" was unabashedly racist. Hard-right political groups like the U.K. Independence Party
(UKIP) painted a picture of native Britons overrun by hordes of foreign immigrants that were
straining the country's health care, housing, public services, jobs and wages to the breaking
point. The thing is, the racism was a particular poisonous way of framing a very real
underlying economic fear: all those necessities really had become harder to come by.
Yet, as it is in America, actual evidence linking influxes of immigrants to rising
scarcity in jobs and wages and other services is scarce. But something else had also recently
happened that could explain why hospitals and schools were closing and why public aid was
drying up: massive cuts to government spending.
A decade ago, the aftershocks of the global financial crisis had shrunk Britain's economy
by almost 3 percent, kicking unemployment up from 5 percent to 8 percent by 2010. Under
then-Prime Minister David Cameron, the Conservatives in power concluded that "confidence"
among investors was necessary to restore economic growth -- and that meant cuts to government
spending to balance the budget.
Thus the Conservatives pushed through a ferocious austerity package: Overall government
spending fell 16 percent per person. Schools, libraries, and hospitals closed; public
services like garbage collection ground to a halt; poverty shot up; and homelessness doubled.
Despite unemployment staying stubbornly high and GDP growth staying stubbornly low -- in
defiance of their own economic theory -- the Conservatives crammed through even more
reductions in 2012. "It is hard to overestimate how devastating Cameron's austerity plan was,
or how fast it happened," the British journalist Laurie Penny observed. A United Nations
report from last year called the cuts "punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous."
But the damage was not evenly distributed across the country. At the district level --
Britain's units of local governance -- the reductions in spending ranged from 6.2 percent to
an astonishing 46.3 percent from 2010 to 2015. The districts that were already the poorest
were generally the hardest hit.
These differences across districts allowed Thiemo Fetzer, an associate professor of
economics at the University of Warwick, to gauge the correlation between the government cuts
and whether a district voted Leave or Remain. "Austerity had sizable and timely effects,
increasing support for UKIP across local, national, and European elections," Fetzer wrote in
a recent paper. He found that UKIP's share of a district's vote jumped anywhere from 3.5 to
11.9 percentage points in correlation with austerity's local impact. "Given the tight link
between UKIP vote shares and an area's support for Leave, simple back-of-the-envelope
calculations suggest that Leave support in 2016 could have been easily at least 6 percentage
points lower," Fetzer continued. As tight as the Brexit referendum was, that alone could have
been enough to swing it.
Other studies have shown links between how a local British community's economic fortunes
fared and how it voted for Brexit as well. Economists Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig found
that support for Leave was "systematically higher" in the regions of the country hit hardest
by trade with China over the last three decades. Another analysis by Torsten Bell showed a
strong correlation between British income inequality as of 2015 and Brexit support, with
higher local vote shares for Leave the lower the local incomes were. (It's worth noting the
Bell didn't find a correlation with Brexit when he looked at how local incomes changed from
2002 to 2015, but that's also a weird time frame to choose, as it mashes together a period of
wage growth before 2008 with a major drop afterwards.)
Inequality in Britain had been worsening for decades, as the upper class in the City of
London pulled further and further ahead of the largely rural working class, setting the stage
for Brexit. And then austerity fell hardest on the shoulders of the latter group, compounding
the effect.
"Individuals tend to react to the general economic situation of their region, regardless
of their specific condition," Colantone and Stanig wrote. But Fetzer was able to break out
some individual data in his analysis of austerity, and he found a correlation with Brexit
votes there as well. Individual Britons who were more exposed to welfare state cuts -- in
particular a reduction in supports for housing costs -- were again more likely to vote for
UKIP. "Further, they increasingly perceive that their vote does not make a difference, that
they do 'not have a say in government policy' or that 'public officials do not care,'" Fetzer
observed.
It isn't that the economic dislocation of the 2008 crisis and the ensuing austerity crunch
made Britons more racist. By all accounts, half or more of the country has consistently
looked askance on immigration going back decades. (Indeed, international polling suggests a
certain baseline dislike for immigration is a near-universal human condition.) What changed
in the last few years was the willingness of certain parts of British society to act
politically on those attitudes. And that, arguably, is where the economics come in.
Work from the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman is instructive here. He found that
periods of economic growth, where people feel the future is bright, make national populations
more open, generous, and liberal. Times of economic contraction and stagnation have the
opposite effect.
The British people, like everyone everywhere, are a mix of good and evil impulses. But by
decimating public investment in a self-destructive quest for investor-led growth, the British
government created a monster from those impulses. And the reckoning for that terrible error
is still unfolding.
if - what should I call them? centerists? - like Krugman, Kurt and EMike really cared about
racism they'd be in favor of ambitious programs so that voters' living standards rise.
Instead they push incrementalism and make excuses about Dems never having any power.
Tut! Tut! Tut! It's not politically correct for Democrats to talk about the economy,
inequality, and dislocation, is it? If people keep raising the issue, Democrats might be
forced into acknowledging problems they helped to create. Worse, they might have to craft a
coherent economic message that their Big Money puppeteers might not like! OMG!!!
Armageddon!!!
He presented no evidence, just pundicizing based on priors.
Well I looked and could find no change in growth, it has been declining steadily since
1990, and the ten years has been correspondingly dropping since 1980.
So, I I am supposed to see evidence, then cite the chart I am supposed to look at. We are
tired of useless pundicizers.
No, he would have cited evidence.
If he had any brains he would have recognized that we got the secstags going around, meaning
the one cannot just look at the eight year recession cycle, one has to look at the full
monetary cycle.
It is easy to tell the dufas among economists, they never look at nor cite any data.
For example, Krugman ignored the fact that Obamacare raised monthly taxes about $500 per
household, lost four elections, proved himself a dolt and now want to write off Obamacare.
Never once did Krugman make any attempt to correlate the Obamacare taxes with election
losses, not once. He preferred the delusion, same as most of our favorite economists, I can
count the one who actually look.
As Kurt said, being delusional hysterical freaks who send hundreds of billions to wealthy
people then complain? Stupid,stupid stupid.
You are exactly right here - Obamacare subsidies should have tapered off or been taxed away
around the top 20% of income rather than the top 60. Big mistake - but it was a compromise to
get several republicans to vote yes, but they (the Rs) negotiated in bad faith and then
didn't do what they promised. But hey - when have the H brothers let facts get in the way of
what they know, know, know about me.
The global smartphone bust is currently underway
(has been for some time) - but
there's a new, surprising trend that could highlight one reason why the Trump administration has
waged economic war against China.
First, let's start with the global smartphone shipment data
from the
International Data
Corporation
(IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker.
This new data details how worldwide smartphone shipments fell 2.3% in 2Q19 YoY. It also states
that smartphone manufacturers shipped 333.2 million phones in 2Q19, which was up 6.5% QoQ.
An escalating trade war between the US and China contributed to sharp declines in shipments in
both countries over the last year. However, the declines weren't nearly as severe as expected in
China over 1H19 versus 1H18, suggesting that three years of a smartphone bust in Asia could be
nearing a recovery phase. Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan and China) maintained solid momentum in 2Q
YoY, with shipments up 3% in the quarter fueled by Southeast Asia markets.
The surprising trend IDC detected is that Huawei surpassed Apple in 2Q19, making it the
first time in seven years that Samsung and Apple weren't the top smartphones manufactures in the
world.
Now it seems that a South Korea company [Samsung] and a Chinese company [Huawei] are the world
leaders in smartphone shipments, something that has irritated the Trump administration.
Samsung ranked No.1 with 75.5 million shipments in 2Q19, a 5.5% YoY increase. Huawei was No.2
with 58.7 million shipments in 2Q19, a 8.3% YoY jump. Apple was No.3 with 33.8 million shipments in
2Q19, a -18.2% YoY plunge.
1) Huawei announces a .6%
decline in shipments worldwide over the Q1 numbers.
2) Huawei announces an all-time high in domestic
operations that now take up 62% of its sales.
What do these two numbers hide?
That Huawei's shipments to the international market must have
suffered a considerable decline.
That the rise in sales in low-value Chinese phones doesn't
begin to offset the large drop in high-value developed world sales
except on a purely nominal numerical basis of numbers of phones
sold. The money isn't in the phones. It's in the plans. In fact,
China pioneered the idea of giving the phones away for free and
then making it all back on the gated connection plans.
But there's no way that one Chinese plan equals one western
plan in profitability back to the company, so buffing up the
domestic numbers at the expense of the cash cow numbers overseas
is ultimately not a good business strategy.
Plus of course Huawei can report any number it wants inside
China and nobody has any way of testing its veracity. They could
have shipped 20,000,000 phones to distributors on consignment and
then marked it up as sales.
It's still high-end, per se. But the price premium is no
longer justified because other companies have commoditized the
high-end features.
Frankly, the company was doomed the moment
Jobs died and the reins were turned over to Cook - an
accountant by training, who clearly has no futurist vision or
marketing skill whatsoever.
Jobs might have been a puffed up peacock, but he was a
master of creating the Reality Distortion Field.
There is one big problem that no one is talking about. The cell
phone market is over saturated! Practically everyone has got a
cell phone these days. It's like the auto industry. There has
been an over production 10 billion automobiles in the world for
7.2 billion people, of which half really can't afford to buy, much
less drive, or even have a place to park it. I have seen people
with 3 and 4 cell phones, but you only have 2 ears. How are more
cell phones going to help you? Even women don't multitask that
well.
The only thing that would make sales better on cell
phones is if you could combine the computing power of a Cray
computer into a roll-up tablet. Or, maybe a brain implant would
be even better.
Tim Cook: "When you step back and consider
Wearables and Services together two areas where we have
strategically invested in last several years, they now approach
the size of a Fortune 50 company."
On a Friday afternoon in late July, a crowd of techies, military types and a few civilians
deployed to the new Irvine, Calif., headquarters of Anduril Industries, a defense tech
start-up, to sip hibiscus margaritas and admire the sensor towers and carbon-fiber drones on
display. Dave Brubeck tinkled over the sound system, and the dress code skewed office casual
and pastel, offset by the bright red pop of a lone "Make America Great Again" hat by the taco
bar.
After an hour of socializing amid surveillance equipment, Palmer Luckey, the company's
26-year-old near-billionaire founder, mounted a stage for the ribbon-cutting. Luckey had
wanted to use the company's namesake sword -- a legendary weapon in "The Lord of the Rings"
wielded by the hero Aragorn -- for the ceremony. ...
Armed instead with large scissors, and wearing his trademark uniform of Hawaiian shirt,
cargo shorts and flip-flops, he dropped some Tolkien on the audience.
"Anduril," he said, leaning into the long Elvish vowels, "means Flame of the West. And I
think that's what we're trying to be. We're trying to be a company that represents not just
the best technology that Western democracy has to offer, but also the best ethics, the best
of democracy, the best of values that we all hold dear."
Along remote stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, and on the perimeters of military bases
around the world, Luckey's vision was already becoming reality. Customs and Border Protection
is using Anduril's high-tech surveillance network as a "virtual wall" of interlinked,
solar-powered sentry towers that can alert agents of suspicious activity, and the company has
signed similar deals with U.S. and U.K. military branches. ...
Much depends on the flow via particular area. If the flow is low this is probably a viable
technological solution.
Cheaper then the physical wall as spacing between towers can be hundred yards or even
more.
Solar powered towers is an interesting feature suitable for this particular area, where
sun is abundant during the year.
Drones add flexibility of following intruders "from above" until they are captured, but
how efficient they are at night remains to be seen. Again this presupposes a very low flow in
the guarded area.
In any case the main task of walls and other entrance barriers is to slow down the flow
not to eliminate it completely.
So that those who manage to penetrate the barrier can be dealt with more quickly and
efficiently.
Just as investors thought it was safe to buy-the f**king-dip after Powell's plunge,
President Trump steals the jam out of their donut by announcing new China tariffs...
"... on September 1st, putting a small additional Tariff of 10% on the remaining 300
Billion Dollars of goods and products coming from China into our Country "
In a series of tweets, Trump laid out the state of the China trade deal... in a word -
terrible...
Our representatives have just returned from China where they had constructive talks having
to do with a future Trade Deal. We thought we had a deal with China three months ago, but
sadly, China decided to re-negotiate the deal prior to signing. More recently, China agreed
to...
...buy agricultural product from the U.S. in large quantities, but did not do so.
Additionally, my friend President Xi said that he would stop the sale of Fentanyl to the
United States – this never happened, and many Americans continue to die! Trade talks
are continuing, and...
...during the talks the U.S. will start, on September 1st, putting a small additional
Tariff of 10% on the remaining 300 Billion Dollars of goods and products coming from China
into our Country. This does not include the 250 Billion Dollars already Tariffed at
25%...
...We look forward to continuing our positive dialogue with China on a comprehensive Trade
Deal, and feel that the future between our two countries will be a very bright one!
"... Mr. Trump's anger was fueled, in part, by the fact that China has not begun buying large amounts of American farm products, which the president promised farmers would happen after a June meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. ..."
"... Mr. Trump took credit for China's weakening economy, saying the tariffs he's placed on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods have put enormous pressure on the country, costing it jobs and prompting companies to leave. ..."
"... American and Chinese negotiators finished talks on Wednesday with little progress toward ending a trade war that has shaken the world's economic confidence and rattled markets. ..."
"... Instead, both sides appear to be settling in for a lengthy economic conflict. ..."
"... Senior Chinese officials who gathered at an economic meeting on Tuesday run by China's top leader, Xi Jinping, stressed that the country had to rely on domestic demand to manage "new risks and challenges" and ward off what they described as "downward pressure on the economy," according to the Chinese state news media. China could turn "a crisis into an opportunity," the report added. ..."
"... A lengthy trade war presents China's leaders with some difficult options. China is enduring an economic slowdown that has been made worse by the trade tensions. Beijing has responded by ratcheting up spending on infrastructure and other big-ticket projects, a reliable growth strategy that nevertheless could worsen the country's debt problems and do little to solve economic imbalances that could hinder its long-term prospects. ..."
"... At a daily news briefing on Wednesday, Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that "only if the U.S. shows sufficient integrity and sincerity, and conducts trade talks with the spirit of equality, mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, can the trade talks make progress." ... ..."
"... the trade pressure by the United States on China has from the beginning been about undermining Chinese development. The US point has always been to stop Chinese scientific and technological advance but the Chinese have always understood and that is just not ever going to happen. ..."
"... Accept United States restrictions on Chinese investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating. ..."
"... Open up its services and agricultural sectors to full American competition. ..."
President Trump took credit for weakening
China's economy and downplayed the likelihood
of a trade deal before the 2020 election.
His comments came as his top negotiators were sitting
down to dinner with their counterparts in Shanghai.
Trump Goads China as Trade Talks
Resume https://nyti.ms/32X4vBj
NYT - Ana Swanson and Jeanna Smialek - July 30
WASHINGTON -- President Trump lashed out at China on Tuesday morning as trade talks
between the two nations resumed, taking credit for weakening China's economy and downplaying
the likelihood of a deal before the 2020 election.
The president's comments, in posts on Twitter and remarks to the press, came just as his
top negotiators were sitting down to dinner with their counterparts at the Fairmont Peace
Hotel in Shanghai. While both sides are trying to get trade talks back on track, Mr. Trump's
angry words underscored the diminishing prospects for a transformative trade deal anytime
soon and the extent to which the bilateral relationship has not unfolded in the way that Mr.
Trump expected.
"I think the biggest problem to a trade deal is China would love to wait and just hope,"
the president said. "They hope -- it's not going to happen, I hope, but they would just love
if I got defeated so they could deal with somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Sleepy Joe Biden
or any of these people, because then they'd be allowed and able to continue to rip off our
country like they've been doing for the last 30 years."
Mr. Trump's anger was fueled, in part, by the fact that China has not begun buying
large amounts of American farm products, which the president promised farmers would happen
after a June meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Mr. Trump emerged from that
meeting in Osaka, Japan, saying he had agreed to postpone tariffs on an additional $300
billion of Chinese products and allow American firms to resume sales of nonsensitive goods to
the Chinese telecom firm Huawei. In return, Mr. Trump said China would immediately start
buying American agricultural goods, touting it as a big win for farmers.
But no such purchases have happened, and, in the weeks since, Chinese officials disputed
that they had agreed to buy more farm products as a condition of the talks. On Sunday,
Chinese state media reported that "millions of tons" of American soybeans had been shipped to
China. But Mr. Trump on Tuesday said no such purchases had materialized.
China "was supposed to start buying our agricultural product now -- no signs that they are
doing so," Mr. Trump tweeted. "That is the problem with China, they just don't come
through."
His comments on Tuesday appeared to be an effort to give his negotiators more leverage and
to pressure China into making concessions in talks this week. Mr. Trump took credit for
China's weakening economy, saying the tariffs he's placed on $250 billion worth of Chinese
goods have put enormous pressure on the country, costing it jobs and prompting companies to
leave.
But he seemed to veer between goading China to quickly accede to America's demands and
suggesting the country could get a better deal if it waits and a Democrat wins the 2020
presidential election. ...
US-China Trade Talks End With No Deal
in Sight https://nyti.ms/2GE3LHt
NYT - Alexandra Stevenson - July 31
American and Chinese negotiators finished talks on Wednesday with little progress toward ending a trade war that has
shaken the world's economic confidence and rattled markets.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Robert E. Lighthizer, the Trump administration's top
trade negotiator, were seen leaving trade talks on Wednesday, the Chinese state news media
said.
Both sides "conducted frank, efficient and constructive in-depth exchanges on major issues
of common interest in the economic and trade field," said a statement late in the day that
was released by CCTV, China's state broadcaster.
Another round of high-level talks will take place in the United States in September, CCTV
reported.
The Trump administration had not yet released its own statement.
The meeting marked the first formal resumption of talks after negotiations fell apart
almost three months ago, with each side pointing fingers at the other for derailing a deal.
They agreed to try again after meeting last month on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit
meeting in Osaka, Japan.
Instead, both sides appear to be settling in for a lengthy economic conflict.
Senior Chinese officials who gathered at an economic meeting on Tuesday run by China's top
leader, Xi Jinping, stressed that the country had to rely on domestic demand to manage "new
risks and challenges" and ward off what they described as "downward pressure on the economy,"
according to the Chinese state news media. China could turn "a crisis into an opportunity,"
the report added.
A lengthy trade war presents China's leaders with some difficult options. China is
enduring an economic slowdown that has been made worse by the trade tensions. Beijing has
responded by ratcheting up spending on infrastructure and other big-ticket projects, a
reliable growth strategy that nevertheless could worsen the country's debt problems and do
little to solve economic imbalances that could hinder its long-term prospects.
Should China reach a quick deal, on the other hand, the country's leaders risk looking
weak in the face of foreign powers, undermining the Communist Party's historical claim to
rule.
At a daily news briefing on Wednesday, Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign
Ministry, said that "only if the U.S. shows sufficient integrity and sincerity, and conducts
trade talks with the spirit of equality, mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual
accommodation, can the trade talks make progress." ...
As I have repeatedly documented on Economist's View, the trade pressure by the United States
on China has from the beginning been about undermining Chinese development. The US point has
always been to stop Chinese scientific and technological advance but the Chinese have always
understood and that is just not ever going to happen.
Trump is asking China to redo just about everything with its economy
By Heather Long - Washington Post
The Trump administration has finally presented the Chinese government with a clear list of
trade demands. It's long and intense (there are eight sections), and President Trump isn't
just asking Chinese President Xi Jinping for a few modifications. He's asking Xi to
completely change his plans to turn the Chinese economy into a tech powerhouse.
The demands include the following:
• China will cut the $336 billion U.S.-China trade deficit by at least $200 billion
by 2020, a 60 percent reduction.
• China will stop subsidizing tech companies.
• China will cease stealing U.S. intellectual property.
• China will cut its tariffs on U.S. goods by 2020.
• China will not retaliate against the United States (including against U.S.
farmers).
• The Chinese government will open China to more U.S. investment.
U.S.-China Trade Talks End With Strong Demands, but Few Signs of a Deal
By Keith Bradsher
BEIJING -- The extensive list of United States trade demands was unexpectedly sweeping,
and showed that the Trump administration has no intention of backing down despite Beijing's
assertive stance in the last few days. "The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather
than a basis for negotiation," said Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell
University.
Here are the highlights of the demands:
China must
■ Cut its trade surplus by $100 billion in the 12 months starting in June, and by
another $100 billion in the following 12 months.
■ Halt all subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its so-called Made In
China 2025 program. The program covers 10 sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric
cars, robotics, computer microchips and artificial intelligence.
■ Accept that the United States may restrict imports from the industries under Made
in China 2025.
■ Take "immediate, verifiable steps" to halt cyberespionage into commercial networks
in the United States.
■ Strengthen intellectual property protections.
■ Accept United States restrictions on Chinese investments in sensitive technologies
without retaliating.
■ Cut its tariffs, which currently average 10 percent, to the same level as in the
United States, where they average 3.5 percent for all "noncritical sectors."
■ Open up its services and agricultural sectors to full American competition.
The United States also stipulated that the two sides should meet every quarter to review
progress.
We are told constantly that the 2016 referendum gives our government a mandate for a No
Deal Brexit, and that we would not respect democracy if we failed to leave. Both arguments
are obviously false, yet they so often go unchallenged in the media.
Brexit like Trump election was a protest against neoliberal globalization. A sign of collapse
of neoliberal ideology and the grip of neoliberal elite on the population.
In essence, a "no confidence" vote for the neoliberal elite in both countries.
Of course, Simon Wren-Lewis is afraid to acknowledged this and is engaged in
sophistry.
EU bureaucracy is not compatible with UK identity.
I agree re. a sort of fundamental 'spirit'. So far, since 1973 (EEC, idk if this was
properly done, you say not: fraudulent ) EU-UK relations have not been riven by
disruptive strife or even temp. explosive argument (in part due to EU rules etc.)
Accomodations were made.. An apogee of hand-holding-harmony was reached when Mitterand and
Thatcher convinced the Germans to give up the D-mark in return for blessing the
re-unification of Germany. The UK did not join the Euro zone (1992). So the UK was overall a
big 'winner' on several levels (imho.)
Brexit is the first step in bringing politics back to local accountability
I hope so but dangers lurk and i am pessimistic. Crash-out on 31 Oct. will happen, and
will have a horrific impact. In any case the political accountability of the Gvmt. in the UK
is at present abysmally low.
Trump definitely contributes a lot to the collapse of classic neoliberalism. He rejected neoliberal globalization in favor of using
the USA dominant position for cutting favorable to the USA bilateral deals. That undermined the role of dollar of the world reserve
currency and several mechanisms emerged which allow completely bypass dollar system for trade.
Notable quotes:
"... US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence. ..."
"... A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. ..."
US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
In response, China (and perhaps Europe) will fight to establish their own networks and secure control of their nodes. Again, multilateralism
could be the victim of this battle.
A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. It's not the world according
to Myrdal, Frank, and Perroux, and it's not Tom Friedman's flat world, either. It's the world according to Game of Thrones
.
It made me do a face palm. Somebody thought they had separated economics from geopolitics or power…or at least they wanted
people to believe that and the jig is up.
“One reason for this is that in an increasingly digitalised economy, where a growing part of services are provided at zero
marginal cost, value creation and value appropriation concentrate in the innovation centers and where intangible investments are
made. This leaves less and less for the production facilities where tangible goods are made.”
It depends on what you mean by value.
If value is dollars in someone’s Cayman Islands tax-free account, then value is concentrated in NYC and SF.
But if we follow Natural Law (Marx or Mohammed) and define value as labor, then this is exactly wrong. A Natural Law economy
tries to maximize paid and useful work, because people are made to be useful.
The digital world steadily eliminates useful work, and steadily crams down the wages for the little work that remains. Real
value is avalanching toward zero, while Cayman value is zooming to infinity.
He’s talking more about the whims of the stock market and of our intellectual property laws. For example the marginal cost
for Microsoft to issue another copy of “Windows” is zero. Even their revised iterations of the OS were largely a rehash of the
previous software. Selling this at high prices worked out well for a long time but now the software can practically be had for
free because competitors like Linux and Android are themselves free. So digital services with their low marginal cost depend on
a shaky government edifice (patent enforcement, lack of antitrust) to prop up their value. Making real stuff still requires real
labor and even many proposed robot jobs–driving cars, drone deliveries, automated factories and warehouses–are looking dubious.
Dean Baker has said that the actual investment in automation during the last decades has slowed–perhaps because expensive and
complicated robots may have trouble competing with clever if poorly paid humans. And poorly paid is the current reality due to
population increases and political trends and perhaps, yes, automation.
And even if the masters of the universe could eliminate labor they would then have nobody to buy their products. The super
yacht market is rather small.
>the distribution of gains from openness and participation in the global economy is increasingly skewed. …. True, protectionism
remains a dangerous lunacy.
Well “openness and participation” is looking like lunacy to the Deplorables for exactly the reason given, so what is actually
on offer here?
With useful physical labor being off-shored, first world citizens should all be made shareholders in the new scheme. We shall
all then become dividend collecting layabouts buying stuff made by people we do not know, see, or care about. If they object we
simply have the military mount a punitive expedition until they get whipped back into shape. Sort of like now but with a somewhat
larger, more inclusive shareholder base. It will be wonderful!
Are you sayin’ the lefty Social Wealth Fund concept is really just another way of replicating the same old bougie program of
domination and suppression?
I’m saying that it can be and historically, and that there are and have been multi-national systems of super exploitation of
peripheral, primarily resource exporting populations, relative to a more broadly distributed prosperity for “higher” skilled populations
of the center. This has been a common perspective within anti-imperialist movements.
The argument is not without merit. Is this a “contradiction among the people” where various sectors of a larger labor movement
can renegotiate terms, or is it some more intransigent, deeply antagonistic relationship is a crucial question. The exportation
of manufacturing to the periphery is disrupting the political status-quo as represented by the center’s centrism, political sentiments
are breaking away to the left and right and where they’ll land nobody knows.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
I was just reading this John Helmer below, like Pepe Escobar I’m not sure who’s buttering his bread but it’s all food for thought
and fresh cooked blinis are tastier than the Twinkies from the western msm, and this thought came to mind: Iran is the perfect
test ground for the US to determine Russian weapons and tactical capabilities in a major war context in 2019. That alone might
make it worth it to the Pentagon, why they seem so enthusiastic to take the empire of chaos to unforseen heights (depts?). Somewhat
like the Spanish Civil War was a testing ground for the weapons of WW2.
1. Because it has a lot of non US controlled Oil.
2. Because it is Central on the eastern end of the silk road.
3. Because it does not kiss the US Ring bearers hand at every opportunity, and the US is determined to make it an example not
to be followed.
But consider Saudi us relations… who is kissing who’s ring?
Or consider Israeli us relations… ditto.
We’re a thuggish whore whose favors are easily bought; bring dollars or votes. Or kiss the ring.
An environmental insight here. The world stands devastated. It has reached its carrying capacity for thoughtless humans. From
here on in we have to take the consequences of our actions into account. So when it is said, as above, that the dollar exchange
rate is more important than the other bilateral exchange rates, I think that is no longer the reality. There is only a small amount
of global economic synergy that operates without subsidy. The vast majority is subsidized. And the dollar is just one currency.
And, unfortunately, the United States does not control the sun and the wind (well we’ve got Trump), or the ice and snow. Let alone
the oceans. The big question going forward is, Can the US maintain its artificial economy? Based on what?
That is a factor that seems ignored by the philosophers who are the subjects of the headline posting. It is a great oversight,
a shoe which has been released and is now impacting the floor. “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men”
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
A Supreme Court decision to allow President Trump to redirect $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds
towards his long promised border wall will "really accelerate" progress on the project,
according to Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan in Sunday appearance on Fox News .
The 5-4 decision will allow for the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing - the
most significant step yet, according to
Bloomberg .
McAleenan said while the court's ruling was "a big victory" to build more of the wall, "
we do remain in the midst of a border security crisis " with migrants flooding the region and
that Congress must take more action to deter crossings.
"We made very clear the targeted changes in law that we need," McAleenan said. -
Bloomberg
... ... ...
The wall segments in Arizona, New Mexico and California would give Trump a tangible
achievement to tout in his re-election campaign. Until now, congressional and court
resistance had thwarted significant progress toward a stronger barrier on the almost
2,000-mile frontier.
During his campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. On Saturday he said the
U.S. would be "fully reimbursed for this expenditure, over time, by other countries." He
didn't say how. -
Bloomberg
'Accelerate border wall progress'-- give me a fuckin' break. Trump has had almost three
years to secure the border but has done nothing but blame the Demotards and our ***-infested
jewdiciary for why he can not perform his sworn constitutional duty as POTUS to protect our
borders/citizens. Christ, he must think that he has to have their permission and go on bended
knee before them with his begging bowl in hand. Trump is a god-damned waste. He is what he
described politicians in his campaign-- All talk and no action.
I voted for the guy and supported him. I will not support him in the next go round. Time
to get a fuckin' crazed loon Demotard in office to motivate us to cross the line and start
the shootin'. I ain't gonna end up a slave to jews/niggers/beaners/muslims/hindus/illegal
alien mudmen just because I am a normal Christian Heritage American white guy. **** that
noise. I no longer slumber in The *** Matrix.
Trump should award contracts to 10 contractors and immediately disburse the funds so
libtards can't stop the building.
100 miles isn't near enough and we've seen areas where replacement walls are being put up
at over a mile a day by one contractor. He could get 10 contractors or more building a couple
hundred miles a month. Trump needs to build faster!
We might pause over those last two words, "true enemies," and make a larger point about the
dynamic at play here. Politicos with an historical frame of reference look at a situation such
as this -- when an ally is harshly scourged for not being allied enough -- and recall the
distinction between "infidels" and "heretics."
In this reckoning, an infidel is someone who never believed what you believe. For
instance, over much of the last 13 centuries, a Muslim might say of a Christian, "He's an
infidel," and the Christian would say the same thing. On either side of such a divide, there
can be plenty of hostility, yet it tends not to be personal -- after all, the infidel is a
stranger.
By contrast, a heretic is someone who once believed the same thing you do, but now
does not. And so heresy is more wounding, and threatening, because the heretic challenges one's
innermost beliefs.
In history, civilizations have fought wars against infidels, sometimes wars of annihilation,
yet even so, heretics are often treated worse, because there's that intense personal edge:
you betrayed me . That's why civilizations have often launched inquisitions against
heretics, cheerfully torturing them to get them to confess and recant -- and then killing them.
For the orthodox believer, there's a grim logic here: the infidel is an external enemy to be
opposed. But the heretic is an internal cancer to be eradicated.
Nowadays, America's politics isn't so vicious as, say, Europe's during the Thirty Years War.
Yet still, in our time, we can see the infidels/heretics dichotomy: in the eyes of the
Wokerati, Trump and the Republicans are infidels. Yes, they're the enemy, and so of course they
must be crushed. Yet for the most part, it's nothing personal
Last Monday, the Pew Research Center published a
report classifying Israel as one of the 20 most religiously restrictive countries in the
world, in the company of countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. While this might strike
some as shocking, it doesn't surprise me at all.
In Israel, a majority of the citizens don't identify as religious, and yet every marriage,
divorce, and Jewish conversion are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ultra-Orthodox
Rabbinate. This means that every divorce must take place in accordance with the Ultra- Orthodox
interpretation of Jewish Law. Anyone who is familiar with this interpretation of Jewish Law
knows that it is extremely patriarchal, heavily favoring the rights and desires of men over
those of women. This is also true in the realm of divorce. According to Jewish law, a divorce
is only legal if a man freely and willingly grants his wife a bill of divorce. Until a man
gives his wife a bill of divorce she has no choice but to remain married to him.
If you think that this sounds like a serious violation of basic civil freedoms, you're
right. Not only is the lack of civil marriage an infringement on the freedom of Jewish Israelis
to express their religion as they choose but more specifically the monopoly of the rabbinical
courts on divorces in Israel represents an abuse of the freedoms of women. In Israel today 1 in
5 women involved in divorce cases are a gunot (women whose husbands are unable to give a
writ of divorce because they are "missing," either physically or mentally) or m esoravot
get (women whose husbands refuse to grant them divorces).
One woman, physically and emotionally abused by her husband, was told by the rabbinical
court to book a hotel for the weekend in order to reconcile with her husband. Even though she
had a restraining order against her husband and a social worker offered to testify to the abuse
she had faced at the hands of her husband, the rabbinical judges refused to acknowledge that
there was a legitimate reason for divorce and closed the case. Only after five and a half
years, and a lengthy legal battle did she succeed in getting a divorce.
Another story is that of a woman trapped in a marriage to a man who after a head injury only
has the mental capabilities of a three year old. When the rabbis asked him if he wanted to give
his wife a divorce he keeps changing his mind, sometimes saying no and sometimes saying yes.
The traditional methods used to convince a husband to give his wife a get are impossible to use
in this situation because he is so disabled. The rabbinical court can't send him to prison, or
confiscate his driver's license because he is mentally the equivalent of a child, so the case
is stalled. She cannot get a divorce and the rabbinical court cannot help her.
I could go on and on.
Clearly even when there is no miscarriage of justice, divorce under Jewish law as
interpreted in the rabbinic court is inherently biased against women...
Malka Himelhoch is a rising Junior at Princeton University and is interning this
summer at Mavoi Satum.
"... If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve way to look at international relations. ..."
"... It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in it. ..."
"... People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's. ..."
"... According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still available to Huawei. ..."
"... Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the disadvantages. ..."
"... In Games of Thrones, the good characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless. ..."
"... The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James Clapper ruin the planet. ..."
"... In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral military action ..."
"... Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..." ..."
"... "The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." ..."
"... The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a fistfight. ..."
"... The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting. ..."
"... The take away quote "Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States." Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ??? ..."
"... I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z? ..."
"... My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the war before it even stepped into battle in the theater. ..."
"... Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the world's trust. ..."
"... As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle. Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for self-government. ..."
"... If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy. ..."
"... The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short, we are breeding for weakness and gullibility. ..."
"... If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed appears to be the case. ..."
" Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right | Main May 19, 2019 The story in the
American Conservative is very weak: that "the Americans" have already won the war is just
due to the built-in superiority: the "land of the free" against "communist dictatorship"
(so everybody knows who has to win). Or, a variation, "free market" against "state-owned".
A typical statement of that article: "China views commercial relations with other
countries as an extension of the political conflict between Western democracies and itself
-- that is, an extension of war." -- a very defining element of the "American" character,
to project the own aggression onto others.
There was another opinion-piece somewhere, can't find it anymore, where the author
argued that hopefully that "trade-war" will do really good for the Chinese economy --
forget about the US, and develop the home market.
As I believe that the sanctions are a great gift to Russia, I also believe that this
"trade-war" is a (potential) great gift to China.
That was an interesting article on psychological vs sociological storytelling and it makes
a good companion piece when thinking about how the US media personalizes US geo-political
conflicts with the heads of rival state (Putin, Xi, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Khomeini,
Gaddafi).
If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to
being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve
way to look at international relations. States have permanent interests and any competent
head of State will always represent those interests to the best of their ability. True, you
could overthrow the government and replace every senior government figure with a compliant
puppet (which the US always tries to do), but the permanent interests that arise from the
inhabitants of the State will always rise up and (re)assert themselves. When the State
leadership is bribed or threatened into ignoring or acting against these needs it
ultimately creates a failed State.
Even the US media seems to subconsciously understand this, when they talk of "overly
ambitious US goals of remaking societies", however, they never make the logical next step
of investigating why these States do not wish to be remade as per the US imagined ideal,
what the interests of these actually are and how diplomacy can resolve conflicts.
According
to the US media everything boils down to the US = good, anyone who disagrees with our
policies = bad and diplomacy is just a measure of how vulgar our threats are during talks.
I'm specifically thinking of the US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman's boast of a US
aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as being 100,000 tons of diplomacy to Russia - of all
the ridiculous and stupid things to says to Russia when supposedly trying to "ease"
tensions (I still can't believe Huntsmen, former Ambassador to China under Obama, is
regarded a "serious" professional ambassador within the State departments when compared to
all the celebrity ambassadorships the US President for fundraiser).
It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese
cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys
are in it.
The whole notion that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are set in stone
is antithetical to any worldview founded in Buddhism/Confucianism, or influenced by the
same. Can you imagine western children's programming teaching ambiguity between good and
evil? That which is which depends upon the observer's perspective? This is the sort of
concept that few western people get exposed to until graduate level ethics and philosophy
courses.
Or maybe not. I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe
that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't
know. What I do know is that this moral and ethical complexity is something that most Asian
children are introduced to before they hit their teens.
Trump just tweeted "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never
threaten the United States again!". Needless to say, more ridiculousness, Trump is pretty
close to plagiarizing himself with his prior comments regarding North Korean "North Korean
Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will
someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a
Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button
works!". I think Trump is getting desperate now waiting by the phone for the Iranians to
call him. Trump is certainly still smarting after the failed Venezuela coup and wants to
avoid a second embarrassing defeat, however I doubt the Iranians will care that much about
his latest threat by tweet.
GOT was jarring this season. In the penultimate episode, a dragon wreaks havoc on a western
capital city, brutally murdering most of its inhabitants.
It is impossible not to make the correlation of the dragon as China and kings landing
(The city) as Washington d.c.
From this one can glean that they were attempting to show the ascendancy of China and
the utter destruction of the U.S. With shades of gray thrown about as to if the people of
the city deserved to be burned alive and as to whether the dragon and its rider, China,
have become what they originally set out to vanquish. The old Nietzsche maxim...those who
fight with monsters...
It was indeed unsettling because there are no moral winners. It is well realised for
this reason but poorly written and produced in other aspects as noted above by other
posters.
"First published From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College: "There will
be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple
conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the
headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more
decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our
economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."
"Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival':
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of
that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and
requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet
Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of
convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a
more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking
to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the
mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies
that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military
position in the world."
... access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"
GOT is an allegory that explores the nature of power. If you see China's destruction of
Washington it says more about you than the show. Firebombing of Dresden might be a more apt
analogy.
People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true
today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's.
The complaints about poor writing are just fan sadness at unexpected horrors that
actually make sense for the show. Loose ends created by these horrors will likely be
resolved in the last episode tonight.
WJ @13 thanks for the link, I am eternally hopeful that this particular thread gets pulled
on until it unravels.
One of my distinct memories of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (I lived in NYC at the
time), was the trumpeting of the Post and other tabloids about 'the Dancing Arabs,' which
obviously fanned the flames of hatred towards the designated villains. Once it was revealed
that they were actually Israelis, then crickets until the whole thing was shoved down the
memory hole.
I'm going out today to buy a couple of Huawei 'phones'.
According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an
executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei
phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still
available to Huawei.
Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on
users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the
disadvantages.
They put their own chips in newer models and I have no doubt will find enough bright
sparks to take over apps integration meaning that this divergence point will become a boon
not a hurdle. Even better a Huawei costs 60% of a comparable korean model and half the
price of the fbi backdoored american shit.
I really like thinking expressed by an un-named english politician in a Henry Jackson
Society report: ""Huawei has long been accused of espionage" – a claim repeatedly
denied by the firm – and notes that "while there are no definitely proven cases", a
precautionary principle should be adopted."
All politicians are crooks and liars, everybody says so, lets lock em all up right now,
no need for evidence or trial or any of that due process nonsense, the precautionary
principle should apply.
I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into
ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know.
Having suffered through four seasons of Game of Thrones, after a degree in philology and
literature, I'd be happy to share my impressions with you. In Games of Thrones, the good
characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil
characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all
people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be
quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless.
The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can
condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that
hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If
resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay
out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and
wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James
Clapper ruin the planet.
Despite impressive production values, excellent acting (for the most part) and majestic
locations, Game of Thrones is truly the most evil large scale creative work I've ever seen.
On a philosophical level, Game of Thrones has no redeeming features. At best an
impressionable mind might come away with a hedonist mindset, i.e. the traditional salve of
weak spirits, carpe diem .
PS. There's some very good comments at the tail end of the
Takedown of Heinz-Christian Strache including one of my own covering in some depth the
Austrian political background to this event. Worth revisiting if you only saw the early
comments.
Using populations per country from '03 we get the following conclusions:
of the 36 countries outside the US we get 33% of the world population where
less than 8% supported unilateral military action by American and her allies
and 57% supported under no circumstances
this list excludes 42 additional countries with another 40% of world population who have
had their governments overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US since WWII
In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral
military action
Being that the invasion was illegal and unpopular, the Bush admin invented a 'coalition
of the willing to give the appearance of support.
The Trump admin needed to create a similar type of facade for the Venezuelan coup. Such
things are needed specifically because the move is so unpopular and illegal.
I suppose that is a valid theory. But as the viewer we know the motivations of Dany and
why in some small regard the people in King's Landing deserve a little roughing up.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..."
The difference here is that we judge Assad even though we don't see what he is truly
doing.
Here we see what Dany has done, mass slaughter, and think to ourselves...we kinda had it
coming.
Concerning your take on GoT: Isn't this really the thesis of Thucydides through and
through reflected in GoT almost to a T?
"The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." GoT is not disturbing to be nihilistic and shocking. It is holding up a mirror to
history. But the quality of the show has declined since they have come to the end of the road in
adapting the source material. The show has overtaken the books.
The take away quote
"
As of the end of March, overseas investors bought a net of 1.77 trillion yuan (about 260.3
billion U.S. dollars) of bonds at the country's interbank bond market, up 31 percent from a
year earlier, and held 5.4 trillion yuan of yuan-denominated financial assets, up 19
percent year on year, according to the central bank.
"
What us peasants don't know is the extent to which China will let foreign investment
influence their socialistic ways. That said, China is the new empire, private or public is
yet to be determined but guess where all the "smart" money in the world is going? The money
movements are a giant sucking sound that will leave America under the global economic
bus.
Or not and China maintains its socialistic ways including projecting them around the
world.
The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central
story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters
create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far
future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a
fistfight.
The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological
storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change
over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain
directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not
because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting.
That's the difference between materialism (marxism) and idealism (kantism, hegelianism
and noekantism). Besides, an idealist tv series helps selling more merch and doing more
sequels, hence the capitalist preference for idealism.
The take away quote
"Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by
the United States."
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is
dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The
spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
Hot tip, GOT is just a movie. Please, no more psychological insights.
What fans really need, is some REAL WORLD justice, something that's noticeably missing
in today's world.
I agree that the American Conservative article was weak - as b obviously thought. It has
the US trade war against China completely wrong. I side with b in his hunch that China will
win. My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the
war before it even stepped into battle in the theater.
And let's counter the author's point, in the weak article, that China needs the US trade
surplus more than the US needs the imports from China. The author says that China has no
way to substitute for exports to the US. There's abundant recent analysis on this, showing
the relatively small part of China's economy that hinges on this trade, but here's a good
Sputnik interview that illustrates how easily China can simply absorb goods into its own
domestic market:
"...we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world.
Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and
room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives
China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor,
Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the
threats on its own."
The US used to be an important nation to do business with - commercial, diplomatic,
military. But as it has become "agreement incapable", nations are forced to replace it.
This takes a little time and readjustment, but then the change is permanent.
Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the
world's trust.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed regional developments, including efforts to
strengthen security and stability, in a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, the Saudi Media Ministry tweeted on Sunday.
"We want peace and stability in the region but we will not sit on our hands in light
of the continuing Iranian attack," Jubeir said. "The ball is in Iran's court and it is up
to Iran to determine what its fate will be."
He said the crew of an Iranian oil tanker that had been towed to Saudi Arabia early
this month after a request for help due to engine trouble were still in the kingdom
receiving the "necessary care". The crew are 24 Iranians and two Bangladeshis .
Is this a veiled threat on the lives of these crew members?
Re@ 51 James, well Sputniknews is reporting that the Saudi's claim that the Houthis are
planning to attack 300 critical infrastructure facilities in Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates in the coming weeks so that might be the instigating event your concerned
about
Thanks for your kudos! As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the
nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and
here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited
Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle.
Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment
of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for
self-government.
Recall that George Washington was deemed safe to become the first
president because he could be trusted not to proclaim himself king --something often
forgotten by students of US History.
I've often lamented on the nature of the 1787 Constitution because it allows any POTUS
to become a king with almost zero hindrances on the power wielded. Sure, compared with
other systems of government at the time, the USA's was revolutionary, but only down to the
waist to borrow a phrase from Gilbert & Sullivan. Madison's theory, IMO, was--other
than being Aristocratic--okay until his most important check/balance was removed--that of
the "dueling oval office" where the losing POTUS candidate was awarded the
Vice-Presidency--imagine Hillary Clinton as Veep with Trump in the driver seat! IMO,
the
12th Amendment fatally wounded Madison's construction of a government that arrived at
great decisions based on a consensus of genuine national interests instead of partisanship.
Arguing that action is the great fault that must be corrected doesn't get much play
nowadays. Indeed, it's very difficult to debate Constitutional Reform given the engineered
political climate since the current situation suits the Ruling Oligarchy just fine.
I hope everyone had an opportunity to click the link I provided to the series of
paintings known as The Course of Empire . ICYMI, here it is again .
Please note which Empire's being copied and compare that with the predominant architectural
theme in the Outlaw US Empire's Imperium. Creditors ruled and eventually destroyed that
Empire. That's one historical lesson that's totally omitted from the historiography of the
USA.
By and large, we know what and where the problems are. The fundamental question is, will
we ever get the opportunity to fix them?
Their disadvantage is that they have to import energy. So they need export if they do
not wish to run a trade deficit.
They do not necessarily need the US for this though if they can trade in Yuan.
b, it is generally fund raising time during this time for some publishers (i.e.
counterpunch etc) and I would like to send you something as well. Can you please post the
payment information. Thanks.
If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story
and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday
in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in
the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the
conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St
Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry
and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy.
The film is at least 150 minutes long and is a highly immersive experience. There is not
much plot in the Hollywood sense of the term. I believe reviews have been mixed with most
film critics complaining about the film being too long and boring. But if you are prepared
to watch a film that uses a sociological approach to telling a narrative, then you'll agree
with me that the film actually isn't long enough.
Very interesting studies and the ideas that they might spawn. The near parallels of the
micro and macro as well as the flow patterns.
The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two
dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and
reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses
through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the
desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short,
we are breeding for weakness and gullibility.
In regard to large scale dynamics resembling the physics of things like the laws of
thermodynamics, I am wondering if phenomena like those alluded to above might be engulfed
and influenced by these kinds of natural patterns. So for example: Looking past the drama
of sanctions, trade wars, and good guys vs. bad guys, wont the large scale movements caused
by these things begin to move according to a kind of physics?
I keep wondering what the result of this latest round of economic warfare will lead to.
If the USA continues to sanction, embargo and blockade (at the behest of banking cartels?)
will this not cause a mass exodus from dollar reserves, SWIFT, BIS and the like? I hear all
sorts of opinions, bushels of dis-info and I'm mostly at a loss as to what to think. We are
clearly nearing the end of the Bretton-Woods era so a reset is in order. The USA is a mere
6% of the world population and some would say at the end of it's due date as far an being
an "international influencer".
So if they and their EU poodles go ahead and sanction every nation who refuses to bend
the knee what's stopping these nations from simply bypassing these decrees and going about
their business? I get the sense that this is already happening quietly. Russia, China and
various partner nations are creating alternatives in many forms, be they interweb servers,
financial networks, OBOR, SCO and more I have never heard of.
Perhaps the ratcheting up of tensions could also be swept up in the turbulence of
thermodynamics? If sanctions become embargoes and then blockades, what happens to the
"compressions ratios in the Straits of Hormuz?
Well, I've come across a few advertisements, but I always thought it was some kind of
children's video game. I cannot imagine why anyone other than a socially stunted and
mis-developed American or Americanised adolescent could want to watch such infantile
deranged garbage.
If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger
generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed
appears to be the case.
"... "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." ..."
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."
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.
"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."
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.
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
Assuming the decoupling would take place, that could be easily perceived as "strategic
blackmail" imposed by the Trump administration. Yet what the Trump administration wants is not
exactly what the US establishment wants – as shown by an
open letter to Trump signed by scores of academics, foreign policy experts and business
leaders who are worried that "decoupling" China from the global economy – as if
Washington could actually pull off such an impossibility – would generate massive
blowback.
What may actually happen in terms of a US-China "decoupling" is what Beijing is already,
actively working on: extending trade partnerships with the EU and across the Global South.
And that will lead, according to Li, to the Chinese leadership offering deeper and wider
market access to its partners. This will soon be the case with the EU, as discussed in Brussels
in the spring.
Sun Jie, a researcher at the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, said that deepening partnerships with the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (Asean) will be essential in case a decoupling is in the cards.
For his part Liu Qing, an economics professor at Renmin University, stressed the need for
top international relations management, dealing with everyone from Europe to the Global South,
to prevent their companies from replacing Chinese companies in selected global supply
chains.
And Wang Xiaosong, an economics professor at Renmin University, emphasized that a concerted
Chinese strategic approach in dealing with Washington is absolutely paramount.
All about
Belt and Road
A few optimists among Western
intellectuals would rather characterize what is going on as a vibrant debate between proponents
of "restraint" and "offshore balancing" and proponents of "liberal hegemony". In fact, it's
actually a firefight.
Among the Western intellectuals singled out by the puzzled Frankenstein guy, it is virtually
impossible to find another voice of reason to match Martin Jacques , now a senior fellow
at Cambridge University. When China Rules the World , his hefty tome published 10 years ago,
still leaps out of an editorial wasteland of almost uniformly dull publications by so-called
Western "experts" on China.
Jacques has understood that now it's all about the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative:
"BRI has the potential to offer another kind of world, another set of values, another set
of imperatives, another way of organizing, another set of institutions, another set of
relationships."
Belt and Road, adds Jacques, "offers an alternative to the existing international order. The
present international order was designed by and still essentially privileges the rich world,
which represents only 15% of the world's population. BRI, on the other hand, is addressing at
least two-thirds of the world's population. This is extraordinarily important for this moment
in history."
Dmitry Orlov offers a highly-pertinent review of a current report to the US Congress about
the severe degradation of the US's capacity to produce ANY heavy industrial goods - including
advanced weapons such as replacement aircraft carriers, cruisers, tanks and all the rest -
within its own borders, independent of (exceedingly vulnerable) global supply networks:
Also, the US only has 'plenty' of fossil-hydrocarbon fuel on cloud-cuckoo-land paper. In
reality, it has quite a lot of such stuff which it will never access, and will never be able
to access, because of the non-negotiable, iron logic of EROEI and EROCI (the second acronym
relating to energy returned on financial capital invested; currently a long way red-ink
negative across the whole US fracking ponzi). EROEI refers to the even more intractable,
terminally-insoluble problem of energy returned on ENERGY invested. When this gets down to
around 4 to 1 or thereabouts, it's game over for actually being able to maintain an
industrial hitech society that can hope - credibly - to do fossil-hydrocarbon mining in any
seriously challenging conditions - which most of the world's remaining pools of such fuels
now exhibit.
These predicaments are qualitatively different from problems; problems, by definition, can
hope to be solved; predicaments, inherently, can't be, and can only be endured. The world is
now close to the edge of a decisive non-availability of sufficient fossil-hydrocarbon fuels
to keep even a skeleton semblance of modern hitech industrial society operating - at all.
That's the predicament that is already staring us in the face, and that will soon be
trampling us into the ground. Doesn't mean that hopeless political inadequates such as
PompousHippo and The Insane Geriatric Walrus won't attempt to trigger such insanity as an
aggression against Iran, though, they being too stupid, too delusional, and too
morally-degenarate, to know any better.
This is the overall situation which insists that the US has literally zero chance of
attacking Iran, and actually getting anything remotely resembling a 'win' out of it. Read
Dmitry's piece to get a more detailed outline of why this is so.
PS: The above considerations apply just as decisively to the US's nuclear weapon capacity
as they do to all the other hitech industrial toys which USAmerica is now barely able to
produce on its own - at all.
"... Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S. manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers are benefiting from working alongside robots. ..."
"... Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). ..."
"... Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors. ..."
Don't blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs
Scott Andes and Mark Muro
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
a recent blog we described new research by George Graetz
and Guy Michaels that shows the impact of automation
technology in productivity statistics. So now there is good
evidence that robots are a driver of economic growth.
However, this new evidence poses a question: Has
productivity growth from robots come at the cost of
manufacturing jobs?
Between 1993 and 2007 (the timeframe studied by Graetz and
Micheals) the United States increased the number of robots
per hour worked by 237 percent. During the same period the
U.S. economy shed 2.2 million manufacturing jobs. Assuming
the two trends are linked doesn't seem farfetched.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no
shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S.
manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are
just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some
researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers
are benefiting from working alongside robots.
So is there a relationship between job loss and the use of
industrial robots?
The substantial variation of the degree to which countries
deploy robots should provide clues. If robots are a
substitute for human workers, then one would expect the
countries with much higher investment rates in automation
technology to have experienced greater employment loss in
their manufacturing sectors. Germany deploys over three times
as many robots per hour worked than the United States,
largely due to Germany's robust automotive industry, which is
by far the most robot-intensive industry (with over 10 times
more robots per worker than the average industry). Sweden has
60 percent more robots per hour worked than the United States
thanks to its highly technical metal and chemical industries.
Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no
relationship between the change in manufacturing employment
and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots
between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its
manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33
percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year
time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market
and continued with the most recent data, 2012).
Korea,
France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the
United States even as they introduced more industrial robots.
On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and
Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in
their manufacturing sectors.
"Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and
2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs
between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the
United States. "
Yes the U.S. and Germany have a similar
pattern. So what.
Why Factory Jobs Are Shrinking Everywhere
by Charles Kenny
April 28, 2014, 1:16 PM EDT
A report from the Boston Consulting Group last week
suggested the U.S. had become the second-most-competitive
manufacturing location among the 25 largest manufacturing
exporters worldwide. While that news is welcome, most of the
lost U.S. manufacturing jobs in recent decades aren't coming
back. In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked
in manufacturing. By 2010, only one in 10 did.
The growth in imports from China had a role in that
decline–contributing, perhaps, to as much as one-quarter of
the employment drop-off from 1991 to 2007, according to an
analysis by David Autor and colleagues at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. But the U.S. jobs slide began well
before China's rise as a manufacturing power. And
manufacturing employment is falling almost everywhere,
including in China. The phenomenon is driven by technology,
and there's reason to think developing countries are going to
follow a different path to wealth than the U.S. did-one that
involves a lot more jobs in the services sector.
Pretty much every economy around the world has a low or
declining share of manufacturing jobs. According to OECD
data, the U.K. and Australia have seen their share of
manufacturing drop by around two-thirds since 1971. Germany's
share halved, and manufacturing's contribution to gross
domestic product there fell from 30 percent in 1980 to 22
percent today. In South Korea, a late industrializer and
exemplar of miracle growth, the manufacturing share of
employment rose from 13 percent in 1970 to 28 percent in
1991; it's fallen to 17 percent today.
"... The report, published Monday by the Pew Research Center, tracks the rise of religious restrictions globally. Israel was one of the top 20 most religiously restrictive countries in the world, according to Pew. It also has the fifth-highest level of "social hostilities related to religious norms," and the sixth-highest level of "interreligious tension and violence" -- a worse score than Syria . ..."
"... Israel self-defines as a Jewish state. Its haredi Orthodox Chief Rabbinate controls all recognized marriage, divorce, burial and Jewish conversion in the country, which means that non-Orthodox weddings, divorces, funerals and conversions are not recognized by the state. The state likewise does not recognize intermarriages conducted in the country. Most cities do not run public transit on Shabbat. ..."
A Jewish man waves an Israeli flag as he participates in a march marking "Jerusalem Day", near Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City
June 2, 2019. Amir Cohen / REUTERS
When it comes to restrictions on religious freedom, Israel is in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, a
new report says.
The report also noted a rise in restrictions on Jewish practice in Europe, as well as an increase of attacks on Jews. It said
Jews were harassed in 87 countries in 2017, the third-highest figure for any religion.
The report, published Monday by the Pew Research Center, tracks the rise of religious restrictions globally. Israel was one of
the top 20 most religiously restrictive countries in the world, according to Pew. It also has the fifth-highest level of "social
hostilities related to religious norms," and the sixth-highest level of "interreligious tension and violence" -- a worse score than
Syria .
The report cited incidents in Israel like harassment of people who drive cars near haredi Orthodox neighborhoods on
Shabbat , or government officials who "defer
in some way to religious authorities or doctrines on legal issues."
Israel self-defines as a Jewish state. Its haredi Orthodox Chief Rabbinate controls all recognized marriage, divorce, burial and
Jewish conversion in the country, which means that non-Orthodox weddings, divorces, funerals and conversions are not recognized by
the state. The state likewise does not recognize intermarriages conducted in the country. Most cities do not run public transit on
Shabbat.
Regarding restrictions on Jews worldwide, the report pointed out government interference in circumcision in Germany and Slovenia.
And the report noted rising anti-Semitic
and neo-Nazi activity, including assaults on Jews, in Europe and the United States.
Donald Trump's false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime
By
Michelle
Ye Hee Lee
July 8, 2015
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're
sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're
bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement
speech
,
June 16, 2015
"I can never apologize for the truth. I don't mind apologizing for things. But I can't apologize for the truth. I said
tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that's true. And it's happening all the time. So, why, when I mention,
all of a sudden I'm a racist. I'm not a racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body."
–Trump, interview on Fox News' "Media Buzz," July 5, 2015
"What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the
United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
–Trump,
statement
about
his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015
Several readers asked us to fact-check Trump's initial comment, which has drawn outrage from Latino groups and led to
breakups with his corporate partners distancing themselves from the inflammatory remarks.
This posed a conundrum for The Fact Checker. We had
fact
checked most of his statements
from his news conference announcing his effort to win the GOP presidential nomination,
but many of those were in the realm of domestic and international policy. We tend not to wade into fact checking incendiary
comments that some might label opinion.
But Trump's statement -- which he repeatedly has defended -- underscores public perceptions that can drive immigration
policies. For example, the 2010 murder of a rancher by a suspected smuggler in an Arizona border city
fueled
public and political pressure
on then-Gov. Jan Brewer to sign the controversial anti-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 into
law.
What do the data tell us about the criminal threat of immigrants?
The Facts
Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes
than native-born Americans. In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born
Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has
a
detailed report
showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
Immigration and crime levels have had inverse trajectories since the 1990s: immigration has increased, while crime has
decreased. Some experts say the influx of immigrants contributed to the decrease in crime rates, by increasing the
denominator while not adding significantly to the numerator.
In his July 6 statement, Trump clarified that he was referring to cases where undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes
or smuggle drugs. He pointed to the
recent
incident in San Francisco
, where an undocumented immigrant and a repeat felon who had been deported five times to
Mexico was arrested on suspicion of fatally shooting a woman.
Trump's campaign pointed to data from the
U.S.
Sentencing Commission
, which tracks citizenship of offenders in federal prisons by primary offense, which is the
offense with the longest maximum sentence when a person is convicted of multiple offenses. Of 78,022 primary offense cases
in fiscal year 2013, 38.6 percent were illegal immigrant offenders. The majority of their cases (76 percent) were
immigration related. Of total primary offenses, 17.6 percent of drug trafficking offenses and 3.8 percent of sex abuse were
illegal immigrants. Of 22,878 drug crime cases, 17.2 percent were illegal immigrants.
But these numbers are not indicative of general crime trends of non-citizens. Federal prisoners made up
10
percent
of the total incarcerated population in the United States in 2013. When asked how the data are indicative of
the Mexican government sending criminals to the United States, or that there is a crime wave coming across the border, a
Trump campaign adviser said: "The data speaks for itself."
The
Congressional
Research Service
found that the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants do not fit in the category that fits Trump's
description: aggravated felons, whose crimes include murder, drug trafficking or illegal trafficking of firearms.
(Congressional Research Service)
CRS also found that non-citizens make up a smaller percentage of the inmate population in state prisons and jails, compared
to their percentage to the total U.S. population.
An analysis of 2010 Census data in a
report
from
the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration group, shows that 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old
were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. That disparity in incarceration rates has been consistent
in the decennial Census since 1980, the report says.
The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men -- who make up the bulk of the
undocumented immigrant population -- to their native-born counterparts, as shown below:
(American Immigration Council)
Are countries like Mexico "not sending their best"?
Immigration offenses account for
the
largest portion
of federal convictions of immigrants (the majority of whom were from Mexico), followed by drug and
traffic violations. Sex offenses comprised 1.6 percent of total crimes in 2013.
Inmate legal status is not always tracked at local jails or state prisons. The Government Accountability Office's
2011
analysis
collected reports from 2003 to 2009 to the Department of Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program,
through which states and localities get reimbursed for convicting and incarcerating inmates of illegal or unknown
immigration status (mainly from Mexico).
The GAO found that drug offenses made up the majority of convictions in fiscal year 2008 in the five states (Arizona,
California, Florida, New York and Texas) with the largest populations of such inmates. These convictions were both felony
and misdemeanor crimes, including use/under the influence, manufacturing, transporting and possession of paraphernalia.
Cartel- and gang-related arrests along the Texas southern border decreased after a border surge in 2014, the
Houston
Chronicle reported
. In 2013,
the
Center for Investigative Reporting
found that four out of five arrests for drug smuggling involved U.S. citizens.
The Department of Homeland Security in recent years has targeted immigration enforcement to those who committed serious
crimes through efforts like Secure Communities, rolled out per county from 2008 through 2012. But a
recent
study
showed that increased enforcement didn't lead to decreased crime, calling into question whether serious crimes
were prevalent.
Researchers found Secure Communities did not result in a meaningful reduction in the FBI's overall index crime rate or in
rates of violent crimes. There were modest reductions in burglary and motor vehicle theft, not serious crimes like
homicides or violent crime. (This program is now
on
its way out
.)
The theory is that immigrants generally have a stronger incentive than native-born Americans to stay out of legal trouble --
especially undocumented immigrants, who risk deportation. And those who legally are in the United States (or are pursuing
legal status) are required to pass a criminal background check.
"Immigrants in general -- unauthorized immigrants in particular -- are a self-selected group who generally come to the U.S.
to work. And once they're here, most of them want to keep their nose down and do their business, and they're sensitive to
the fact that they're vulnerable," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the
Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank.
Interestingly, crime rates increase as generations of immigrants assimilate into America. Second-generation immigrants, who
are born in the United States and have at least one foreign-born parent,
are
more likely to
commit crimes than first-generation immigrants, and have similar crime rates as native-born Americans.
The Pinocchio Test
It's difficult to connect any crime with illegal immigration, by its nature. Drug smuggling and violent crimes do exist,
but the cases are not indicative of larger trends in the immigrant population. What we do know about crime rates among
non-citizens and inmates with unknown or unauthorized immigrant statuses show Trump's assertions about a crime wave are not
accurate.
Trump's repeated statements about immigrants and crime underscore a common public perception that crime is correlated with
immigration, especially illegal immigration. But that is a misperception; no solid data support it, and the data that do
exist negate it. Trump can defend himself all he wants, but the facts just are not there.
"... When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows: higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production efficiencies, which means lower costs. ..."
"... Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too! ..."
"... Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their creativity ..."
"... Several US companies asked our company to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often non-existent. ..."
"... Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export manufacturing sector? ..."
"... Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive operations there. ..."
Based on
allthe
articles I have read about the current geopolitical situation, I am not optimistic about
the affect of the US-China trade war on American importers. Dan Harris, who wrote "
the US-China Cold War start now, " announced that a "mega-storm" might be coming, and he
may be right.
Now, if things turn out as bad as predicted, and if tariffs apply on more goods imported
from China to the US -- and at higher rates -- what does it mean for US importers?
What
will the damage from the US-China trade war look like?
These are my thoughts about who or what is going to be hit hard by the ongoing 'trade
war:'
1. Small importers will be hit much harder than larger ones
If you work with very large Chinese manufacturers, many of them have already started to set
up operations outside of mainland China, for the simple reason that most of their customers
have been pushing for that.
They are in Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. And this is true in most industries -- from apparel to
electronics.
Do they still have to import most of their components from China? It depends on their
footprints. As I wrote before :
You set up a mammoth plant and you don't want your high-value component suppliers to be
more than 1 hour away from you, for just-in-time inventory replenishment? They can be
requested to set up a new manufacturing facility next to you.
2. A higher total cost of goods purchased from China
This one is obvious. If you have orders already in production, they will cost you more than
expected.
The RMB might slide quite a bit, and that might alleviate the total cost. I hope you have
followed my advice and started paying your suppliers in RMB , to benefit
from it automatically.
Beijing might also give other forms of subsidies to their exporters. They might be quite
visible (e.g. a higher VAT rebate) or totally 'under the table'.
3. Difficult
negotiations with Chinese suppliers
Can you say the tariffs are Beijing's fault, and so your suppliers should absorb the
tariffs? That's not going to work.
When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers
agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows:
higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production
efficiencies, which means lower costs.
When tariffs go from 10% to 35%, what else can US buyers give their counter-parties?
Payments in advance? Lower quality standards? I don't believe that.
4. Difficulties at
several levels in the supply chain
Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have
issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office
might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too!
Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their
creativity
5. Short-term non-elasticity of alternative sources
There are a finite number of Vietnamese export-ready manufacturers that can make your
orders. And, chances are, their capacity is already full. If you haven't prepared this move for
months (or years), other US companies have. The early bird gets the worm
Same thing with Thailand, Indonesia, India, and so on, with the exception of apparel and
(maybe) footwear.
Several US companies asked our company
to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they
were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of
hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often
non-existent.
6. Faster cost increases in other low-cost Asian countries
Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries
going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export
manufacturing sector?
There could be some 'silver linings' due to the trade war
It is not all bad news though. We may see these benefits caused by China and the USA
slugging it out too:
7. Many opportunities for Mexico
Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor
cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive
operations there.
8. Rapid consolidation in the Chinese manufacturing sector
The fittest will survive. Many uncompetitive manufacturers and traders will fold. Consolidation
will accelerate. I often look at what happened in Japan and South Korea . Each of these countries
developed very fast and, when the going got tough, the export manufacturing sector got
devastated. Only the most competitive survived.
9. Relaxed enforcement of anti-pollution
regulations in China?
I'd bet that, if the tariffs hit hard, far fewer operations will get closed for
environmental reasons. Preserving employment and social peace will prevail.
"... There are two problems with storming the Winter Palace. First, you won't have a decisive majority of Americans behind you. Second, you have no idea what you'd do if somehow did seize the Winter Palace. You could conceivably solve the first problem by going balls out demagogue a la Hugo Chavez; but, like Chavez, you'd have to dispense with democracy to keep power because you have no solution to the second problem. For my money, a decent social democracy-universal healthy care, more progressive taxes, a higher minimum wage, more affordable college education, etc.- is plenty hard enough to secure. ..."
"... Before the long-decline began in the 70s, a large fraction of the UK's economic activity was chartered, regulated, and/or managed for the people. That's not capitalism, by definition. ..."
"Does anybody around here have anything useful to suggest"
both demonstration and general strikes are powerful ways to express popular outrage. one is planned
on for the 17th (too soon) and another more organized one is being planned for march.
"the British welfare state, the war on poverty/great society policy era, and the Scandinavian
social model are" not replacements for capitalism. They are forms of capitalism. And the sorts
of policies that go with these versions of conventional social democracy are...pretty much the
platform articles that Clinton ran on. Which is the serious reason the American right despised
Hillary. They, at least, didn't have any trouble telling the candidates apart.
There are two problems with storming the Winter Palace. First, you won't have a decisive majority
of Americans behind you. Second, you have no idea what you'd do if somehow did seize the Winter
Palace. You could conceivably solve the first problem by going balls out demagogue a la Hugo Chavez;
but, like Chavez, you'd have to dispense with democracy to keep power because you have no solution
to the second problem. For my money, a decent social democracy-universal healthy care, more progressive
taxes, a higher minimum wage, more affordable college education, etc.- is plenty hard enough to
secure.
Before the long-decline began in the 70s, a large fraction of the UK's economic activity was
chartered, regulated, and/or managed for the people. That's not capitalism, by definition. (Socialism
was a market/trade-based system at its inception. The tendencies with alternative economic models
came later.)
"And the sorts of policies that go with these versions of conventional social democracy are...pretty much the platform
articles that Clinton ran on."
I guess I missed Clinton advocating for the nationalization of health care, education, energy
production, and transportation.
And the "welfare state" has little to do with "social democracy" (whatever that recent nonsense
phrase means), all of them were developed by socialist movements.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
"... On the other hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor. ..."
"... Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich, and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. ..."
There is a fundamental difficulty here which progressives have not fully faced. It is that
more open trade and welcoming immigration policies are, on the one hand, a progressive and
moral good (we should feel solidarity with people from the global south; it feels wrong to
bar them from our countries and stop them from benefiting from our economies).
On the other
hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs
away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more
jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest
in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor.
Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will
necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich,
and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. Comfortably well-off liberals can
appear and feel progressive by supporting more open immigration, while in fact this support
aligns with capitalist policies that benefit them and exploit those who are worse off.
We need a progressive movement that can resolve this and square the circle.
Honestly, no, beyond stressing the fact that more open and welcoming immigration policies
are not unalloyed morally good things: they lead to lower wages for the poor and middle
class, and lead to greater inequality, since lower wages translate into greater profits for
corporations and their owners.
Perhaps if a progressive argument towards tempering and
controlling immigration can be made, based on the fact that open immigration leads to greater
inequality and in the end benefits the 1% the most, then we can get some sort of
progress.
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
As Noam Chomsky
says, the term globalisation has been appropriated by a narrow sector of power and privilege to
refer to their version of international integration and it makes sense for them to own the term
because anyone who is opposed to their version becomes anti-globalisation -- someone who is
primitive and wants to go back to the stone age and that everyone likes international integration
but not the investor rights version of it.
In reality globalization was a politically correct term for neocolonialism
Notable quotes:
"... In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization ..."
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald
Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war
between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are
shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization's biggest boosters now concede that it
has produced lopsided benefits and that something
will have to change .
Today's woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current,
hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy
instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of
the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield
themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international
trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property,
industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade
deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from
managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global
organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh
across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would
lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital
would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More
trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth.
But
these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although
economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the
upside.
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys
cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker
demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe
products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect :
"the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the
plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic
statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
Now it seems to me the Koch-Soros think tank is an attempt to unify the neoliberal
globalist forces which represent factions from international greenies to nationalist
protectionists . In other words to repackage and rename neoliberal globalism while keeping
its essence. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
As for China opening to private international finance. They already did that but this
takes it to a new level. Like I said. Fake wrestling. This was one of the demands in the
trade negotiations by Trump. Why take one of your chips off the table if the game is for
real?
China was Made in USA (includes the City of London) like the EU and Putins neoliberal
Russia.
One day they will get around telling us they are all buddies, or maybe not. I suspect they
have a lot of laughs playing us like they do.
I could be wrong but this is more interesting than the official and semi official
narratives.
"... if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of Iraq. ..."
"... An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these states ..."
"... 'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites, primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign states to a set of international institutions under their control. ..."
"... In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of fascism. ..."
"... The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations. ..."
Stating "globalism" is antithetical to "multipolarity" is a non-sequitor.
Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function. This is complex of course and includes capital markets, corporations,
multinational corporations, currency markets, commodities markets, trading agreements.
Politicians intervene in the functioning of globalism so there is seldom if ever anything
like a globalism free of political influence.
OTOH, "multipolarity" has no structure that I can see. It is an empty vessel, purely a
political, statist-inspired idea (whereas globalism is a "thing" which contains
political and economic ideas of course but those ideas may or may not be statist in concept
depending on the context) which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time.
I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian. Thus, without reading anything other
than James's comment I would guess the author's idea is either nonsensical or propagandistic
in nature.
For me, the world became "multipolar" the minute the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The idea
that the US wishes to maintain its "unipolar" leadership of the world may be true in the
wishful sense of some neocons, however if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it
was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of
Iraq.
Today, I view the world as both multipolar and globalist. While many of the political and
economic tensions we see result from the disconnects between national political and global
economic conditions, I think we must admit if we are honest that many of the more recent
tensions are simply the result of Trump's presidency, which has the intended affect of being
"a bull in the china shop" of the globalist system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing in theory. Sadly, however, Trump is a geopolitical and
foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating
daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he
playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers.
'Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function.'
What B.S.!!
An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the
fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the
sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these
states , which are supposed to function on behalf of the population of each state, and
in democratic states, are also supposed to be under the control of the overall population
through their democratic institutions. International institutions are there to coordinate
commerce between the different economic systems of sovereign states.
'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not
about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites,
primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to
transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign
states to a set of international institutions under their control.
In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened
with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and
completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of
fascism.
The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project
and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.
@ donkeytale 15
I think the world has always been multipolar, the differences that give the definition
coming to (being presented to) the forefront, or being dissimilated, according to choice and
circumstance. The globalist direction aims to interweave or merge these differences (cultural
and historic, religion, philosophy and so on), or at least bring them under a common control.
So the idea that multipolarity represents anything more than increased recognition of various
regional power as opposed to recognition of one regional power (say western) as more visible,
is not much more than an indication of how global policy will be conducted, i.e. with an
emphasis on regional responsibility.
Recent US policy is not aimed at destroying the globalist order, it is a result of the
failure of one format of the globalist order, where the global financial order no longer
fitted into national or regional economic sense. This was the gfc, and there is simply no way
to continue the flow of trade and finance as it existed for the previous decades. The easing
of rates across the globe is paliative, it is no solution, you only have to look at national
debt levels to understand this, or in Eurozone try target2 differences. The world is now
partly funded by negative yielding debt. All of this works contrary to capitalist (in its
basic honest philosophy) understanding. In short "something" is going to happen to readjust
this circumstance, planned or otherwise. I have watched how in EU the single currency has
been used to takeover the traditional national hierarchies (banking, political and to a
degree social), but we don't have that sort of framework accepted at global level, only
various currency pegs, bilateral arrangements and so on. The IMF and sdr is not much liked.
What I have noted is virtual central bank currency is being promoted in several ways, be it
the bis just announcing it may become a necessity face to cryptocurrency or similar (with a
caveat of harmonising monetary policy) , EU organising a parallel payment system that avoids
commercial banks, even Instex is along these lines. Where the US and some others truly stand
with regard to this is a different question, as for now it (et al) still enjoy a financial
hegemony that is both organised and profitable. Interesting times, I just hope that a major
event is not the catalyst for reform, that the various parties can agree to withdraw to more
localised structure and agreement if any grand plans meet the resistance or failure that is
already partly visible. I doubt that will be allowed though, by the time people really want
to take part, there won't be much option left and circumstance will already be already
confused and conflictive.
@31 donkeytale.. well, if the usa didn't commit as much paper money as it does to the
military complex it runs, i suppose the financial complex where the us$ can be printed ad
nauseam might come into question.. the sooner oil isn't pegged to the us$ and etc. etc.
happens, the better off the world will be... and, i don't blame the usa people for this..
they are just being used as i see it - much the same here in canada with our politicians
thinking the prudent thing to do is to support the status quo.. the problem is the status quo
can only go on for so long, before a change inevitably happens...
as for swift - they went along with usa sanctions back in 2011 on iran, but then it was
brought to court in europe and overturned... but again - they are back in the same place
bowing down to usa exceptionalism... call it what you want.. another system needs to get made
if this one that exists is beholden to a special interest group - usa-uk-europe, where others
are 2nd rate citizens of the world... same deal imf... these world financial institutions
need to be changed to reflect the changes that are taking place... the voting rights of the
developed countries are skewed to favour the ones who have been raping and pillaging africa,
and etc. etc.. you may not think it matters, but i personally do.. and i don't blame the usa
for it..but they are being used as a conduit to further an agenda which is very unbalanced
and unfriendly to the world as i see it..
I am afraid that I cannot agree with much of what you said.
Dictatorship, as a governance system, has always failed, and will always fail. The
'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S.
in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of
the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations. And
since 2001, they have used the U.S. and British military and intelligence services and NATO
as their personal bludgeon in order to force the submission of any state that did not
voluntarily submit to their project of a 'Global' dictatorship.
Resistance to this 'Globalist' project is at the root of almost all conflicts in the world
today. The 'Multi-Polar' nations resisting the 'Globalists', in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea,
Venezuela, etc. is one front in this resistance. The other front is the resistance of
'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe)
to the 'Globalists.
The Trump Presidency is not the cause of tensions in the world today, as you suggest, but
rather the symptom. Trump understands that without an industrial base, the U.S. is condemned
to becoming the 'India' of the Americas'. The central theme of his actions is to restore the
U.S. industrial base and U.S. sovereignty, which have largely been destroyed by the
'Globalists' and their 'Deep State' machine over the past 40 years. The 'Globalists' need
only the U.S. military and intelligence services, and care nothing for its population and
less for its sovereignty, and thus are fighting Trump every step of the way.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that
is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
Reversing the 'Globalization' that has savaged the U.S. and Europe over the past several
decades will not come easily, nor without pain and tensions, and winners and losers. However
failure to do so guarantees the likely rapid and long term decline and impoverishment of all
populations under 'Globalist' control.
dh-mtl @29 explained it well, I thought, but some still don't seem to get it.
It is the difference between the UN, which has a law-based charter which upholds the national
sovereignty of each nation and forbids aggression against any sovereign country, and
the WTO, which is a rules-based agreement which forbids any national government to pass laws
which interfere in the profits of corporations.
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Putin and Lavrov frequently point to the difference between international law, which they
support, and the "rules-based order" which the US and its partners-in-crime support, in which
the rules are used to destroy sovereign countries and enrich the multi-national corporations
which strip the planet at will, and go to the cheapest labor countries, with no environmental
laws, for their global production lines.
A multi-polar world is one with many sovereign countries, ruled by international law,
respected by all, with peaceful relations between all countries.
Globalism is when corporations rule the world, and we continue on the path of destruction of
all the natural wealth of the world in the turning of nature into commodities and then
trash.
@ wagelaborer who wrote
"
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
"
Perfectly stated!
I appreciate you, dh-mtl, bevin and others responding to donkeytale. I have not read the
comment because donkeytale is on bypass for me but it is nice to read other commenters taking
on donkeytale BS for others to see....thanks
Sorry if I need to pick your resopnse to donkeytale apart but there are a lot of
inconsistencies in your argument.
The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in
the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the
destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their
populations.
You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not
exist or had power before the 1980s, which could not be further from the truth. There are
several reasons why neo-liberalism took hold in the 1980s, creating the economic narrative
and agenda of today, none of which, are related to some kind of power grab by people that did
not hold any power beforehand. The threat of the cold war was waning in the 1980s and elites
felt less pressured by local populations potentially becoming 'too' sympathetic to communism
anymore. So they began rolling back social policies implemented in the post-war years to
counter communism's appeal. Computer technology going mainstream, creating all sorts of
economic spillovers to be harnessed by increased open and international trade was another
reason, there were many more. But the people you call 'globalists' controlled matters much,
much earlier than the 1980s.
The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the
Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.
If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best
interest of their native people at heart, then why is that most European populists cosy up to
Israel? None of them have tried to reclaim control over their Central Banks and in the case
of i.e. Italy, do they try to break free from the Euro? Why are Polish nationalists rabidly
supporting the build up of US arms on their territory? I think it is about time to see beyond
this silly dichotomy of 'Globalist' vs 'Nationalist', at least while these Nationalists do
nothing substantial to actually help their lot and further squeeze the lower classes of their
countries in good neo-liberal fashion, same as their Globalist political 'opponents' they
claim to oppose.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see
that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
So you admit that Trump is essentially a controlled zionist buffoon but at the same time
he is working towards restoring US sovereignty on behalf of the people? You mean he worked
for the US people when he lowered taxes for the rich even further, creating an ever larger US
public debt, and throwing Americans further into debt servitude of private finance? Or do you
mean his still open promise to invest large sums in the US crumbling infrastructure? Oh
right, he has instead opted to increase defence spending to combat the US many imaginary
enemies around the globe.
Look, I agree with you that global neo-liberalism is bad for the vast majority of people
on this planet but don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump or other
'nationalists', you will only find yourself completely disappointed before long.
donkeytale , Jun 30, 2019 6:48:21 PM |
58dh-mtl , Jun 30, 2019 6:50:23 PM |
59
@50 Alexander P
Response to a few of your criticisms.
1. You say 'You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc.,
etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s'.
Not at all. They lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980. They regained power with Reagan,
followed by Clinton, W, and Obama. You only need to look at any graph that shows when income
inequality in the U.S. began to ramp up. The date is clear - 1980.
2. You say. 'If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold
the best interest of their native people at heart'.
I didn't say that these 'Nationalists' or 'Populists' hold the best interests of their
native peoples at heart. Usually they are only interested in what they see as best for
themselves. But there is no doubt that they are resisting the 'Globalists' push to strip
their countries of their sovereignty, to transfer their wealth to the 'Globalist' elites, to
transfer their industries to wherever labor is the cheapest. I said that this was a 'second
front' against the 'Globalists'. And there is no doubt, from the fight that the 'Globalists'
are waging against Trump, 'Brexit' and populists and nationalists across Europe, that the
'Globalists' take this 'front' seriously.
3. You say. 'don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump'.
You are right. It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At
best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a
necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the
middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.
I agree with Alexander P that nationalist and populist presentation is often either
controlled opposition or a method of splintering and isolating influence. That is not to say
there are a lot of public in many countries who are sincere in their sentiment.
Sorry no link, recent :
"As he arrived at the Kempinski hotel lobby last December, journalists scuffled with
bodyguards as they tried to get their microphones and cameras close. Despite being jostled,
Zanganeh remained calm and waited to deliver a simple message: Iran can’t participate
in OPEC’s production cuts as long as it remains under U.S. sanctions and won’t
allow other members to steal its rightful market share."
I.E. approval for continued reduced opec oil supply to support prices depends on Iran (?),
lower prices otherwise affecting all other producers, and/or Iran is making the case that
sanctions are a theft of market share by other producers. The latter has been a part of the
cause of hostility in the gulf.
In Germany
"The 2018 report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany
(Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), which was released on June 27, 2019 by the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer and Thomas Haldenwang, head of the organization,
examines the activities of the intelligence services of the Iranian regime in Germany....
The BfV annual report states: "The central task of the Iranian intelligence services is to
spy against opposition movements and confront these movements. In this regard, evidences of
state-sponsored terrorism in Europe, which originates in Iran, have intensified during 2018."
" etc
is being used by ncr (the article source) to the effect of calling for closure of the
Iranian embassy. That aside, the report does show Germany is moving towards, or is willing
to, apply pressure on Iran now. France has also given indication that it is not fully behind
Iran (reprimand and warning on not respecting jcpoa etc.)
You are correct to say inequality began rising again in 1980; however, the rise must be
attributed to Carter and Volker--Reagan just continued the process. It seemed odd the GHW
Bush initially opposed it as "Voodoo Economics" but readily championed it all as VEEP, making
it just a political posture in the nomination race.
Thanks for the excellent response. One thing I failed to take into account is the
difference between the EU and the US financial systems so thanks for that corrective
explanation.
The Euro represents the biggest failure of the EU from where I sit. Centralised control of
the currency and banking systems is a grave error in that construct and the "European
Parliament" just seems too silly for me to even contemplate, although I'm sure there is some
logical explanation for its existence that I'm missing.
And you bet, I'm also sure the day of reckoning for the global debt overload is fast
approaching. What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus
another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed. China, for
instance, has used similar stimulus methods more frequently even than the US since 2008 to
keep its economic growth chugging along and certainly way more than the EU, which under
stimulated its own economy in response to the recession.
IMHO, Brexit is a forced over the top politicised reaction to this conservative German-led
response in light of the fact the UK kept its own currency and banking systems separate and
had the means to provide stimulus but didn't under the Tory buffoons in charge.
Grexit made much more sense to me than Brexit for many reasons. I was dismayed when the
Greek people failed in their courage after voting in Syriza follow through and tell the
Germans to take the Euro and their debt and put it where the sun don't shine.
What I believe people are tending to forget or overlook, such as wagelabourer @ 48 and
dh-mtl elsewhere, that while these postwar international re-orderings such as NATO, the UN
and the EU are nowhere near perfect, they are also not purely NWO conspiratorial constructs.
Rather they were created for a very specific purpose stemming from a lesson of history which
seems to have been rather easily tossed aside because of the relative success of these same
institutions: that is, clashing nationalisms inevitably lead to major conflict and
devastating wars, especially among the major imperialist states.
A while ago we discussed the obfuscation of classical economics in order to elevate the Junk
Economics of Randian Neoliberalism. And with Trump's Trade War and the 2020 election cycle's
start, I think it wise to revisit what's proven to be a timeless Michael Hudson essay from
2010, "America's
China Bashing: A Compendium of Junk Economics" , which provided the ground work for the
subsequent book he published on the topic.
The following excerpt remains the underlying issue prompting Trump's Trade War with
China:
"The cover story is that foreign exchange controls and purchases of U.S. securities keep
the renminbi's exchange rate low, artificially spurring its exports. The reality, of
course, is that these controls protect China from U.S. banks creating free 'keyboard
credit' to buy out Chinese companies to buy out Chinese companies or load down its economy
with loans to be paid off in renminbi whose value will rise against the deficit-ridden
dollar. It's the Wall Street arbitrage opportunity of the century that banks are
pressing for, not the welfare of American workers ."
As the years between have shown, the Chinese aren't fools and probably know more about
economics than their politicized US counterparts, Trump especially included.
@ William Gruff with the dh-mtl update about "control" during the early part of last
century....I agree and thanks
@ karlof1 with the Michael Hudson link.....I put a comment up last night with a quote from
Xinhuanet
"
BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) -- China on Sunday rolled out revised negative lists for foreign
investment market access, introducing greater opening-up and allowing foreign investors to
run majority-share-controlling or wholly-owned businesses in more sectors.
"
It makes me worry about how much of "China" will be allowed to be bought/controlled by the
private finance folk. I have been wondering about this since 2008 when the US started running
the "printing presses" bigly enough to double the deficit in less than 10 years.....I didn't
get any of those trillions, did you? At some point I expect there to be a meeting of global
"big wigs" who say they own this or that and wonder how that meeting will turn out relative
to Bretton Woods.
I still see China throwing out a faux lifeline to the private finance folk that will be
reeled in after the transition to a China led world.....want to make it look like the Koch
brothers and Soros with their new peace tank are leading the parade.....
"... Mr. Lidow is among the semiconductor executives in the United States who have become concerned that the trade war with China -- particularly the Trump administration's ban on selling chips to some prominent Chinese customers -- won't just squeeze current revenue. He fears that recent events have convinced Chinese companies that American component makers can no longer be seen as dependable partners and are permanently shifting away from them. ..."
"... In May, President Trump ordered American companies on national-security grounds to stop selling components to companies like Huawei , China's big maker of mobile phones and networking equipment. And the administration placed five other Chinese entities on the same blacklist this month, including the computer maker Sugon and three subsidiaries. ..."
"... China has responded by saying it would put together its own "unreliable entities list," including many American tech companies. ..."
"... "The U.S. is in danger of becoming the vendor of last resort for China," said Walden Rhines, chief executive emeritus of Mentor, a unit of Siemens that sells software for designing chips ..."
SAN FRANCISCO -- Alex Lidow has sold semiconductors in China for decades, starting at a
company, called International Rectifier, that his father and grandfather founded in the Los
Angeles area in 1947.
Now Mr. Lidow runs Efficient Power Conversion, which makes chips that manage electrical
power in cars and other products. Efficient Power has a strong foothold in China, but has
lately run into resistance from customers there that he traces to moves in Washington.
Mr. Lidow is among the semiconductor executives in the United States who have become
concerned that the trade war with China -- particularly the Trump administration's ban on
selling chips to some prominent Chinese customers -- won't just squeeze current revenue. He
fears that recent events have convinced Chinese companies that American component makers can no
longer be seen as dependable partners and are permanently shifting away from them.
"In my 40 years in this business, I've had friends in China that viewed me as a trusted
supplier," Mr. Lidow said. "They can't now." His experience is part of the fallout affecting the American chip industry, one of the tech
sectors hardest hit by the tit-for-tat between the United States and China over trade and
national security.
In May, President Trump ordered American companies on national-security grounds to
stop selling
components to companies like Huawei , China's big maker of mobile phones and networking
equipment. And the administration placed
five other Chinese entities on the same blacklist this month, including the computer maker
Sugon and three subsidiaries.
Even if a new trade deal eases tensions -- Mr. Trump is set to meet with President Xi
Jinping of China in Osaka, Japan, on Saturday -- American chip executives and others said
lasting damage had already been done. They said Chinese officials and companies would step up
efforts to design and make more chips domestically. And Chinese customers seem likely to turn
to vendors from countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan if no homegrown chips are
available.
"The U.S. is in danger of becoming the vendor of last resort for China," said Walden
Rhines, chief executive emeritus of Mentor, a unit of Siemens that sells software for designing
chips
Already, big American chip makers have taken a financial hit from the China bans. Micron Technology, which sells two of the
most widely used varieties of memory chips, disclosed Tuesday that the Huawei ban had lowered sales in its most recent quarter
by nearly $200 million. Huawei is Micron’s largest customer, accounting for around 13 percent of its revenue.
"... "The problem, is that China knows time is short for the President and subsequently there is 'no rush' to conclude a 'trade deal' for several reasons: ..."
"... The pressure is on the Trump Administration to conclude a "deal," not on China. Trump needs a deal done before the 2020 election cycle AND he needs the markets and economy to be strong. ..."
"... corporate profits continued to come under pressure. As noted previously, corporate profits have declined over the last two quarters and are at the same level as in 2014 with the stock market higher by almost 60%. ..."
"... But, if you think China is going to acquiesce any time soon to Trump's demands, you haven't been paying attention. China has launched a national call in their press to unify support behind China's refusal to give into Trump's demands. To wit: ..."
"... "Lying behind the trade feud is America's intention to stifle China's development. The U.S. wants to be a permanent leader in the world, and there is no way for China to avoid the 'storm' through compromise. ..."
By agreeing to continue talks without imposing more tariffs on China, China gains ample
running room to continue to adjust for current tariffs to lessen their impact. More
importantly, Trump gave up a major bargaining chip – Huawei.
"One of the things I will allow, however, is -- a lot of people are surprised we send and
we sell to Huawei a tremendous amount of product that goes into a lot of the various things
that they make -- and I said that that's OK, that we will keep selling that product."
No, a lot of people weren't surprised, just Trump as there has been pressure applied by U.S.
technology firms to lift the ban on Huawei. While he may have appeased his corporate campaign
donors for now, Trump gave up one of the more important "pain points" on China's economy.
This gives China much needed room to run.
Let's review what
we said a couple of months ago as to why their will ultimately be no deal.
"The problem, is that China knows time is short for the President and subsequently there
is 'no rush' to conclude a 'trade deal' for several reasons:
China is playing a very long game. Short-term economic pain can be met with
ever-increasing levels of government stimulus. The U.S. has no such mechanism currently,
but explains why both Trump and Vice-President Pence have been suggesting the Fed restarts
QE and cuts rates by 1%. (Update: Trump
says the U.S. should have Mario Draghi at the helm of U.S. monetary policy.)
The pressure is on the Trump Administration to conclude a "deal," not on China. Trump
needs a deal done before the 2020 election cycle AND he needs the markets and economy to be
strong. If the markets and economy weaken because of tariffs, which are a tax on domestic
consumers and corporate profits, as they did in 2018, the risk off electoral losses rise.
China knows this and are willing to 'wait it out' to get a better deal.
As I have stated before, China is not going to jeopardize its 50 to 100-year economic
growth plan on a current President who will be out of office within the next 5-years at
most. It is unlikely, the next President will take the same hard line approach on China
that President Trump has, so agreeing to something that is unlikely to be supported in the
future is unlikely. It is also why many parts of the trade deal already negotiated don't
take effect until after Trump is out of office when those agreements are unlikely to be
enforced.
In the meantime, as noted in #3 above, corporate profits continued to come under pressure.
As noted previously, corporate profits have declined over the last two quarters and are at the
same level as in 2014 with the stock market higher by almost 60%.
... ... ...
But, if you think China is going to acquiesce any time soon to Trump's demands, you haven't
been paying attention. China has launched a national call in their press to
unify support behind China's refusal to give into Trump's demands. To wit:
"Lying behind the trade feud is America's intention to stifle China's development. The
U.S. wants to be a permanent leader in the world, and there is no way for China to avoid the
'storm' through compromise.
History proves that compromise only leads to further dilemmas. During previous trade
tensions between the U.S. and Japan, Japan made concessions. As a result, its political
stability and economic development were adversely affected, with structural reform being
suspended and hi-tech companies being severely damaged.
China, with a population of 1.4 billion, is the world's largest manufacturing base.
Industrial upgrading and hi-tech innovation are crucial to China's economic development.
China needs to leave more resources to its descendants by protecting the environment, and
reaping the dividends of further opening-up. These are the core interests of China, and it
will never give them up.
The only way for a country to win a war is through development, not compromise. To achieve
development, China will open its door wider to the world and fight to the end."
These are Xi Jinping's mandates, dictated directly from his party, for the meeting with the
United States president in Osaka.
The only possible outcome for Trump was exactly what happened. Nothing. Just an agreement to
talk more.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior
strength, evade him. I f your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be
weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces
are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.
Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. "
China has been attacking the "rust-belt" states, which are crucial to Trump's 2020
re-election, states with specifically targeted tariffs. As noted by
MarketWatch:
"China has lashed back with tariffs on $110 billion in American goods, focusing on
agricultural products in a direct and painful shot at Trump supporters in the U.S. farm
belt."
While Trump is operating from a view that was a ghost-written, former best-seller, in the
U.S. popular press, Xi is operating from a centuries-old blueprint for victory in battle.
China clearly won this round, and the pressure is now squarely on Trump to get a deal done
before the 2020 election.
"... " China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. " ..."
"... In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word. ..."
"... Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the population, in a way that weakened them. Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed. ..."
A.B. Abrams: In the introduction to this work I highlight that a fundamental shift in world
order was facilitated by the modernization and industrialization of two Eastern nations –
Japan under the Meiji Restoration and the USSR under the Stalinist industrialization program.
Before these two events the West had retained an effective monopoly on the modern industrial
economy and on modern military force. Russia's image is still affected by the legacy of the
Soviet Union – in particular the way Soviet proliferation of both modern industries and
modern weapons across much of the region was key to containing Western ambitions in the Cold
War. Post-Soviet Russia has a somewhat unique position – with a cultural heritage
influenced by Mongolia and Central Asia as well as by Europe. Politically Russia remains
distinct from the Western Bloc, and perceptions of the country in East Asia have been heavily
influenced by this. Perhaps today one the greatest distinctions is Russia's eschewing of the
principle of sovereignty under international law and its adherence to a non-interventionist
foreign policy. Where for example the U.S., Europe and Canada will attempt to intervene in the
internal affairs of other parties – whether by cutting off parts for
armaments ,
imposing economic sanctions or even launching military interventions under humanitarian
pretexts – Russia lacks a history of such behavior which has made it a welcome presence
even for traditionally Western aligned nations such as the Philippines, Indonesia and South
Korea.
While the Western Bloc attempted to isolate the USSR from East and Southeast Asia by
supporting the spread of anticommunist thought, this pretext for shunning Russia collapsed in
1991. Today the West has had to resort to other means to attempt to contain and demonize the
country – whether labelling it a human rights abuser or threatening its economic and
defense partners with sanctions and other repercussions. The success of these measures in the
Asia-Pacific has varied – but as regional economies have come to rely less on the West
for trade and grown increasingly interdependent Western leverage over them and their foreign
policies has diminished.
Even when considered as a Western nation, the type of conservative Western civilization
which Russia may be seen to represent today differs starkly from that of Western Europe and
North America. Regarding a Russia Pivot to Asia, support for such a plan appears to have
increased from 2014 when relations with the Western Bloc effectively broke down. Indeed, the
Russia's future as a pacific power could be a very bright one – and as part of the up and
coming northeast Asian region it borders many of the economies which appear set to dominate in
the 21 st century – namely China, Japan and the Koreas. Peter the Great is
known to have issued in a new era of Russian prosperity by recognizing the importance of
Europe's rise and redefining Russia as a European power – moving the capital to St
Petersburg. Today a similar though perhaps less extreme pivot Eastwards towards friendlier and
more prosperous nations may be key to Russia's future.
The Saker: We hear many observers speak of an informal but very profound and even
game-changing partnership between Putin's Russia and Xi's China. The Chinese even speak of a "
strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era ". How would you
characterize the current relationship between these two countries and what prospects do you see
for a future Russian-Chinese partnership?
A.B. Abrams: A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as
one of the greatest threats to the West's global primacy and to Western-led world order. As
early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were
instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to
form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs
for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly
emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving
this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict
significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the
previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing
Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the
true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total
collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China's national revolution
through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results
for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.
Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts
from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the
importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to
work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War
years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them
will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is
difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both
states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure
being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where
in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from
very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the
respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the
two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat
include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of
have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use
by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to
deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare
– reportedly being tested in
Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea .
The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best
exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the
sharing of extremely
sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well
kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another.
Russia's defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People's
Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue
research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United
States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons
technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic
bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined
defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which
themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two
should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance
their own security.
Cooperation in political affairs has also been considerable, and the two parties have
effectively presented a united front against the designs of the Western Bloc. In 2017 both
issued strong warnings to the United States and its allies that they would not tolerate an
invasion of North Korea – which was followed by the
deployment of advanced air defense systems by both states near the Korean border with
coverage of much of the peninsula's airspace. Following Pyongyang's testing of its
first nuclear delivery system capable of reaching the United States , and renewed American
threats against the East Asian country, China and Russia staged near simultaneous
exercises near the peninsula using naval and marine units in a clear warning to the U.S.
against military intervention. China's Navy has on several occasions deployed to the
Mediterranean for joint drills with Russian forces – each time following a period of high
tension with the Western Bloc over Syria.
In April 2018, a period of particularly high tensions between Russia and the Western Bloc
over Western threats both to take military action against the Syrian government and to
retaliate for an alleged but unproven Russian chemical weapons attack on British soil, the
Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe traveled to Russia and more explicitly stated that the
Sino-Russian partnership was aimed at countering Western designs. Referring to the Sino-Russian
defense partnership as "as stable as Mount Tai" he
stated : "the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the Armed
Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We have come to support you." A week
later China announced
large-scale live fire naval drills in the Taiwan Strait – which according to several
analysts were scheduled to coincide with a buildup of Western forces near Syria. Presenting a
potential second front was key to deterring the Western powers from taking further action
against Russia or its ally Syria. These are but a few examples Sino-Russian cooperation, which
is set to grow only closer with time.
The Saker: The US remains the most formidable military power in Asia, but this military
power is being eroded as a result of severe miscalculations of the US political leadership. How
serious a crisis do you think the US is now facing in Asia and how do you assess the risks of a
military confrontation between the US and the various Asian powers (China, the Philippines, the
DPRK, etc,).
A.B. Abrams: Firstly I would dispute that the United States is the most formidable military
power in the region, as while it does retain a massive arsenal there are several indicators
that it lost this position to China during the 2010s. Looking at combat readiness levels, the
average age of weapons in their inventories, morale both publicly and in the armed forces, and
most importantly the correlation of their forces, China appears to have an advantage should war
break out in the Asia-Pacific. It is important to remember that the for the Untied States and
its European allies in particular wars aren't fought on a chessboard. Only a small fraction of
their military might can be deployed to the Asia-Pacific within a month of a conflict breaking
out, while over 95% of Chinese forces are already on the region and are trained and armed
almost exclusively for war in the conditions of the Asia-Pacific. In real terms the balance of
military power regionally is in China's favor, and although the U.S. has tried to counter this
with a military 'Pivot to Asia' initiative from 2011 this has ultimately failed due to both the
drag from defense commitments elsewhere and the unexpected and pace at which China has
expanded and
modernized its armed forces.
For the time being the risk of direct military confrontation remains low, and while there
was a risk in 2017 of American and allied action against the DPRK Pyongyang has effectively
taken this option off the table with the development of a viable and growing arsenal of
thermonuclear weapons and associated delivery systems alongside the modernization of its
conventional capabilities. While the U.S. may have attempted to call a Chinese and Russian
bluff by launching a limited strike – which seriously risked spiraling into something
much larger – it is for the benefit of all regional parties including South Korea that
the DPRK now has the ability to deter the United States without relying on external support.
This was a historically unprecedented event, and as military technology has evolved it has
allowed a small power for the first time to deter a superpower without relying on allied
intervention. Changes in military technology such as the proliferation of the nuclear tipped
ICBM make a shooting war less likely, but also alters the nature of warfare to place greater
emphasis on information war, economic war and other new fields which will increasingly decide
the global balance of power. Where America's answer to the resistance of China and North Korea
in the 1950s to douse them with napalm, today winning over their populations through soft
power, promoting internal dissent, placing pressure on their living standards and ensuring
continued Western dominance of key technologies has become the new means of fighting.
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by Saudi Arabia's crown prince , played a key
role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its dominance over the Middle East and North Africa
– undermining Russian and Soviet aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and
Syria – in most cases with direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in
this respect referred to the agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping
them against our adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian
and Iranian militaries to the former President of
Afghanistan and the President
of Turkey , have all alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the
Islamic State for the sake of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has
increasingly slipped out of the Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will
increasingly be put into play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East
have been relatively limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which
arguably poses the greatest threat.
The Saker: Do you think that we will see the day when US forces will have to leave South
Korean, Japan or Taiwan?
A.B. Abrams: Other than a limited contingent of Marines recently deployed to guard
the American Institute , U.S. forces are not currently stationed in Taiwan. The massive
force deployed there in the 1950s was scaled down and American nuclear weapons removed in 1974
in response to China's acceptance of an alliance with the United States against the Soviet
Union. Taiwan's military situation is highly precarious and the disparity in its strength
relative to the Chinese mainland grows considerably by the year. Even a large American military
presence is unlikely to change this – and just 130km from the Chinese mainland they would
be extremely vulnerable and could be quickly isolated from external support in the event of a
cross straits war. We could, however, see a small American contingent deployed as a 'trigger
wire' – which will effectively send a signal to Beijing that the territory is under
American protection and that an attempt to recapture Taiwan will involve the United States.
Given trends in public opinion in Taiwan, and the very considerable pro-Western sentiments
among the younger generations in particular, it is likely that Taipei will look to a greater
rather than a lesser Western military presence on its soil in future.
Japan and particularly South Korea see more nuanced public opinion towards the U.S., and
negative perceptions of an American military presence may well grow in future – though
for different reasons in each country. Elected officials alone, however, are insufficient to
move the American presence – as best demonstrated by the short tenure of Prime Minister
Hatoyama in Japan and the frustration of President Moon's efforts to restrict American
deployments of THAAD missile
systems in his first year. It would take a massive mobilization of public opinion –
backed by business interests and perhaps the military – to force such a change. This
remains possible however, particularly as both economies grow increasingly reliant on China for
trade and as the U.S. is seen to have acted increasingly erratically in response to challenges
from Beijing and Pyongyang which has undermined its credibility. As to a voluntary withdrawal
by the United States, this remains extremely unlikely. President Donald Trump ran as one of the
most non-interventionist candidates in recent history, but even under him and with considerable
public support prospects for a significant reduction in the American presence, much less a
complete withdrawal, have remained slim.
The Saker: Some circles in Russia are trying very hard to frighten the Russian public
opinion against China alleging things like "China want to loot (or even conquer!) Siberia",
"China will built up its military and attack Russia" or "China with its huge economy will
simply absorb small Russia". In your opinion are any of these fears founded and, if yes, which
ones and why?
A.B. Abrams: A growth in Sinophobic sentiment in Russia only serves to weaken the nation and
empower its adversaries by potentially threatening its relations with its most critical
strategic partner. The same is applicable vice-versa regarding Russophobia in China. Given the
somewhat Europhilic nature of the Russian state in a number of periods, including in the 1990s,
and the considerable European soft influences in modern Russia, there are grounds for building
up of such sentiment. Indeed Radio Free Europe, a U.S. government funded nonprofit broadcasting
corporation with the stated purpose of "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy," notably
published sinophobic content aimed at depicting the Russian people as
victims of Chinese business interests to coincide with the Putin-XI summit in June 2019.
However, an understanding of the modern Chinese state and its interests indicates that it does
not pose a threat to Russia – and to the contrary is vital to Russia's national security
interests. While Russia historically has cultural ties to the Western nations, the West has
shown Russian considerable hostility throughout its recent history – as perhaps is most
evident in the 1990s when Russia briefly submitted itself and sought to become part of the
Western led order with terrible consequences. China by contrast has historically conducted
statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not
measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. A powerful
and independent Russia capable of protecting a genuine rules based world order and holding
lawless actors in check is strongly in the Chinese interest. It is clear that in Russia such an
understanding exists on a state level, although there is no doubt that there will be efforts by
external parties to turn public opinion against China to the detriment of the interests of both
states.
The idea that China would seek to economically subjugate Russia, much less invade it, is
ludicrous. It was from Europe were the major invasions of Russian territory came – vast
European coalitions led by France and Germany respectively with a third American led attack
planned and prepared for but stalled by the Soviet acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. More
recently from the West came sanctions, the austerity program of the 1990s, the militarization
of Eastern Europe, and the demonization of the Russian nation – all intended to subjugate
and if possible shatter it. Even at the height of its power, China did not colonize the
Koreans, Vietnamese or Japanese nor did it seek to conquer Central Asia. Assuming China will
have the same goals and interests as a Western state would if they were in a similar position
of strength is to ignore the lessons of history, and the nature of the Chinese national
character and national interest.
The Saker: The Russian military is currently vastly more capable (even if numerically much
smaller) than the Chinese. Does anybody in China see a military threat from Russia?
A.B. Abrams: There may be marginalized extreme nationalists in China who see a national
security from almost everybody, but in mainstream discourse there are no such perceptions. To
the contrary, Russia's immense contribution to Chinese security is widely recognized –
not only in terms of technological transfers but also in terms of the value of the joint front
the two powers have formed. Russia not only lacks a history of annexing East Asian countries or
projecting force against them, but it is also heavily reliant on China in particular both to
keep its defense sector active and to undermine Western attempts to isolate it. Russian
aggression against China is unthinkable for Moscow – even if China did not possess its
current military strength and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is something widely
understood in China and elsewhere.
I would dispute that Russia's military is vastly more capable than China's own, as other
than nuclear weapons there is a similar level of capabilities in most sectors in both
countries. While Russia has a lead in many key technologies such as hypersonic missiles, air
defenses and submarines to name a few prominent examples, China has been able to purchase and
integrate many of these into its own armed forces alongside the products of its own defense
sector. Russia's most prominent fighter jet for example, the Flanker (in all derivatives from
Su-27 to J-11D), is in fact fielded in larger numbers by China than by Russia itself –
and those in Chinese service have access to both indigenous as well as Russian munitions and
subsystems. Furthermore, there are some less critical but still significant sectors where China
does appear to retain a lead – for example it deployed combat jets equipped with a new
generation of active electronically scanned array radars and air to air missiles from 2017
(J-20 and in
2018 J-10C ) – while Russia has only done so this in July 2019 with the
induction of the MiG-35. Whether this is due to a Chinese technological advantage, or to a
greater availability of funds to deploy its new technologies faster, remains uncertain.
Russia's ability to provide China with its most vital technologies, and China's willingness to
rely so heavily on Russian technology to comprise so much of its inventory, demonstrates the
level of trust between the two countries
The Saker: Do you think that China could become a military threat to other countries in the
region (especially Taiwan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.)?
A.B. Abrams: I would direct you to a quote by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed
from March this year. He stated: "we always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2,000
years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, in two years, they
conquered Malaysia." This coming from a nationalist leader considered one of the most
sinophobic in Southeast Asia, whose country has an ongoing territorial dispute with China in
the South China Sea, bears testament to the nature of claims of a Chinese threat. It is
critical not to make the mistake of imposing Western norms when trying to understand Chinese
statecraft. Unlike the European states, China is not and has never been dependent on conquering
others to enrich itself – but rather was a civilization state which measured its wealth
by what it could its own people could produce. A harmonious relationship with India, Vietnam,
the Philippines and others in which all states' sovereign and territorial integrity is
respected is in the Chinese interest.
A second aspect which must be considered, and which bears testament to China's intentions,
is the orientation of the country's armed forces. While the militaries of the United States and
European powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France among others are heavily
skewed to prioritize power projection overseas, China's military has made disproportionately
small investments in power projection and is overwhelmingly tailored to territorial defense.
While the United States has over 300 tanker aircraft deigned to refuel its combat jets midair
and attack faraway lands, China has just three purpose-built tankers – less than
Malaysia, Chile or Pakistan. The ratio of
logistical to combat units further indicates that China's armed forces, in stark contrast
to the Western powers, are heavily oriented towards defense and fighting near their
borders.
This all being said, China does pose an imminent threat to the government in Taipei –
although I would disagree with your categorization of Taiwan as a country. Officially the
Republic of China (ROC- as opposed to the Beijing based People's Republic of China), Taipei has
not declared itself a separate country but rather the rightful government of the entire Chinese
nation. Taipei remains technically at war with the mainland, a conflict would have ended in
1950 if the U.S. had not placed the ROC under its protection. The fast growing strength of the
mainland has shifted the balance of power dramatically should the conflict again break out into
open hostilities. China has only to gain from playing the long game with Taiwan however –
providing scholarships and jobs for its people to live on the mainland and thus undermining the
demonization of the country and hostility towards a peaceful reunification. Taiwan's economic
reliance on the mainland has also grown considerably, and these softer methods of bridging the
gaps between the ROC and the mainland are key to facilitating unification. Meanwhile the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait only grows more favorable for Beijing by the year –
meaning there is no urgency to take military action. While China will insist on unification, it
will seek to avoid doing so violently unless provoked.
The Saker: In conclusion: where in Asia do you see the next major conflict take place and
why?
A.B. Abrams: The conflict in the Asia-Pacific is ongoing, but the nature of conflict has
changed. We see an ongoing and so far highly successful de-radicalization effort in Xinjiang
– which was taken in direct response to Western attempts to turn the province into 'China's Syria or
China's Libya,' in the words of Chinese state media, using similar means. We see a harsh
Western response to
the Made in China 2025 initiative under which the country has sought to compete in key
technological fields formerly monopolized by the Western Bloc and Japan – and the result
of this will have a considerable impact on the balance of economic power in the coming years.
We see direct economic warfare and technological competition between China and the United
States – although the latter has so far refrained from escalating too far due to the
potentially devastating impact reprisals could have. We further see an information war in full
swing, with Sinophobic stories often citing 'anonymous sources' being propagated by Western
media to target not only their own populations – but also to influence public opinion in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Influence over third parties remains vital to isolating China and
cementing the Western sphere of influence. Use of social media and social engineering, as the
events of the past decade have demonstrated from the Middle East in 2011 to Hong Kong today,
remains key and will only grow in its potency in the coming years. We also see a major arms
race, with the Western Bloc investing heavily in an all new generation of weapons designed to
leave existing Chinese and allied defenses obsolete – from laser air defenses to
neutralize China's nuclear deterrent to sixth generation stealth fighters, new heavy bombers,
new applications of artificial intelligence technologies and new hypersonic missiles.
All these are fronts of the major conflict currently underway, and the Obama and Trump
administrations have stepped up their offensives to bring about a new 'end of history' much
like that of the 1990s – only this time it is likely to be permanent. To prevail, China
and Russia will need to cooperate at least as closely if not more so as the Western powers do
among themselves.
The Saker: thank you very much for your time and answers!
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by
Saudi Arabia's crown prince, played a key role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its
dominance over the Middle East and North Africa – undermining Russian and Soviet
aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria – in most cases with
direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in this respect referred to the
agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our
adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian and Iranian
militaries to the former President of Afghanistan and the President of Turkey, have all
alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the Islamic State for the sake
of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has increasingly slipped out of the
Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will increasingly be put into
play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East have been relatively
limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which arguably poses
the greatest threat.
There is hardly such a thing called "Islamic Terrorism." In most egregious cases, such as
IS, etc., it can be shown that those lowlifes have been the mercenaries of the evil West and
their accursed implant in the ME (and nowadays the hindutvars too), collectively the avowed
enemies of true monotheism, Islam. I am including the recent Colombo attacks here.
How can any so-called "muslim" who is a tool-of-evil of the enemies of Islam, be a true
muslim? How then can it be termed "Islamic Terror"? Perhaps "Islamic Apostate Terror" would
be more suitable.
Of course, there are many other non-IS muslims who are called "terrorists." The
Palestinians, the Kashmiris, etc. For us muslims, they are simply freedom fighters.
Finally, there are a few muslims who do kill in the name Islam the Charlie Hebdo killers,
Bombay\Dhaka attackers, etc. Some of them are justified (due to intense provocations) and
others not at all. I will leave it for others to judge which falls under which category.
Perhaps the listed order will help decipher that.
It must be conceded, when it comes to setting the narrative of pure deceit, the West (and
its minions, the Jooscum and their lickspittle, the hindutvars), like in all things bad, can
be satanically good. We muslims are being decimated in the propaganda war.
We still got our True Monotheism though. The pagan/godless enemies of the Almighty One are
doomed to fail against it. God willing.
The American system ran on immigration that kept discontent about massive inequality under
control because a substantial proportion of the lowest SES were immigrants just glad to be in
the US. The tAmerican ruling class decided they could make more money by offshoring
everything that could be offshored and mass immigration to keep wags from going up in the non
offshorable parts of the economy.
China and America's venal globalising elite had converging agendas, but could not fool the
common people of America and their tribune . Even the military had began to get alarmed about
the economic growth and technological progress of China, which had been benefiting from
officially sanctioned preferential treatment by the US since Carter.
Free ride is over for China, we will see China's economic and military strength
progressively tested. What America built it can break.
China was made an economic superpower by the US elites. Not because they felt sorry for China
and wanted to speed up conversion to democracy by switching them to capitalist way of doing
business first.
They made them an economic superpower, because the US elites have lost their marbles. They
simply didn't see it coming. They wanted to turn China into one giant cheap sweatshop in
order to exploit their population with a low paying manufacturing jobs, which were never
supposed to make China reach.
But they did, because no matter how much the lost generation of the western elites were
foaming at their mouths about knowledge based economy, value added economy, high tech jobs
and the other crap, it is obvious that manufacturing remains a basis for any strong economy.
That doesn't look like it's going to change even when you add robots to the mixture.
I think that Napoleon was right when he warned the world about waking up the sleeping
dragon. First they made them an economic superpower, and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
There is a reason why China wants to build the silk road. Silk road implies land. The US
military has never been any good at land warfare. Neither where their predecessors –
the British. China, on the other hand, showed in Korea that even then, with a backward army,
equipped with handouts from the Soviet Union, they can pretty much trash the US army.
With the silk road initiative, China will seize the control of the entire Euro-Asian land
mass – the most populous and economically productive region of the world and will be
more than happy to let the US play pirates on the seas.
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Krushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to be
a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness
and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice, but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and
Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as
'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements
that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence
with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to
attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to bring China to economic ruin -- at least
Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry; in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both
agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect,
and Mao disliked Stalin but still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin
gone, Khrushchev showed Mao some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was
regarded as a weakling and sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
@Priss Factor You are probably right about Hitler seeing (Neville) Chamberlain as weak.
But Hitler was a dupe for Britains much smarter and devious elites, who successfully played
him to do their bidding. Hitler, along with the major members of the nazis, had been
significantly influenced by Neville's elder cousin who spurred the nazis towards 'the
ultimate solution'.
Instead of being weak in the manner Hitler may have thought, Neville saved Hitler from his
own generals.
In historical turns , when Britain has appeared weak, it mostly is a deliberate faint.
Be it in Gallipoli, St Petersburg in 1919, Norway or Singapore in WW2.
Commendable contribution by Mr Abrams to enlighten the confused western establishment.
" China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a
civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and
subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. "
In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but
blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of
the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word.
Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the
population, in a way that weakened them.
Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed.
Americans cannot understand our relations with China by looking at events just the past 75
years. During the century before, European imperial powers and the United States treated
China as a open borders business opportunity backed by foreign military force. China was
infested by mini-colonies to profit from China's riches. The "Opium Wars" shock decent
Americans.
"... This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example. ..."
"... Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare -- air, land, sea, space, and cyber." ..."
"... And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something deeper? ..."
"... The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity. "Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security apparatus lost military capacity. ..."
"... "The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you can't defend yourself." ..."
"... In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation, regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block the exploitation of market power. ..."
Wall Street's short-term incentives have decimated our defense industrial base and
undermined our national security.
Early this year, U.S. authorities filed criminal
charges -- including bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and theft of technology -- against the
largest maker of telecommunications equipment in the world, a Chinese giant named Huawei.
Chinese dominance in telecom equipment has created a crisis among Western espionage agencies,
who, fearful of Chinese spying, are attempting to prevent the spread of Huawei equipment
worldwide, especially
in the critical 5G next-generation mobile networking space.
In response to the campaign to block the purchase of Huawei equipment, the company has
engaged in a public relations offensive. The company's CEO, Ren Zhengfei, portrayed Western
fears as an advertisement for its products, which are, he said, "so good that the U.S.
government is scared." There's little question the Chinese government is interested in using
equipment to spy. What is surprising is Zhengfei is right about the products. Huawei, a
relatively new company in the telecom equipment space, has amassed top market share because its
equipment -- espionage vulnerabilities aside -- is the best value on the market.
In historical terms, this is a shocking turnaround. Americans invented the telephone
business and until recently dominated production and research. But in the last 20 years, every
single American producer of key telecommunication equipment sectors is gone. Today, only two
European makers -- Ericsson and Nokia -- are left to compete with Huawei and another Chinese
competitor, ZTE.
This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the
destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many
sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because
of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly
cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies
rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example.
When national security specialists consider preparedness, they usually think in terms of the
amount of money spent on the Pentagon. One of President Donald Trump's key campaign promises
was to aggressively raise the military budget, which he, along with Congress, started doing in
2017. The reaction was instant. "I'm heartened that Congress recognizes the sobering effect of
budgetary uncertainty on America's military and on the men and women who provide for our
nation's defense," then-defense secretary Jim Mattis said. Budgets have gone up every year
since.
Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense
Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great
power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with
the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our
military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare --
air, land, sea, space, and cyber."
In some cases, our competitive edge has not just been eroded, but is at risk of being -- or
already is -- surpassed. The Chinese surge in 5G telecom equipment, which has dual civilian and
military uses, is one example. China is making key investments in artificial
intelligence, another area of competition. They even seem to be able to mount a rail gun on a naval ship ,
an important next generation weapons technology that the U.S. Navy has yet to incorporate.
And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next
nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the
defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something
deeper?
The story of Huawei, and many others, suggests the latter.
♦♦♦
For over a century, America led the world in producing telecommunications equipment. The
American telecom industry, according to Zach Mottl of Atlas Tool Works, a subcontractor in the
industry, used to be a "crown jewel of American manufacturing." Mottl's company had been a
manufacturing supplier to AT&T and its Bell Labs from the early 1900s until the early
2000s. "The radar system was invented here. The transistor came out of Bell Labs. The laser. I
mean all of these high-tech inventions that have both commercial and military applications were
funded out of the research," Mottl told TAC . More than just the sexy inventions, there
was a domestic industrial sector which could make the equipment. Now, in a strategic coup for
our adversaries, that capability is gone.
Yet it wasn't one of those adversaries that killed our telecommunications capacity, but one
of our own institutions, Wall Street, and its pressure on executives to make decisions designed
to impress financial markets, rather than for the long-term health of their companies. In 1996,
AT&T spun off Bell Labs into a telecom equipment company, Lucent Technologies, to take
advantage of investors' appetite for an independent player selling high-tech telecom gear after
Congress deregulated the telecommuncations space. At the time, it was the biggest initial
public offering in history, and became the foundation of a relationship with financial markets
that led to its eventual collapse.
The focus on stock price at Lucent was systematic. The stock price was posted daily to
encourage everyone to focus on the company's relationship with short-term oriented financial
markets. All employees got a small number of "Founder's Grant Share Options," with executives
offered much larger slugs of stock to solidify the connection. When Richard McGinn became CEO
in 1997, he focused on financial markets.
Lucent began to buy up companies. According to two scholars , "The perceived
need to compete for acquisitions became a 'strategic' justification for keeping stock prices
high. This in turn demanded meeting or exceeding quarterly revenue and earnings targets,
objectives with which Lucent top executives, led by the hard-driving McGinn, became
obsessed."
Lucent got even more aggressive. McGinn's subordinate, an executive named Carly Fiorina,
juiced returns with a strategy based on lending money to risky startups who would then turn
around and buy Lucent equipment. Fiorina collected $65
million in compensation as the stock soared. And then, when the dot-com boom turned to
bust, the company, beset by accounting scandals designed to impress shareholders and the
financial markets, embarked on massive layoffs. CEO McGinn was among those laid off, but with a
$12.5 million severance package -- royal compensation for taking one of America's strategic
industrial assets down the road toward total destruction.
In the early 2000s, the telecom equipment market began to recover from the recession.
Lucent's new strategy, as Mottl put it, was to seek "margin" by offshoring production to China,
continuing layoffs of American workers and hiring abroad. At first, it was the simpler parts of
the telecom equipment, the boxes and assembly, but soon contract manufacturers in China were
making virtually all of it. American telecom capacity would never return.
Lucent didn't recover its former position. Chinese entrants, subsidized heavily by the
Chinese state and using Western technology, underpriced
Western companies. American policymakers, unconcerned with industrial capacity, allowed Chinese
companies to capture market share despite the predatory subsidies and stolen technology. In
2006, French telecom equipment maker Alcatel bought Lucent, signifying the end of American
control of Bell Labs. Today, Huawei, with state backing, dominates the market.
The erosion of much of the American industrial and defense industrial base proceeded like
Lucent. First, in the 1980s and 1990s, Wall Street financiers focused on short-term profits,
market power, and executive pay-outs over core competencies like research and production, often
rolling an industry up into a monopoly producer. Then, in the 2000s, they offshored production
to the lowest cost producer. This finance-centric approach opened the door to the Chinese
government's ability to strategically pick off industrial capacity by subsidizing its
producers. Hand over cash to Wall Street, and China could get the American crown jewels.
The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity.
"Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady
incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications
equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The
loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security
apparatus lost military capacity.
This loss goes well beyond telecom equipment. Talking to small manufacturers and
distributors who operate in the guts of our industrial systems offers a perspective on the
danger of this process of financial predation and offshoring. Bill Hickey, who headed his
family's metal distributor, processor, and fabricator, has been watching the collapse for
decades. Hickey sells to "everyone who uses steel," from truck, car, and agricultural equipment
manufacturers to stadiums and the military.
Hickey, like many manufacturers, has watched the rise of China with alarm for decades.
"Everyone's upset about the China 2025 plan," he told TAC , referencing the current
Chinese plan causing alarm among national security thinkers in Washington. "Well there was a
China 2020 plan, 2016 plan, 2012 plan." The United States has, for instance, lost much of its
fasteners and casting industries, which are key inputs to virtually every industrial product.
It has lost much of its capacity in grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel, a specialized
metal required for highly efficient electrical motors. Aluminum that goes into American
aircraft carriers now often comes from China.
Hickey told a story of how the United States is even losing its submarine fleet. He had a
conversation with an admiral in charge of the U.S. sub fleet at the commissioning of the USS
Illinois , a Virginia-class attack submarine, who complained that the United States was
retiring three worn-out boats a year, but could only build one and a half in that time. The
Trump military budget has boosted funding to build two a year, but the United States no longer
has the capacity to do high quality castings to build any more than that. The supply chain that
could support such surge production should be in the commercial world, but it has been
offshored to China. "You can't run a really high-end casting business on making three
submarines a year," Hickey said. "You just can't do it." This shift happened because Wall
Street, or "the LBO (leveraged buy-out) guys" as Hickey put it, bought up manufacturing
facilities in the 1990s and moved them to China.
"The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine
tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national
ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you
can't defend yourself."
The Loss of the Defense Industrial Base
But it's not just the dual-use commercial manufacturing base that is collapsing. Our policy
empowering Wall Street and offshoring has also damaged the more specialized defense base, which
directly produces weaponry and equipment for the military.
How pervasive is the loss of such capacity? In September 2018, the Department of Defense
released findings of its analysis into its supply chain. The results highlighted how fragile
our ability to supply our own military has become.
The report listed dozens of militarily significant items and inputs with only one or two
domestic producers, or even none at all. Many production facilities are owned by companies that
are financially vulnerable and at high risk of being shut down. Some of the risk comes from
limited production capability. Mortar tubes, for example, are made on just one production line,
and some Marine aircraft parts are made by just one company -- one which recently filed for
bankruptcy.
At risk is everything from chaff to flares to high voltage cable, fittings for ships,
valves, key inputs for satellites and missiles, and even material for tents. As Americans no
longer work in key industrial fields, the engineering and production skills evaporate as the
legacy workforce retires.
Even more unsettling is the reliance on foreign, and often adversarial, manufacturing and
supplies. The report found that "China is the single or sole supplier for a number of specialty
chemicals used in munitions and missiles . A sudden and catastrophic loss of supply would
disrupt DoD missile, satellite, space launch, and other defense manufacturing programs. In many
cases, there are no substitutes readily available." Other examples of foreign reliance included
circuit boards, night vision systems, batteries, and space sensors.
The story here is similar. When Wall Street targeted the commercial industrial base in the
1990s, the same financial trends shifted the defense industry. Well before any of the more
recent conflicts, financial pressure led to a change in focus for many in the defense industry
-- from technological engineering to balance sheet engineering. The result is that some of the
biggest names in the industry have never created any defense product. Instead of innovating new
technology to support our national security, they innovate new ways of creating monopolies to
take advantage of it.
A good example is a company called TransDigm. While TransDigm presents itself as a designer
and producer of aerospace products, it can more accurately be described as a designer of
monopolies. TransDigm began as a private equity firm, a type of investment business, in 1993.
Its mission, per
its earnings call , is to give "private equity-like returns" to shareholders, returns that
are much higher than the stock market or other standard investment vehicles.
It achieves these returns for its shareholders by buying up companies that are sole or
single-source suppliers of obscure airplane parts that the government needs, and then
increasing prices by as
much as eight times the original amount . If the government balks at paying, TransDigm has
no qualms daring the military to risk its mission and its crew by not buying the parts. The
military, held hostage, often pays the ransom. TransDigm's gross profit margins using this
model to gouge the U.S. government are a robust 54.5 percent. To put that into perspective,
Boeing and Lockheed's profit margins are listed at 13.6 percent and 10.91 percent. In many
ways, TransDigm is like the pharmaceutical company run by Martin Shkreli, which bought rare
treatments and then price gouged those who could not do without the product. Earlier this year,
TransDigm
recently bought the remaining supplier of chaff and one of two suppliers of flares,
products identified in the Defense Department's supply chain fragility report.
Yet, Trandigm's stock price thrives because Wall Street loves monopolies, regardless of who
they are taking advantage of. Take this
analysis from TheStreet from March 2019, published after the latest Inspector General
report and directly citing many of the concerning facts from the report as pure positives for
the investor:
The company is now the sole supplier for 80% of the end markets it serves. And 90% of the
items in the supply chain are proprietary to TransDigm. In other words, the company is
operating a monopoly for parts needed to operate aircraft that will typically be in service for
30 years . Managers are uniquely motivated to increase shareholder value and they have an
enviable record, with shares up 2,503% since 2009.
Fleecing the Defense Department is big business. Its executive chairman W. Nicholas Howley,
skewered by Democrats and Republicans alike in a May 2019 House Oversight hearing for making up
to 4,000 percent excess profit on some parts and stealing from the American taxpayer, received
total compensation of over $64
million in 2013 , the fifth most among all CEOs, and
over $13 million in 2018 , making him one
of the most highly compensated CEOs no one has ever heard of . Shortly after May's hearing,
the company agreed to voluntarily return $16 million in overcharges to the Pentagon, but the
share price is at near record highs.
L3 Technologies, created in 1997, has taken a different, but also damaging, approach to
monopolizing Defense Department contracts. Originally, it sought to become "the Home Depot of
the defense industry" by going on an acquisition binge, according
to its former CEO Frank Lanza. Today, L3 uses its size, its connections within the government,
and its willingness to offer federal employees good-paying jobs at L3, to muscle out
competitors and win contracts, even if the competitor has
more innovative and better priced products . This practice attracted the ire of two
Republican congressmen from North Carolina, Ted Budd and the late Walter Jones, who found
in 2017 that L3 succeeds, in part, due to "blatant corruption and obvious disregard of American
foreign interest in the name of personal economic profit."
Like TransDigm, this isn't L3's first brush with trouble. It was
temporarily suspended from U.S. government contracting for using "extremely sensitive and
classified information" from a government system to help its international business interests.
It was the subject of a scathing Senate Armed Services Committee investigation
for
failing to notify the Defense Department that it supplied faulty Chinese counterfeit parts
for some of its aircraft displays. And it agreed to pay a
$25.6 million settlement to the U.S. government for knowingly providing defective weapon
sights for years to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet, also like TransDigm, L3 has thrived despite its troubles. When the company was granted
an open-ended contract to update the Air Force's electronics jamming airplane in 2017,
Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch
outlined the Air Force's logic at a House Armed Services Subcommittee meeting. L3, he said,
is the only company that can do the job. "They have all the tooling, they have all the existing
knowledge, and they have the modeling and all the information to do that work," he said.
In other words, because L3 has a monopoly, there was no one else to pick. The system -- a
system designed by the financial industry that rewards monopoly and consolidation at the
expense of innovation and national security -- essentially made the pick for him. It is no
wonder our military capacities are ebbing, despite the large budget outlays -- the money isn't
going to defense.
♦♦♦
In fact, in some ways, our own defense budgets are being used against us when potential
adversaries use Wall Street to take control of our own Pentagon-developed technologies.
There's no better example than China's takeover of the rare earth metal industry, which is
key to both defense and electronics. The issue has frequently made the front page during the
recent trade war, but the seldom-discussed background to our dependence on China for rare
earths is that, just like with telecom equipment, the United States used to be the world leader
in the industry until the financial sector shipped the whole thing to China.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Defense Department invested in the development of a
technology to use what are known as rare-earth magnets. The investment was so successful that
General Motors engineers, using Pentagon grants, succeeded in creating a
rare earth magnet that is now essential for nearly every high-tech piece of military equipment
in the U.S. inventory, from smart bombs and fighter jets to lasers and communications devices.
The benefit of DARPA's investment wasn't restricted to the military. The magnets make cell
phones and modern commercial electronics possible.
China recognized the value of these magnets early on. Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping
famously said in 1992 that "The Middle East has oil, China has rare earth," to underscore
the importance of a rare earth strategy he adopted for China. Part of that strategy was to take
control of the industry by manipulating the motivations of Wall Street.
Wall Street's outsized control over defense contracting and industry means that every place
a foreign adversary can insert itself into American financial institutions, it can insert
itself into our defense industry.
At an Armed Services Committee hearing in 2018, Representative Carol Shea-Porter talked
about how constant the conflict between financial concentration and patriotism had been in her
six years on the committee. She recounted a CEO once telling her, in response to her concern
about the outsourcing of defense industry parts, that he "[has] to answer to stockholders."
Who are these stockholders that CEOs are so compelled to answer to? Oftentimes, China.
Jennifer M.
Harris , an expert in global markets with experience at the U.S. State Department and the
U.S. National Intelligence Council, researched a recent
explosion of Chinese strategic investment in American technology companies. She found that
China has systematically targeted U.S. greenfield investments, "technology goods (especially
semiconductors), R&D networks, and advanced manufacturing."
The trend accelerated, until the recent flare-up of tensions between the United States and
China. "China's foreign direct investment (FDI) stock in the U.S.
increased some 800% between 2009 and 2015," she wrote. Then, from 2015 to 2017, "Chinese
FDI in the U.S. climbed nearly four-fold, reaching roughly $45.6 billion in 2016 , up from just
$12.8 billion in 2014."
This investment runs right through Wall Street, the key lobbying group trying to ratchet
down Trump's tough negotiating posture with the Chinese. Rather than showing concern about the
increasing influence of a foreign power in our commerce and industry, Wall Street banks have
repeatedly followed Archie Cox down the path of easy returns.
In 2016, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay a
$264 million bribery settlement to the U.S. government for creating a program, called "Sons
and Daughters," to gain access to Chinese money by selectively hiring the unqualified offspring
of high-ranking Communist Party officials and other Chinese elites. Several other banks are
under investigation for similar practices, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, who, not
coincidentally,
hired the son of China's commerce minister. It appears to have worked out for them. In
2017, Goldman Sachs
partnered with the Chinese government's sovereign wealth fund to invest $5 billion Chinese
government dollars in American industry.
In short, China is becoming a significant shareholder in U.S. industries, and is selectively
targeting those with strategic implications. Congresswoman Shea-Porter's discovery that defense
industry CEOs aren't able to worry about national security because they "[have] to answer to
shareholders" was disturbing enough. But the fact that it potentially translates as CEOs not
being able to worry about national security because they have to answer to the Chinese should
elevate the issue to the top of our national security discussion. This nexus of China, Wall
Street, and our defense industrial base may be the answer to why our military advantage is
ebbing. Even when American ingenuity can thrive, too often the fruits go to the Chinese.
In short, the financial industry, with its emphasis on short-term profit and
monopoly , and its willingness to ignore national security for profit, has warped our very
ability to defend ourselves.
How Did We Get Here?
Believe it or not, America has been here before. In the 1920s and 1930s, the American
defense industrial base was being similarly manipulated by domestic financiers for their own
purposes, retarding innovation and damaging the nation's ability to defend itself. And American
military readiness was ebbing in the midst of an increasingly dangerous world full of rising
autocracies.
Today it might be artificial intelligence or drones, but in the 1930s the key military
technology was the airplane. And as with much digital technology today, while Americans
invented the airplane, many of the fruits went elsewhere. The reason was similar to the problem
of Wall Street today. The American aerospace industry in the 1930s was undermined by fights
among bankers over who got to profit from associated patent rights.
In 1935, Brigadier General William Mitchell told Congress that the United States didn't have
a single plane that could go against a "first-class power." "It is a disgraceful situation and
is due," he said, "for one thing, to this pool of patents." The lack of aerospace capacity
reflected a broader industrial problem. Monopolists refused to invest in factories to produce
enough steel, aluminum, and magnesium for adequate military readiness, for fear of losing
control over prices.
New Dealers investigated, and by the time war broke out, the Roosevelt administration was in
the midst of a sustained anti-monopoly campaign. The Nazi war machine, like China today, gave
added impetus to the problem of monopoly in key technology-heavy industries. In 1941, an
assistant attorney general for the antitrust division, Norman Littell, gave a speech to the
Indiana State Bar Association about what he called "The German Invasion of American
Business."
The Nazis, he argued, used legal techniques, like patent laws, stock ownership, dummy
corporations, and cartel arrangements, to extend their power into the United States. "The
distinction between bombing a vital plant out of existence from an airplane and preventing that
plant from coming into existence in the first place [through cartel arrangements]," he said,
"is largely a difference in the amount of noise involved."
Nazis used their American subsidiary corporations to spy on U.S. industrial capacity and
steal technology, such as walkie-talkies, intertank and ground-air radio communication systems,
and shortwave sets developed by the U.S. Army and Navy. They used patents or cartel
arrangements to restrict the production of stainless steel, tungsten-carbide, and fuel
injection equipment. According to the U.S. military after the war, I.G. Farben, the Nazi
chemical monopoly, had influence over American production of "synthetic gas and oils,
dyestuffs, explosives, synthetic rubber ('Buna'), menthol, cellophane, and other products," and
sought to keep the United States "entirely dependent" on Germany for certain types of
electrical equipment.
The Nazis took advantage of an industrial system that was, like the current one, organized
along short-term objectives. But seeing the danger, New Dealers attacked the power of
financiers through direct financing of factories, excess profits taxes, and the breaking of the
power of the Rockefeller, Dupont, and Mellon empires through bank regulation and antitrust
suits. They separated the makers of airplanes from airlines, a sort of Glass Steagall for
aerospace. During the war itself, antitrust chief Thurman Arnold, and those he influenced,
sought to end international cartels and loosen patent rules in part because they allowed
control over American industry by the Nazis.
After the war, the link between global cartels and national security vulnerabilities was a
key driver of American trade and military strategy. America pursued globalization, but with two
differences from the form we have today. First, strategists sought to prevent the recurrence of
global cartels and monopolies. Second, they sought to become industrially intertwined with
allies, not rivals. While multinational corporations stretched across the West, they did not
locate production or technology development in Moscow or among strategic rivals, as we do today
in China.
Domestically, anti-profiteering institutions and rules protected against corruption,
especially important when the defense budget comprised a large chunk of overall American
research and development. The Defense Department's procurement agency -- the Defense Logistics
Agency -- was enormously powerful and oversaw procurement and supply challenges. The Pentagon
had the power to force suppliers of sole source products -- contractors that had monopolies --
to reveal cost information to the government. The financial health of defense contractors
mattered, but so did value to the taxpayer, a skilled defense industrial workforce, and the
ability to deliver quality products to aid in national defense.
A fragmented base of contractors and subcontractors ensured redundancy and competition, and
a powerful federal apparatus with thousands of employees with expertise in pricing and
negotiation kept prices reasonable. The Defense Department could even take ownership of
specialized tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare
part needs -- which is precisely where TransDigm specializes. This authority and expertise had
been carefully cultivated over decades to provide the material necessary to equip American
soldiers for World War II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the first Gulf war.
In the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan allowed Wall Street free rein elsewhere in the economy, he
mostly kept Wall Street from going after the defense base. But scholars began debating whether
it made sense to have such a large and expensive negotiating apparatus to deal with
contractors, or if a more "cooperative" approach should be taken. Business consultants
argued that the Pentagon could save money if it would simply be "a better customer, by
being less adversarial and more trusting" of defense contractors.
With the end of the Cold War, these arguments found new resonance. Bill Clinton took the
philosophical change that Reagan had pushed on the civilian economy, and moved it into the
defense base. In 1993, Defense Department official William Perry gathered CEOs of top defense
contractors and told them that they would have to merge into larger entities because of reduced
Cold War spending. "Consolidate or evaporate," he said at what became known as "The Last
Supper" in military lore. Former secretary of the Navy John Lehman noted, "industry leaders
took the warning to heart." They reduced the number of prime contractors from 16 to six;
subcontractor mergers quadrupled from 1990 to 1998. They also loosened rules on sole source --
i.e. monopoly -- contracts, and slashed the Defense Logistics Agency, resulting in thousands of
employees with deep knowledge of defense contracting leaving the public sector.
Contractors increasingly dictated procurement rules. The Clinton administration approved
laws changing procurement, which, as the Los Angeles Times put it, got rid of the
government's traditional goals of ensuring "fair competition and low prices." They reversed
what the New Dealers had done to insulate American military power from financiers.
The administration also pushed Congress to allow foreign imports into
American weapons through waivers of the Buy America Act, and demanded procurement officers stop
asking for cost data. Mass offshoring took place, and businesses could increase prices
radically.
This environment attracted private-equity shops, and swaths of the defense industry shifted
their focus from aerospace engineering to balance sheet engineering. From 1993 to 2000, despite
dramatic declines in Cold War military spending and declines in the number of workers in the
defense industrial base and within the military, defense stocks outperformed the S&P.
Today, the American defense establishment quietly finds itself in the same predicament it
did in the 1930s. Despite spending large amounts of money on weapons systems, it often gets
substandard equipment. It is dependent for key sources of supply on business arrangements with
potentially hostile powers. The problem is so big, so toxic, and so difficult that few
lawmakers even want to take it on. But the increasingly obvious danger of Chinese power means
we can no longer ignore it.
The Fix
Fortunately, this is fixable. Huawei's predatory pricing success has shown policymakers all
over the world what happens when we don't protect our vital industrial capacity. Last year,
Congress strengthened the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the committee
that reviews foreign investment and mergers. The Trump tariffs have begun forcing a
long-overdue conversation across the globe about Chinese steel and aluminum overcapacity, and
Democrats like Representative Dan Lipinski are focused on reconstituting domestic manufacturing
ability.
Within the defense base itself, every example -- from TransDigm to L3 to Chinese
infiltration of American business -- has drawn the attention of members of Congress.
Representatives Ted Budd and Paul Cook are Republicans and Representatives Jackie Speier and Ro
Khanna are Democrats. They are not alone. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and
Representative Tim Ryan have joined Khanna's demand for a TransDigm investigation.
Moreover, focus on production is bipartisan. One of the most ardent opponents of
consolidation in the 1990s is current presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who in 1996
passed an amendment to block Pentagon subsidies for defense mergers, or what he called "Payoffs
for Layoffs." On the other end of the spectrum, Trump has refocused national security and trade
officials on the importance of domestic manufacturing.
Defense officials have also become acutely aware of the problem. In a 2015 briefing at the
Pentagon, in response to questions about Lockheed's acquisition of Sikorsky, then secretary of
defense Ash Carter
emphasized the importance of not having "excessive consolidation," including so-called
vertical integration, in the defense industry because it is "[not] good for the defense
marketplace, and therefore, for the taxpayer and warfighter in the long run." Carter's
acquisition chief, Frank Kendall,
also noted the "significant policy concerns" posed by the "continuing march toward greater
consolidation in the defense industry at the prime contractor level" and the effect it has on
innovation.
American policymakers in the 1990s lost the ability to recognize the value of production
capacity. Today, many of the problems highlighted here are still seen in isolation, perhaps as
instances of corruption or reduced capacity. But the problems -- diminished innovation,
marginal quality, higher prices, less redundancy, dependence on overseas supply chains, a lack
of defense industry competition, and reduced investment in research and development -- are not
independent. They are the result of the financialization of industry and of monopoly. It's time
for a new strategic posture, one that puts a premium not just on spending the right amount on
military budgets, but also on ensuring that financial actors don't capture what we do spend. We
must begin once again to recognize that private industrial capacity is a vital national
security asset that we can no longer allow Wall Street to pillage. By seeing the problem in its
totality, we can attack the power of finance within the commercial and defense base and restore
our national security capacity once again.
There are many levers we can use to reorder our national priorities. The Defense Department,
along with its new higher budgets, should have more authority to promote competition, break up
defense conglomerates, restrict excess defense contractor profits, empower contracting officers
to get cost information, and block private equity takeovers of suppliers. Congress could
reinstate the authority of the Defense Department to simply take ownership of specialized
tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare part needs,
a power it once had.
In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive
national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild
manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation,
regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block
the exploitation of market power.
Policymakers must recognize that industrial capacity is a public good and short-term actors
on Wall Street have become a serious national security vulnerability. While private businesses
are essential to our common defense, the public sector must once again structure how we
organize our national defense and protect our defense industrial base from predatory finance.
For several decades, Wall Street has been organizing not just the financing of defense
contractors, but the capabilities of our very defense posture. That experiment has been a
failure. It is time to wake up, before it's too late.
Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. His book, Goliath: The
100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, is due out this fall from Simon &
Schuster. Lucas Kunce spent 12 years in the United States Marine Corps, and is a veteran of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components. This article was supported
by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The contents of this publication are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
Sobering read. However, it is likely that only a major war will spur legislators and
administrators into action. Until then Wall Street will reign and the US administrations will
keep threatening countries with sanctions if they buy equipment that prevents the US to
conduct an easy bombing campaign on them.
I've heard similar stories about the imminent collapse of the Russian Defense sector, they
can't make their own parts, they lack diversity of suppliers, there is a huge brain drain, no
customers (somewhat true since we practice extortion).
I'm not dismissing the author, actually quite the opposite and I am agreeing with you. The
secret ingredient is an actual sense of danger. The Russians are terrified, we pretend to be
terrified but know it's all threat inflation. If we had honest people in Congress proposing
targeted budgets for real needs rather than 'freedom of navigation' when we know it's power
projection then the fear of God might return to our habits. The author brought up the 20/30's
I bet WW2 gave us that fear again.
Dude, your government stopped being able to do anything this complicated somewhere around
1995. Your infrastructure is in shambles and diabetics are dying because of an insulin
monopoly that forces them to ration medication. The rope remark resembles you.
This is the longest litany about demise of American prowess in technology that I've ever read
in TAC so far. The story of destruction of Bell Labs, described in details by Matt Stoller is
very accurate: I have been eyewitness to it from 1983 and up to its gruesome end. Carly
Fiorina, one of the runners for President in 2016, delivered American icon coup-the-grace.
She even justified her claim on presidency on business experience: destruction of another
icon of American high-tech – Hewlett-Packard. Alas, there is the most fundamental
reason for the current situation in the 21-st century USA, was formulated 100+ years ago by
Vladimir Lenin: "For profit capitalists will be eager to sell us rope, with which we'll
hung them" .
Would anybody protest today that profit IS the Nature of capitalism ? And
more: those who substitute Reality with their wet dreams might be cured by watching
Democratic 2020 debates.
Great piece. There are lots of good articles here but not that many that tell something I
really didn't already know. Great perspective on the whole China issue. Amazing how sick our
financialized economy really is when you look under the hood.
This is excellent information. Hope folks on the Hill are reading this.
The Wall Street and finance industry depend on US military, long-term this is a disaster, but
they care only for short-term profits. Whoever thought that principles of free market apply
internationally, where other goverments are free to influence "free trade" in any way they
wish, while US goverment will do nothing is an idiot.
Large part of it is probably diversification and it does not affect the US exporters as they
also can diversify.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom line is Trump and his misfit Cabinet didn't thoroughly think through all of the likely negative ramifications of "Making America Great Again" !! He impulsively makes decisions and when then fail - as they do often do - he blames others or creates diversionary chaos to change the subject. Trump's a fxxxxing overweight, repulsive imbecile, and the farmers are going to let him have it in 2020.....along with millions who rolled the dice him in 2016 but he crapped out on all of them..... ..."
"... What is happening to US cars in China? I know the market has taken a dump there, but are US cars losing market share as well? Are Chinese consumers shunning goods from US manufacturers? ..."
published new data Monday that shows
agricultural imports from the US have fallen, as Chinese buyers shift supply chains out of the
US to other countries because of the deepening trade war.
In the first five months of 2019, imports of agricultural products from the US crashed 55.3%
YoY . Much of decline was due to a 70.6% YoY decline of soybeans in the same period.
Chinese importers went to Brazil, Argentina, and ASEN countries (Thailand, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, and Laos). Data
showed imports from the EU, Australia, and Canada also jumped in the first five months as
Chinese buyers ditched American products.
The bottom line is Trump and his misfit Cabinet didn't thoroughly think through all of
the likely negative ramifications of "Making America Great Again" !! He impulsively makes
decisions and when then fail - as they do often do - he blames others or creates diversionary
chaos to change the subject. Trump's a fxxxxing overweight, repulsive imbecile, and the
farmers are going to let him have it in 2020.....along with millions who rolled the dice him
in 2016 but he crapped out on all of them.....
C'mon man, it's not a Trump thing, it's been the whole American policy since Ronald
Reagan. Trump didn't start the fire, he's just half-assing things the best he can.
We cannot withstand another year in which our most important foreign market continues to
slip away and soybean prices are 20 to 25%, or even more, below pre-tariff levels," said
John Heisdorffer, chairman of the American Soybean Association, in a statement published on
May 13.
Or.........what? You should've voted for Clinton and you'll vote for Bernie/Biden/Warren?
Come on man, spit it out. Or what?
What is happening to US cars in China? I know the market has taken a dump there, but are
US cars losing market share as well? Are Chinese consumers shunning goods from US
manufacturers?
From a report: Ren's downbeat assessment that the ban will hit revenue
by $30 billion , the first time Huawei has quantified the impact of the U.S. action, comes
as a surprise after weeks of defiant comments from company executives who maintained Huawei was
technologically self-sufficient. [...]
Huawei had not expected that U.S. determination to "crack" the company would be "so
strong and so pervasive," Ren said, speaking at the company's Shenzhen headquarters on
Monday.
Two U.S. tech experts, George Gilder and Nicholas Negroponte, also joined the session.
"We did not expect they would attack us on so many aspects," Ren said, adding he expects a
revival in business in 2021.
s="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> I'm part Jewish, but consider myself
Russian above everything else, as Russia is my home country. I don't entirely agree with this
lady, but on some issues she's spot on. Twenty million Russian civilians were exterminated by
Germans and millions of Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese, but how come we only hear
about 6 million Jews all the time almost 70 years after the war? It's only evoked to
victimize Israel, not to benefit Holocaust survivors in any way.
You're so brainwashed. The Zionist jews of Israel are treating the Palestinians like the
jews were treated in Germany just before the holocaust. That's why you see the REAL jews
protesting against their Israeli government and the occupation of Palestine
Helen Thomas is old but that shouldn't mean the less intelligent interviewer should
talk down to her. Thomas is right Israeli people should go back to Poland or Germany, they
were pushed out of there unfairly sixty years ago. I think that she was misinterpreted
because she should've added that second part. Likewise now Israel are doing the same thing to
Palestine. I find it hard to sympathize with journalists and writers especially nowadays but
Helen Thomas was wrongly interpreted in my view.
She spoke the truth & they didn't like it. What they would like to hear is continuous
lies, then u get a pat on the back. Start talkin the truth & bam they're all over you.
She exercised her freedom of speech & they shut her down.
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> It's amazing how unable to process logic that
stupid host woman is. Everything Helen Thomas said is obvious truth, but she acts as if she
is hearing another language. "Oh but the Jews are sensitive because of WW2!" is literally her
only response, as if that is justification for anything that's happened in the past 50 years.
Why does this view persist in America? Are they all so afraid of offending Jewish people?
They sure don't care about offending anybody else.
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> She is talking about the Zionist Jews. The is
those Jews who own these networks trying to discredit a wonderful old woman for stating the
truth. Israel is Zionism and its disgusting that the world turns their eye to the atrocities
happening to the Palestinians.
My heart goes out to them. I pray that one day the world will open their eyes. I pray that
I am alive to see it come to pass. Zionism is going to lead to WWIII and it so many are blind
to that fact
comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> lol america is the exact place indians got
almost wiped out and black got enslaved. should you give them a land some where? hell no !!
please wtf and know what? they come back to germany with israeli pasports and gert german one
too and every year they flood the streets with israeli flags no one attacks them! they could
have stayed lol but now we might wonder what the fuck they really want!
She may be old but she is not there for the taking. Although i disagree with the way helen
spoke because israel exists and that is that, i think she is fighting against current
injustices that are happening in palestein. Some people hate injustice and helen is not one
to turn her back on what she believes in so kudos to her.
le"> It is a sin against the Torah to support the "State of Israel" in any way. Thus,
no Jews support Israel, only Zionists. Many Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist
reign of terror (Irgun, Stern Gang) that drove the Palestinians (including those Jews who
lived there peacefully, often communally with their Muslim and Christian neighbors) off the
land ended up in New York, and are known now as the Neturei Karta. Google them and learn why
Rabbis burn the Israeli flag for Purim.
@SaarVardi Let me show you the difference..... they [ the Palestinians] will bring upon
themselves a bigger 'shoah' [a Hebrew word for catastrophe and a synonym for the Nazi
Holocaust] because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." Israel's deputy defense
minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday, February 29, 2008
v> @SaarVardi But using the "Holocaust" as a means and way to take land from someone
else is wrong. The crap the Israeli army does to kids over there is wrong. Kids throw rocks
at "TANKS" and the Israeli army breaks their arms. It's crazy. I'm a Native American the
estimates are that we lost up to 20 million native Americans when the "white dudes" took over
America...you don't see me crying about it. It sucks but just get over it and stop using it
as a reason to do whatever you want.
v> @SaarVardi Jews yes have been living in the Palestine area forever. But they were a
very small percentage of the population. After World War II, the "Big Three" sent all the
Jewish refugee's and the one's calling for a Homeland to what is now Israel. Palestinians
have whipped out actual land deeds, not archeological evidence. As you say the Jews were
there before....yes again as a small percentage of the people within the area.
v> @SaarVardi Mexico is not called Spain,and there live Mexicans (many from Indians),
Most of South America people are Indians (Bolivia, Colombia...). U.S. is an other story: most
of the space was empty but yes, there was an extermination (is that ok for you?) we are not
in the 1500 or 1700, Israel is from 1947 (yesterday) and they are killing people right now.
Israel was left empty in the Diaspora (70A.C.).You cant go back now and kill the people who's
livin there for 2,000 years
The article is a typical neoliberal analysys and as such is junk. But might be useful for the reference of key neoliberal
arguments against tariffs.
Notable quotes:
"... Production dislocation is particularly likely under a tit-for-tat tariff escalation, in which multiple countries raise tariffs at the same time. All else equal, higher tariffs give firms an incentive to consolidate their global supply networks into fewer countries, border crossings, and (thus) vulnerabilities. ..."
"... A noteworthy irony, given President Trump's stated goal to bring jobs back to US shores, is that the administration has imposed new tariffs disproportionately on imported intermediate goods (Bown and Zhang 2019) -- the very inputs that are necessary for US manufacturers to produce and sell their products competitively in the US and global markets. ..."
"... Higher tariffs on intermediate goods – together with increased uncertainty over the future of US tariff policy more generally 4 – run the risk of inducing firms to shift their current production patterns away from the US and into 'factory Asia' or 'factory Europe'. ..."
"... Early evidence suggests that even in the very short run, the current trade war is taking a toll on US firms and consumers. ..."
"... How, ultimately, will firms shift, consolidate, and potentially balkanise their production to mitigate the costs of tit-for-tat tariffs and the uncertainty of future trade wars? The consequences of this trade war may be slow to unfold and long lasting once they do. ..."
"... I found this statement interesting: "If rising tariffs (or even just the threat of a trade war) causes firms to change how and where products are made in the world, this additional production dislocation will carry additional efficiency, job, profit, and welfare losses. " Note that only losses are noted, while the possible beneficiaries, such as workers or manufacturers in other countries who may see new jobs or demand created in response to tariffs are not mentioned. ..."
"... Interesting. Mostly because it is another example of the convoluted extent we are willing to go to maintain a neoliberal trading world, assuring an economy that operates, at least in part, on profits created by a wide variety of externalizations. Tariffs aren't earmarked for specific domestic expenses, like cleaning up the pollution where it occurred – because if the blue jeans wholesaler here paid an import tariff, collected here, that money would get spent in the wrong country and pollution would expand exponentially in the country of the cheapest, dirtiest manufacture. ..."
"... For tariffs to actually smooth out all the problems with globalism they would have to be globalized too. ..."
"... It needs to be properly recycled back to mitigate the harm neoliberal trade has caused. Or we could just chuck all the nonsense and get serious about labor and the environment. ..."
"... Richard Koo has discovered the assumption economists used when they said free trade would be a net positive for any nation. Trade must be balanced, but the US runs a large trade deficit. The negative effects over a long period of time have brought Trump to power. Richard Koo wants to ensure the current system is maintained and hopes the successful developed Eastern nations will band together to help the US that has been shooting itself in the foot for four decades. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffet, 25 May 2005 That's all very well Warren, but how is the US doing against China? Who cares, I'm making loads of money. Oh dear. ..."
"... In a world of Global Value Chains -- tariffs alone are blunt weapons that do damage in occult directions. Unaccompanied by some kind of industrial and commercial policies they wreck random harm and confer unintended advantages. ..."
"... But the flaws in wanton tariff policy make no argument favorable to maintaining Global Value Chains. They are crabbing-growth tumors which kill off smaller local industries and threaten global collapse as the "innovations in communications and transportation technologies" they depend upon wither in this age of Peak Oil. ..."
"... Global Value Chains are one of many frailties built-in to our global civilization -- built from multiple thin lines riddled along their long reaches with single points of failure -- radial spider webs without cross-webbing -- held together by the brittle Neoliberal policies of Corporate Persons. ..."
By Emily Blanchard,
Associate Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College. Originally published at
VoxEU
The nature of global commerce has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, with the
meteoric rise of global value chain trade. This column, taken from a recent Vox eBook, builds
on insights from recent research to identify three critical dimensions of global value chain
trade that promise to make today's trade wars more economically costly and more politically
complex than previous trade wars.
Editor's note: This column first appeared as a chapter in the Vox eBook "Trade War: The
Clash of Economic Systems Endangering Global Prosperity", available to download free here
.
The nature of global commerce has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, with the
meteoric rise of global value chain (GVC) trade. 1 Simply put, countries and
companies make goods differently today than in the past. In the 21st century, products are
'made in the world', as firms combine raw materials, inputs, labour, and ideas – the many
slivers of value that ultimately make up a final product – each sourced from around the
world according to specific cost-benefit tradeoffs for every component part of the value chain.
This phenomenon has been made possible by innovations in communications and transportation
technologies, together with institutional and market reforms that have allowed scores of
countries to join (or rejoin) the global economic landscape. GVC trade – measured as a
dramatic rise in the trade in value-added sub-components relative to gross trade – is the
quantifiable manifestation of this 'made in the world' global production revolution.
In turn, the rise of GVC trade has reshaped the economic consequences and political contours
of trade protection. While trade wars have always been disruptive, they are particularly
expensive and divisive in the GVC era.
This chapter builds on insights from recent research to identify three critical dimensions
of GVC trade that promise to make today's trade wars more economically costly and more
politically complex than previous trade wars. Along the way, the discussion highlights
distinctive aspects of the current, 2018-2019 trade actions that could carry additional,
unintentional costs for the US economy.
The first point is obvious but important: GVCs amplify the effects of tariffs. Because
tariffs are (typically) applied to the gross value of a good when it crosses the border, rather
than just the 'new' value added, every border crossing increases the total tariff bill
associated with production.
For example, suppose that a pair of blue jeans is made in three stages: first, raw cotton is
grown in country A and exported to country B; then country B processes the cotton into denim
fabric, which is exported to country C; finally, country C cuts, sews, and finishes the jeans
to be sold, ultimately, in country A. If each country imposes a uniform 10% tariff on all
imports, a tariff will be paid three times during the production process, with escalating costs
as the gross value of trade increases from raw cotton, to the cotton fabric, to the finished
product. Had the jeans been produced start to finish in country C, the tariff would be paid
just once (when the final product is shipped to the consumer in country A), and the total cost
of production, inclusive of tariffs, would be lower.
The implication is immediate: the costs of higher tariffs in a trade war will be greater
(potentially many times greater) in a trading system with GVC trade than in an otherwise
equivalent world without it. The corollary (discussed further below) is that higher tariffs in
general, and trade wars in particular, may induce firms to shorten or otherwise reshape their
global supply chains. 2
The second point concerns not the total cost of a trade war, but the distribution of that
cost across different stakeholders. Fundamentally, GVC linkages mean that the burden of tariffs
falls differently among consumers, workers, and firms involved throughout the value chain. As
explained below, some of the costs of trade protection may ultimately be borne by upstream
producers in the country imposing the tariff, 3 while some of the producer-side
benefits from trade protection enjoyed by local import-competing firms may be passed along to
foreign interests.
The same example of blue jean production serves to illustrate. Suppose now that country A
increases its tariff on all products (including blue jeans) to 25%. If country A's consumers
constitute a sufficient share of global demand for blue jeans, then an increase in country A's
tariff may drive down the export price received by the producers of jeans in country C. (That
is, the incidence of the tariff will be shared by consumers in country A, who pay higher
prices, and producers in country C, who receive lower prices, with the government of country A
collecting the difference as tariff revenue.) By the same logic, if country C's jeans producers
are an important source of global demand for denim fabric, producers of jeans in country C may
be able to pass on some of the fall in their revenue to producers of fabric in country B, who
would then receive a lower export price. In turn, if country B is a sufficiently important
market for country A's raw cotton, the price of cotton in country A may also fall. Thus,
ultimately, the costs of country A's tariffs on imported blue jeans will be shared between
country A's consumers and all of the producers of value added embedded in the imported blue
jeans, including, potentially, the producers of raw cotton in country A.
Meanwhile, if country A had a local producer of blue jeans competing head-to-head with
imports from country C, that producer would gain from the additional protection afforded by the
25% tariff. But if that local producer was owned by a foreign interest, or sourced its inputs
from abroad, part of the benefit of that trade protection would be passed up the value chain,
outside of country A. Thus, GVC linkages mean that country A may see its tariff protection
eroded, even as it must internalise more of the costs of its tariff hike (Blanchard et al.
2016).
The extent to which producers in each country bear the costs of the tariff depend on a host
of factors, including market power, bargaining relationships, input customisation, and trade
volumes. Whatever the details, the broad implication is the same: GVC trade means that the
costs and benefits of higher tariffs – and by extension, trade wars – may extend
well beyond the immediate 'intentional' targets to include countries and companies around the
world, including the very country that imposed the new protection at the outset.
The third point recognises that GVCs are themselves determined by market forces. Because GVC
structure is the result of strategic sourcing and foreign investment decisions of globally
engaged firms, tariffs may have large, long-lasting, and unanticipated consequences for the
pattern of global production. If rising tariffs (or even just the threat of a trade war) causes
firms to change how and where products are made in the world, this additional production
dislocation will carry additional efficiency, job, profit, and welfare losses. Moreover, given
the complex calculus faced by firms responding to changes in the global economic landscape,
there is good reason to believe that global firms may not respond the way the importing country
wants or expects.
Production dislocation is particularly likely under a tit-for-tat tariff escalation, in
which multiple countries raise tariffs at the same time. All else equal, higher tariffs give
firms an incentive to consolidate their global supply networks into fewer countries, border
crossings, and (thus) vulnerabilities. But where firms choose to consolidate that production
depends on a host of factors, including proximity not only to expected consumers but also to
raw material, critical input suppliers, local economic regulations, policy certainty, access to
skilled and low-cost labour, and more. To the extent that some of the 2018-2019 tariffs are
intended to induce producers to 're-shore' production in the US, they may have unintended
consequences if firms instead balkanise their production networks somewhere else. "America
first" could backfire.
A noteworthy irony, given President Trump's stated goal to bring jobs back to US shores, is
that the administration has imposed new tariffs disproportionately on imported intermediate
goods (Bown and Zhang 2019) -- the very inputs that are necessary for US manufacturers to
produce and sell their products competitively in the US and global markets. If the intent is to
induce US manufacturers to 're-shore' production to the US (or to dissuade US firms from moving
final assembly/downstream production overseas), lower tariffs on imported intermediate goods
would be in order. Higher tariffs on intermediate goods – together with increased
uncertainty over the future of US tariff policy more generally 4 – run the
risk of inducing firms to shift their current production patterns away from the US and into
'factory Asia' or 'factory Europe'.
Global firms seem to appreciate the importance of these GVC linkages and what they mean for
the potential escalating and unanticipated costs of trade wars. The US Chamber of Commerce has
been a relentless advocate for a quick and amicable resolution of the 2018-2019 trade
frictions. At the same time, the United Steelworkers union, which represents nearly one million
US worker-members in manufacturing, metals, forestry and beyond – industries that employ
workers up and down the value chain across myriad traded products – has been an outspoken
critic of renegotiating NAFTA in general, and the US steel and aluminum tariffs against Canada
in particular. Perhaps most notably, until recently, many governments had been implementing
policies consistent with a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between GVCs and
trade policy. According to several studies, the contours of GVC linkages and firms' global
sourcing operations were reflected in trade policy before the 2018-2019 trade war, not least in
the US. 5
Early evidence suggests that even in the very short run, the current trade war is taking a
toll on US firms and consumers.6 The key question in the months and years to come
is how, if these tariffs continue, they will begin to feed back through global value chains at
the expense of firms and workers in the US, China, and around the world.
How, ultimately, will
firms shift, consolidate, and potentially balkanise their production to mitigate the costs of
tit-for-tat tariffs and the uncertainty of future trade wars? The consequences of this trade
war may be slow to unfold and long lasting once they do.
Bill Brown at TRNN has been suggesting that the really big companies, the TBTF companies,
are persuading a coterie of economists to repudiate competition amongst themselves and
instead promote bigness as the perfection of commerce and industry, an East India Company
result.
With guaranteed government support such companies can take what they want and dictate
policy to the world.
Yes. the evolutionary argument.
"it's just natural "
corporations as god's creatures, evolving according to divine plan into supranational
egregores.
and they've even built a sort of supranational pseudogovernment to fill up the void, so any
democratic superstructures can't get erected.
(wto,etc)
I think it's telling that the loudest voices for hypercompetition are themselves terrified of
having to compete not least in the realm of ideas.
As far as the article, what stuck with me is "policy uncertainty": perhaps these creatures
are coming around to the same apparent place as many(most?) nations that the usa cannot be
trusted to stick to a promise or a plan for very long.
if so, that's an interesting phenomenon.
During the Reagan Years fears of Japan's Cartels were used to fashion arguments for
fighting fire-with-fire in global trade. US Cartels would meet Japan's Cartels in the world
marketplace. Smaller businesses were strangled in both countries.
I found this statement interesting: "If rising tariffs (or even just the threat of a trade war) causes firms to change how and
where products are made in the world, this additional production dislocation will carry
additional efficiency, job, profit, and welfare losses. " Note that only losses are noted, while the possible beneficiaries, such as workers or
manufacturers in other countries who may see new jobs or demand created in response to
tariffs are not mentioned.
It is as if we are in the best of all possible worlds, for everyone in the world, and any
economic cost caused by a tariff is only negative.
Assuming that CO2 production is roughly proportional to economic output, the tariffs, if
tariffs do drop world wide economic output, or create local USA manufacturing, it might be a
"good thing" environmentally.
The tariffs might also let Americans know how tied to a fragile global supply chain the
USA now is.
Maybe we will see the new Donald Trump recast as an unintentional environmentalist.
If ALL the costs were included in GVC, then they would be much higher, costs such as CO2
emissions, environmental degradation, air pollution, poverty caused by inadequate salaries
for workers, etc.
Interesting. Mostly because it is another example of the convoluted extent we are willing
to go to maintain a neoliberal trading world, assuring an economy that operates, at least in
part, on profits created by a wide variety of externalizations. Tariffs aren't earmarked for
specific domestic expenses, like cleaning up the pollution where it occurred – because
if the blue jeans wholesaler here paid an import tariff, collected here, that money would get
spent in the wrong country and pollution would expand exponentially in the country of the
cheapest, dirtiest manufacture.
For tariffs to actually smooth out all the problems with
globalism they would have to be globalized too. The reason they are not is probably because
that money gets used for grift and graft. It would be more interesting to see the Global
Tariff Chain, the GTC, and learn where the money goes and how it is spent.
It needs to be
properly recycled back to mitigate the harm neoliberal trade has caused. Or we could just
chuck all the nonsense and get serious about labor and the environment.
Richard Koo has discovered the assumption economists used when they said free trade would
be a net positive for any nation. Trade must be balanced, but the US runs a large trade deficit. The negative effects over a
long period of time have brought Trump to power. Richard Koo wants to ensure the current system is maintained and hopes the successful
developed Eastern nations will band together to help the US that has been shooting itself in
the foot for four decades.
According to Robert Rubin, we saved money by accruing such a huge trade deficit. Because
we did not expend any of our resources, we merely took a free ride on the appreciating
dollar.
And for those 4 decades the dollar was so strong it couldn't be stopped. The logic of
the one percent.
There could be some truth to it except for the devastation it caused by a
race-to-the-bottom in 3rd world exporting countries, and to a lesser extent here. Even China,
the most successful of them all, has a serious environmental deficit. It's gonna be difficult
going forward in this modern, technological age for any country to have a natural advantage
and therefore benefit from the simple act of exporting their lucky "surplus". Those days are
long gone.
And no amount of tweaking GVC stats will make any difference. It's all 6s now. And
arbitrage.
Don't tell Trump.
US firms importing back into the US is where most of the trade deficit comes from.
If only the US was more competitive.
How did things go so wrong for the US?
China was the big winner from an open, globalised world, it went from almost nothing to
become a global superpower.
Maximising profit is all about reducing costs.
China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China also had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had all the advantages in an open, globalised world.
The US just couldn't compete and it's firms off-shored to China where they could make a
decent profit.
Mexico wasn't bad either.
Things look different at the national level.
The US was immersed in the cult of individualism and didn't think about the big picture.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making
war, and we're winning." Warren Buffet, 25 May 2005
That's all very well Warren, but how is the US doing against China?
Who cares, I'm making loads of money.
Oh dear.
In a world of Global Value Chains -- tariffs alone are blunt weapons that do damage in
occult directions. Unaccompanied by some kind of industrial and commercial policies they
wreck random harm and confer unintended advantages.
But the flaws in wanton tariff policy
make no argument favorable to maintaining Global Value Chains. They are crabbing-growth
tumors which kill off smaller local industries and threaten global collapse as the
"innovations in communications and transportation technologies" they depend upon wither in
this age of Peak Oil.
Global Value Chains are one of many frailties built-in to our global
civilization -- built from multiple thin lines riddled along their long reaches with single
points of failure -- radial spider webs without cross-webbing -- held together by the brittle
Neoliberal policies of Corporate Persons.
It was neoliberalism that moved production to China and created condition for the Chinese own companies to compete. Now Trump
goes against neoliberal dogma. So it is not accidental that he was under attack and Russiagate was launched to ensure his resignation.
Notable quotes:
"... in an editorial in the state-run People's Daily, Beijing has warned that China has "the strength and patience to withstand the trade war, and will fight to the end if the U.S. administration persists." ..."
"... China's controversial telecom giant, Huawei, filed a civil lawsuit against the US Commerce Department over the mishandling of telecommunications equipment seized by American officials, demanding its release. ..."
"... However, the equipment was not shipped back to China. It was "purportedly" seized en route and is currently sitting in Alaska, as US officials wanted to investigate whether the shipment required a special license . Such requests are usually processed within 45 days, but nearly two years have already passed since then. ..."
"... "The equipment, to the best of HT USA's knowledge, remains in a bureaucratic limbo in an Alaskan warehouse," Huawei said in its lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in federal court in Washington. ..."
"... Huawei contends that the equipment did not require a license because it did not fall into a controlled category and because it was made outside the United States and was being returned to the same country from which it came. ..."
"... The lawsuit comes amid a bitter row between two world's largest economies, and Washington's crackdown on Huawei. In May, the Trump administration added Huawei to the entity list, barring it from buying needed U.S. parts and components without U.S. government approval. The US alleges that Huawei could be spying for the Chinese government, a claim which the company has repeatedly denied. ..."
"... Of course, Huawei is not the only Chinese tech company that the White House decided to put on its trade blacklist. On Friday, five Chinese organizations – supercomputer maker Sugon, three its affiliates, and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology – were added to entity list on the grounds that their activities are allegedly contrary to US national security and foreign policy interests. ..."
"... don't expect a breakthrough: as Goldman's trade deal odds index found last week... the probability of a breakthrough between the two nations is roughly one in five. ..."
It's the weekend, which means the trade war between the US and China moved to the front page of the local propaganda media (in both
the US and China). And while Trump has yet to slam Beijing, focusing this morning on the all time high in the market instead, China
has been busy and in an editorial in the state-run People's Daily, Beijing has warned that China has "the strength and patience
to withstand the trade war, and will fight to the end if the U.S. administration persists."
Echoing what China's notorious twitter mouthpiece Hu Xijin said yesterday, the editorial said that just days ahead of the much
anticipated G-20 summit in Osaka where Trump and Xi are set to meet, " the U.S. must drop all tariffs imposed on China if it wants
to negotiate on trade, and only an equal dialogue can resolve the issue and lead to a win-win", according to Bloomberg.
The communist party's official paper also said the US had failed to take into account the interests of its own people, and they
are paying higher costs due to the trade dispute. "Wielding a big stick of tariffs" also disregards the condition of the U.S. economy
and the international economic order, according to the editorial.
Beijing's official warning to the US ended as follows: if the U.S. chooses to talk, "then it must show some good faith, take account
of key concerns from both sides and cancel all tariffs."
And just to prove that China isn't a paper tiger whose threats will be confined to the local newspapers,
Reuters reported that overnight China's controversial telecom giant, Huawei, filed a civil lawsuit against the US Commerce
Department over the mishandling of telecommunications equipment seized by American officials, demanding its release.
In an almost absurd reversal, the company whose entire existence can be traced to stealing and reverse-engineering foreign technology
and
trampling over corporate ethics , the complaint alleges that the US government took possession of hardware, including an ethernet
switch and computer server, which was transported from China to an independent laboratory in California for testing and certification
back in 2017.
However, the equipment was not shipped back to China. It was "purportedly" seized en route and is currently sitting in Alaska,
as US officials wanted to investigate whether the shipment required a special license . Such requests are usually processed within
45 days, but nearly two years have already passed since then.
"The equipment, to the best of HT USA's knowledge, remains in a bureaucratic limbo in an Alaskan warehouse," Huawei said in
its lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in federal court in Washington.
Huawei contends that the equipment did not require a license because it did not fall into a controlled category and because
it was made outside the United States and was being returned to the same country from which it came.
The company is not seeking any financial compensation and is not challenging the seizure itself, but is sending a message to Washington,
saying "post-seizure failures to act are unlawful", in effect charging the Trump admin with doing precisely what it, itself has been
accused of. Huawei wants to force the Commerce Department to decide whether an export license is really necessary and, if not, release
the withheld equipment.
The lawsuit comes amid a bitter row between two world's largest economies, and Washington's crackdown on Huawei. In May, the Trump
administration added Huawei to the entity list, barring it from buying needed U.S. parts and components without U.S. government approval.
The US alleges that Huawei could be spying for the Chinese government, a claim which the company has repeatedly denied.
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the company's founder, has been detained in Canada since December on a U.S. warrant. She
is fighting extradition on charges that she misled global banks about Huawei's relationship with a company operating in Iran.
Of course, Huawei is not the only Chinese tech company that the White House decided to put on its trade blacklist. On Friday,
five Chinese organizations – supercomputer maker Sugon, three its affiliates, and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology
– were added to entity list on the grounds that their activities are allegedly contrary to US national security and foreign policy
interests.
The fresh US blacklisting comes ahead of crucial talks between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Osaka,
Japan, which are intended to ease tensions between the two sides. Still, don't expect a breakthrough: as
Goldman's
trade deal odds index found last week... the probability of a breakthrough between the two nations is roughly one in five.
A letter from over 600 US companies businesses in support of President Trump's tariffs on
approximately $300 billion of Chinese imports was scheduled to be submitted on Friday before
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), according to the Daily
Caller , which reviewed the document.
It is the intention of Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), Chief Economist, Jeff
Ferry to present the letter Friday morning during his testimony to the USTR. This letter
pushes back on the letter last week that asks Trump to stop the tariffs on China. Those
signers were mostly big-box retailers who manufacture their products in China.
This all comes as President Donald Trump said that he is considering slapping China with
more tariffs if Chinese President Xi Jinping does not meet with him during the G-20 summit in
late June. Since, the warning, the two have agreed to meet. However, Trump said if Xi does
not attend the event, he will immediately impose new
tariffs on $300 billion in
Chinese imports ,
including a number of consumer products. - Daily
Caller
In May, Trump raised tariffs on around $200 billion of Chinese goods from 10% to
25%. Three days later, China slapped around $60 billion in US goods with reciprocal tariffs.
"The global integration project with China, through liberalized trade, has failed. The
Communist Party of China has used its access to U.S. consumer and capital markets for a
predatory economic strategy to grow its state-owned enterprises, finance its military build up,
imprison its citizens in modern day concentration camps and challenge America's geopolitical
power," according to Coalition for a Prosperous America CEO Michael Stumo.
"Our American companies and workers have been weakened by this failed experiment. We want it
to stop," he added.
The Automotive Parts Remanufacturing Association (APRA) president, Joe Kripli. said, "for
years now the Chinese 'knock-off' of starters and alternators that have been entering the
country at ridiculously low cost and have been hurting the small [U.S.] remanufacturer that
is located in every state and has been in our communities since WWII. - Daily
Caller
"Fitzgerald USA is one of the few Made in America truck conglomerates. We recently started a
U.S. truck parts business as the trucking industry increasingly moves its operations to China.
America needs a strong manufacturing economy for jobs and national security. We support
President Trump and his use of tariffs on China," said Fitzgerald USA Director of Government
Relations, Jon Toomey.
Guess who didn't sign the letter? Apple - which is desperately trying to lobby the Trump
administration to ease the tariffs - arguing this week in front of the USTR that "U.S. tariffs
on Apple's products would result in a reduction of Apple's U.S. economic contribution," and
"weigh on Apple's global competitiveness
Cheap easy credit in USA has made us all debtors. The cheap money has been used to
purchase lots of cheap chinese **** from the large global publicly traded companies. The big
box stores partnered with American brands to move operations overseas and make **** real
cheap and sell those well known household brand names back to unsuspecting consumers.....to
the very people they have put out of a job. THIS is the largest redistribution of wealth in
the history of the planet. Free money, low paying jobs and cheap ****. As far as I am
concerned, if china steals a company's technology, cry me a ******* river. They deserve
it.
The super-capitalists as usual screw everybody else - the honest manufacturers, labour -
while destroying the fabric of society in their insane pursuit of profits for themselves and
their confreres.
Did Amazon also sign the petition? What about Facebook ,Google? I want to see the big
MNC's signing the letter. Let me see the country before profit there.
The key dynamic is low energy costs, cheap land, low corporate taxes and low shipping
costs to the market.
All four of those are in the US.
Factories will be built where the demand is located and there is and will be no longer any
advantage to produce products overseas.
Plants that used to take 1000 workers to run now take just 50 or less.
Automation would have impacted the work force in the US in 10 years but thanks to minimum
wage hikes it is happening right now and will grow exponentially in 2 years.
Why is it that folks put the blame on China? Our corporations are the ones that looked for
manufacturers that could make their product for less than American workers could.
Watch older episodes of Shark Tank and they all said time and time again that they have
contacts in China and could have the product made for peanuts....... That's how our
corporations make money.
Why don't we boycott Apple? We can't because it's in everyone's retirement portfolio one
way or another.
If the US was such a "free market" powerhouse, why not heed your own values instead of
doing protectionism? Answer: another myth destroyed that America is all about "free markets".
Add that to the mythology about being pro-dumbocracy, freedumb and all for international
"law".
"... Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent. ..."
"... Beginning on June 10, " a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October." ..."
"... Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March ..."
"... How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly. ..."
"... There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever. ..."
"... In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home because of war and violence every two seconds. ..."
"... Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End. ..."
If President Trump doesn't waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits
to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.
Despite protests from Democrats, stateside -- Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.
At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats -- and some Republicans.
Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side -- any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore
to represent.
In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not
if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even
considered a vote to block the tariffs.
Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs
.
More than that. The president didn't just tweet out "strong words" and taunts.
Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to "retrieve from his arsenal
a time bomb of ruinous proportions."
Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.
Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders
and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.
Beginning on June 10, "
a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits
25 percent in October."
Lo and behold, Mexico quickly
promised
to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which
Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March
It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not
let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.
Trump's trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they're not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.
How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods
starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic
juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to
harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit
labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that
Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.
But what of the "billions of dollars in imports from Mexico" that are at stake, as one media shill
shrieked
.
Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it's a trade pygmy -- a fact known
all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.
The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president
is this.
Via the Economist :
"Only about 15 percent of the United States' exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico's exports head the other
way. 'There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,' says Andrés Rozental, a
Mexican former diplomat and minister."
Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept "safe third-country status." Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel
any and all "asylum seekers" if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.
Thinking people should realize that Trump's victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the
Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.
The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed
immigration laws.
Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz
argues
convincingly, this is "a separation of powers problem." Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with
the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts' violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal
scheme, within which the role -- nay, the obligation -- of the commander in chief -- is to defend the country.
Although they're temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book,
"The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Reconstructed," executive
orders are Trump's political power tool -- justice's Jaws of Life, if you will -- to be used by the Executive to pry the people free
from judicial oppression.
Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other
words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.
All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers
every day, "No. You can't go there."
If you believe Mexico is going to squelch the flow of humans into America -- the same humans who are wiring $25BILLION per year
back to family members in Mexico -- I've got a fleet of taco trucks with square tires to sell you.
There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term
president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate
for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever.
The more this nonsense carries on, the more I empathize with Stalin. Sometimes you gotta bulldoze your way through. Democracy
produces nothing but obstacles. Time to put the keys into the caterpillar.
I applaud this move by Trump, and will of course vote for him in 2020 (for a patriot, what is the alternative?). But unless we
end the LEGAL immigration invasion, all this is for nought, and Trump will likely be the last non-leftist Republican President.
I have fought immigration for 40 years without success, except for CA Prop 187 in 1994, quickly overturned by a dirty Muslim
immigrant Federal judge. Immigration of racial and cultural and (now it's clear to everyone, as I knew by the 80s in CA) ideological
aliens is simple invasion, imperialism by non-military means. We needed Pat Buchanan in the 90s; instead, the stupid Christianists,
with whom I used to argue in the 80s-90s-00s endlessly wrt their insane priorities, worried more about abortion and queers (how'd
that work out, morons?) than alien conquest – with the obvious result that "globohomo" is stronger than ever – AND we have another
50+ MILLION race aliens voting 8-1 Democrat.
Sadly, Trump and the all-GOP 2017-18 Congress were America's very last chance to stop the invasion and save our (and the GOP's)
future. Trump blew it, utterly. Now the USA as a unitary, Occidental, Constitutional, capitalist nation-state cannot be salvaged
and/or restored. The only hope for American patriots is White conservative territorial ingathering and eventual racial secession
and new sovereignty.
Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional
authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
This is the crux. And this is true, too..
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by
bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose
goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing
worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home
because of war and violence every two seconds.
"And I'll huff and puff and bow your house down," said the Big, Bad Wolf.
When stories about the record number of illegals flooding in stop hitting the news cycle, and we no longer get possibly Ebola
infected Congolese with wads of $100 bills, I might believe your assumptions.
Africans Coming Across The Southern Border Have "Rolls Of $100 Bills"
One more thought: Remember that hot air the Big, Bad Orange wolf blew that ICE was going to start rounding up millions of
illegals
on Tuesday? Here it is Friday and no action.
How many times will people fall for Trump's BS promises where nothing gets done or he backtracks?
Madame Mercer, I suspect the real reason behind your story is that Trump is the best POTUS for Israel since the traitor
LBJ and that a certain group wants to keep Tubby the Grifter in the WH so he can keep acting as Israel's de facto real estate
agent.
The simpleton Mercer misses what is really going on. The re-election push is on and Trump will roll out "plans" to deal with immigration.
They will never come into fruition as they are mere "boob bait for bubba". The drug cartels run Mexico and people trafficking
is a bigger business than drug trafficking. If you think they are going to stop, you are as delusional as Ms Mercer. By the way
the politicians work for the drug cartels in Mexico. Of course the advice that Mercer gave to South Africa led to the current
situation where the ANC runs the country and whites are disenfranchised. But what else would you expect from a Jew who sell the
goyim down the river every chance they get.
@sarz Grade:
D+ (every other President since Kennedy: F)
Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was
inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax
cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End.
America is gone as not only a White nation, but within 25 years, even a semi-civilized and First World one. Diversity is what
destroyed us. We could have integrated (more or less) the blacks, but the sheer numbers of mostly clannish nonwhite colonizers
since 1968 has doomed us. America was its White, Christian, Anglo-Nordic majority. Without that majority, American dies.
(nytimes.com)
70
restricting China's access to American technology and stoking already high tensions as
President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China prepare to meet in Japan next week. From a
report: The Commerce Department announced that it would add four Chinese companies and one
Chinese institute to an "entity list," saying they posed risks to
American national security or foreign policy interests [Editor's note: the link may be
paywalled;
alternative source ] . The move essentially bars the entities, which include one of China's
leading supercomputer makers, Sugon, and a number of its subsidiaries set up to design
microchips, from buying American technology and components without a waiver from the United
States government.
The move could all but cripple these Chinese businesses, which rely on American chips and
other technology to manufacture advanced electronics. Those added to the entity list also
include Higon, Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit, Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics
Technology, and Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology, which lead China's development
of high performance computing, some of which is used in military applications like simulating
nuclear explosions, the Commerce Department said. Each of the aforementioned companies does
businesses under a variety of other names.
Blocking Chinese access to any particular technology just gives them an incentive to pour
massive resources into developing their own versions. They've learned that US companies are
not reliable suppliers. Same as many former allies have learned that being an ally of the US
is a double edged sword.
Cuts in sales to China by US companies means less money for US companies to invest in
developing advanced products. Don't be surprised if by 2030 China will be the sole supplier
of the worlds best, most advanced technology. Just look at what happened to the robotics
industry. Or better yet, go back to the previous century, when the US decided to unload their
steel mills to China at a huge discount to China to invest in financial instruments, then
whined like crazy that China was able to make steel cheaper because their new-to-them steel
mills had less debt to fund per to. Of steel produced.
If China had had to buy new steel mills, the cost of production per ton would have been
higher. But no, trading pieces of paper or bits in bank accounts was easier.
The Chinese hi-tech companies should thank the US for clearing out American products from
the
biggest market [datenna.com], so they can eventually enter the lucrative cycles of being
able to sell primitive products and re-invest the proceeds to create more advanced products,
without having to compete with the most advanced American products upfront, and in a few
short year they will produce more advanced ones.
Oh, don't the US know that Chinese supercomputers already cleared out of American chips
[wikipedia.org] and achieve top performance long time ago?
The App Store also instituted the idea of tech products being part of a
vertically-integrated, closed platform. Apple and Google (with its Google Play store) became
the dominant platform owners for mobile, because their scale and network effects made them the
gatekeepers for companies that wanted to enter the mobile market and access the app
marketplace. Even a company with as much power as Microsoft could do nothing to break the mobile
duopoly .
So whatever your
opinion of Google's Huawei snub, it certainly demonstrates just how much power Google has,
and how that power is centralized. For phone makers, Google is the only option -- Apple being
its own walled garden -- and for app makers and consumers alike, the App Store and Google Play
are the only existing choices.
This is hardly a secret or conspiratorial. Huawei has
long been attempting to develop its own operating system , precisely to prevent such
situations as this. Similarly, despite being the largest Android vendor by far, Samsung still
has its own Tizen operating system. Building your business on someone else's platform leaves
you at their mercy. There's also the question of user experience: Consumers can't actually buy
books on the Kindle app on an iPhone or iPad, because Amazon understandably wants to avoid the
30 percent cut that Apple takes on its operating system.
Perhaps a closed app store linked to a platform has outlived its early usefulness. Not only
does it cement power among entrenched companies, it also puts up barriers to competition. This
idea isn't so radical. Recently,
the Supreme Court ruled that Apple's customers can sue the company under antitrust law for
monopolistic behavior for the way in which it takes that 30 percent of everything on the app
store. There are technical avenues forward: Progressive Web Apps, or PWAs, operate in a more
open, more platform-neutral manner, and have significantly improved in functionality recently;
they could offer a more neutral way for companies to offer apps outside the constraints of an
app store.
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We
are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John
Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase
in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May, by Priscilla
Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all
over the world from Guatemala
to
Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a
treasonous Leftist
kritarchy , especially the claim of "
credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants
are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry,
knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break,
that they will show up for adjudication.
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a
travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the
president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the
country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. [ No
judge has jurisdiction to erase our border, ConservativeReview, November 26,
2018]
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with
political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not
undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s
akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the
Rhine.
Dell Technologies Inc
., HP Inc. , Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp. are joining forces to oppose
President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on laptop computers and tablets among $300 billion in
Chinese goods targeted for duties.
The companies submitted joint comments opposing the tariff escalation, saying it would hurt
consumer products and industry, while failing to address China's trade practices. The tariffs
are poised to hit during the peak holiday and back-to-school sales period, they said.
"The tariffs will harm U.S. technology leaders, hindering their ability to innovate and
compete in a global marketplace," the companies said in comments posted online.
Dell, HP, and Microsoft said they account for about half of the notebooks and detachable
tablets sold in the U.S. Prices for laptops and tablets will increase by at least 19% -- about
$120 for the average retail price of a laptop -- if the proposed tariffs are implemented,
according to a
study released this week by the Consumer Technology Association .
The companies said they spent a collective $35 billion on research and development in 2018
alone, and tariff costs would divert resources from innovation while providing "a windfall" to
manufacturers based outside the U.S. that are less dependent on American sales.
The Trump administration is considering public comments on the proposed duties and
hearing testimony from more than 300 U.S. companies and trade groups through June 25. The
tariffs could be imposed after a rebuttal period ends July 2.
The U.S. and China said their presidents
will meet in Japan next week to relaunch trade talks after a month-long stalemate.
Clyde Schechter says:
June 17, 2019 at 11:55 pm "The long term consequences of our trade sanctions are not yet
clear. One possibility will be the break up of the world into two main trading blocs as China,
Russia and Europe work to set up a trading system not dependent upon the dollar. "
Yes, this is the crux of it. China, Russia, and Europe are each too small to independently
defy the stranglehold that the US exerts over the world financial system. But if they can
overcome their past hostilities and work together, they will finally be able to rise off their
knees as sovereign nations, not US vassals. For their sakes, I hope they can and will.
But if they succeed, it will spell huge problems for the US. If the dollar is no longer the
world's reserve currency and the sole currency of petro-commerce, the US will find that there
actually is a limit to how deeply it can go into debt. And what on earth will we do when we
actually have to start paying our bills?
"... The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US. ..."
"... The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and 2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers. ..."
"... Trump administration already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US. ..."
"... Bloomberg and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade war would be $600 billion. ..."
"... In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei. ..."
"... 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.' ..."
"... These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election. ..."
"... 'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans' was 'the president's true objective.' ..."
"... Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a 'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less. ..."
"... it is also clear that Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks on China. ..."
"... When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary, China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to China. ..."
"... But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on its chances of re-election. ..."
'At least two other organizations have more power over [US financial] markets
than the White House. They are the US Federal Reserve and the Chinese Communist
Party. Trump does not directly control either of them.'
This brutal analysis is particularly significant as it is by one of the most
senior and accurate Western specialists on financial markets –
John Authers
, Senior Bloomberg Editor for Markets and former Chief Markets
Commentator for the
Financial Times
. It encapsulates the interaction of
economic and political problems facing President Trump. As will be seen it also
summarises the relative strengths of China and the US in the 'trade war',
dictates the US administration's tactics in attacking China, and determines the
policies which will prevent the Trump administration carrying out its attempt to
block China achieving its development goals.
Analysis of these real facts of US financial markets and policy strongly
confirms the assessment emphasised by China's President Xi Jinping in his recent
speech
in
Yudu County, the place being highly symbolic as it was the starting point for
China's famous Long March, that China has to rely on its own strength in
resisting this attempt by the US administration to prevent China achieving
prosperity and national rejuvenation.
While the situation of China itself in the trade/economic war is naturally the
most important issue there are of course two sides involved in this conflict –
the other aspect of the situation is within the US. Analysis of this, which forms
the subject of this article, shows clearly why the Trump administration refuses
to accept 'win-win' relations with China and what is the inevitable outcome of
this administration's 'lose-lose' logic. Such analysis in turn shows that
frequent comparisons made in China to the Long March of 1934-35, or to Mao
Zedong's famous
essay
'On Protracted War', are not simply rhetorical metaphors, or references
to the historical traditions of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but provide
an accurate framework to understand the situation.
The Trump administration made a very serious miscalculation in launching the
'trade war' with China. It believed that either, or both, the leadership of China
would submit to the Trump administrations threats or the Chinese population would
not be prepared for a serious struggle with the US. Both calculations have proved
entirely wrong. China's leadership did not surrender to but hit back against the
US attacks. Furthermore anyone who follows China's domestic discussion, on what
is now by far the world's largest internet community, knows that this line was
strongly supported by the Chinese population.
The difference to the historical comparisons now frequently used in China, of
course, is that this is an economic war and not a military one. Therefore, the
weapons are different, and it is necessary to analyse what are the pressure
points on the US, and what armaments are most powerful for China. In turn this
examination of the situation in the US economy fully confirms the analyses made
of the situation in China and the reaction of different social layers to the
present conflict with the US.
Trends in China and the US
Examining the Chinese side of the 'trade war' Wang Wen has presented an
excellent
analysis
of the reaction of different social strata in China to the Trump
administration's economic aggression. Its analysis can be noted:
'
The vast
majority of ordinary people are highly supportive of the state's policy of
counter-bullying in the United States, and the current fear of the US exists
mainly in some social elites.'
But it is particularly striking that this analysis of trends within China,
made by a Chinese citizen, is fully confirmed from another 'external' angle –
that of the situation in the US and the forces operating on the Trump
administration. The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the
correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the
Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US.
Trump's economic policy is determined by the coming US Presidential electio. The starting point of any analysis of the situation in the US is that
President Trump is already entirely aware of the most important date he faces – 3
November 2020, the next US Presidential election. Securing re-election is his
paramount goal and this therefore determines the shaping of the Trump
administration's policies. Three time frames are crucial for this.
The impact of events in financial markets, which can occur in a very short
time frame – in some cases minutes/hours and almost invariably having a strong
impact over a period of days to months.
The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and
2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of
re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff
policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers.
Attempts to slow China's economy in the medium/longer term, through forcing
or persuading it to abandon its socialist path of development.
All three time frames however confirm a fundamental reality – that while
China's relations with most countries, and indeed with some previous US
presidents, can be most successful based on 'win-win' this will not occur with
the Trump administration.
This is due to the fact that the Trump administration
already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is
they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure
that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US.
The Trump administration's 'lose-lose' analysis
An illustration on a small scale of the Trump administration's understanding
of the need to attempt to limit the extent of economic pain on the US is its
recent announcement of $16 billion of subsidies to US farmers – the bill for
which will be financed by other US taxpayers as is increasingly understood in the
United States. As
CNN
noted: 'Just as Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, but isn't, now
China is supposed to pay for President Donald Trump's plan to bail out US
farmers. Neither statement is true, of course.'
Affecting wider sections of the US population, calculations by the Western
economics company Oxford Economics, which has no connection with China, found:
'Chinese manufacturing lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods,
dampening inflation and putting more money in American wallets trade with China
saved these families up to $850 that year.' Regarding the overall impact on the
global economy, including the adverse effect on US allies,
Bloomberg
and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade
war would be $600 billion.
In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally
concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US
companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei.
The
Financial Times
noted for example that the immediate goal of the US sanctions
against Huawei are not simply or primarily to stop the supply of chips and
software but to destroy the consumer market for Huawei's products in the West –
where customers want guaranteed access to Google dependent products: 'Google's
decision this week to stop selling its Android operating system to Huawei for new
handsets makes little difference in China, where Huawei should be able to
convince buyers to switch to its operating system, now under development.
But
customers are more wedded to Android in international markets. Independent
analyst Richard Windsor estimates it will lose all those sales.' But the
Financial Times simultaneously noted that consumer retaliation against China
would have a devastating financial effect on Apple, one of the US's core and most
valuable companies: 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal
include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts
estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.'
These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its
claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that
its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to
limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US
economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election.
US financial markets
A decisive reason that such pain for the US is possible is that while the sums
noted in relation to US consumers, farmers, and allies above sound large the
Trump administration can in fact deal with amounts such as $16 billion to
farmers. But even such sums as the $600 billion loss for the global economy are
small compared to potential impacts on the size of US financial markets. The loss
of $600 billion in a year for the global economy is less than the amount that can
be lost in US financial markets in a single day, while a loss of $16 billion can
occur in seconds.
Due to the sheer scale of US financial markets the Trump
administration does not remotely have the resources to control the more than
$30,000 billion US share market or the $16,000 billion US Treasury bond market.
Pain inflicted on the US in such financial markets is therefore on a scale which
is destabilising to the Trump administration.
Examination of all three time frames operating on the Trump administration
considered above would require three separate analyses or an inordinately long
article. Therefore, due to their sheer scale, this article examines only the
first, most short term, but extremely powerful of these issues – the impact of
the trade war on US financial markets.
The real situation facing US presidents
John Authers' blunt comment cited at the beginning of this article, reveals
accurately the real domestic economic situation of a US President – which is very
different to the frequent perception in China. Unlike China, under the US
governmental system the President has little direct control over the most
powerful levers of the economy – there is no large state owned economic sector
which can be instructed by the President to increase its activity, the Federal
budget is decided by the Congress not by the President, and interest rates are
controlled by the Federal Reserve which under US law cannot be instructed by the
President.
The new factor in the trade war which Authers drew attention to, which is also
outside the US President's control, is China itself. The facts amply confirm that
the impact of China's statements and actions on US financial markets is now very
large – as will be demonstrated.
Larry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary,
clearly spelt out this numerically in a
commentary
for the Washington Post: 'On Monday [13 May], China announced new
tariffs on $60 billion of US exports, and the United States threatened new
tariffs on up to $300 billion of Chinese goods. These actions were cited as the
principal reason for a decline of more than 600 points in the Dow Jones
industrial average, or about 2.4 percent in broader measures of the stock market.
With the total value of US stocks around $30 trillion, this decline represents
more than $700 billion in lost wealth.'
This $700 billion loss to US shareholders directly resulted from China's
response to President Trump's announcement he was raising US tariffs against
China from 10% to 25%. To illustrate this direct impact Authers' accurately noted
the difference on US share markets between the week following Trump's
announcement of raising tariffs against China, during which there was no
announcement of a precise Chinese response, and the US financial markets'
reaction when China announced its counter tariffs: 'It's fair to say that Wall
Street did not anticipate China's retaliation to US tariffs. Last week, the
negative reaction to President Donald Trump's announcement of new tariffs on
China was oddly muted. On Monday, after China's response was announced just
before the market opened, the S&P 500 fell by more than it had done in the entire
previous week.'
Authers similarly noted the increasing skill of China's response and its
impact on US markets: 'The problem is that China knows how to respond. China
knows it can attack the presidential weak spot by acting in a way that damages
the Dow. Hence, it not only retaliated with tariffs of its own, but announced
them just as the New York market was about to open, at night in China, for
maximum effect.'
As already noted, the $700 billion loss in a single day on US share markets
was larger than the projected loss to the world economy for an entire year due to
the trade war – and over 40 times the $16 billion bill for Trump's subsidies to
US farmers. But even this sum is small compared to losses on US financial markets
that can occur due to others of China's economic actions. As
Authers
noted: 'In the last five years, the event that scared the US market
the most, by a wide margin, was the surprise Chinese yuan devaluation in 2015.'
The impact of this RMB devaluation was clear. Between 10 August and 24 August
2015, only 14 days, the RMB's exchange rate fell by 3.0%. The US S&P500 tracked
the RMB down falling by 11.2% by 25 August. In terms of current valuations of US
share markets this was equivalent to a loss of $3.8 trillion – more than six
times the total projected loss to the global economy of the trade war in a year,
or over 200 times Trump's subsidies to farmers.
The real aim of Trump's policy
This identification of the degree of pain which can be inflicted by China on
US financial markets, and on the US economy, is crucial because Trump's tariff
policies cannot, indeed are not intended to, improve the situation of the US
itself. Bloomberg columnist
Noah Smith
summarised the Trump administration's real aim very accurately
under the self-explanatory headline 'The Grim Logic of Trump's Trade War With
China – Maximizing American prosperity probably isn't the goal.' Apart from
comprador apologists for the US within China, noted by Wang Wen, this logic of
Trump's policy is by now well understood in China. But, nevertheless, it is worth
quoting this Bloomberg analysis at length as it summarises very accurately from a
US perspective the logic of the Trump administration:
'The trade war has cost to the US. Economists have shown that the actual burden
of tariffs has fallen mostly on American consumers -- in other words, the prices
consumers pay for imported goods has risen And higher prices on capital goods
and intermediate goods is raising expenses for US manufacturers, making them less
competitive. Meanwhile, Chinese retaliation has hurt US farmers
'So with losses mounting, it looked like there was little reason to continue
the trade war. Yet Trump is doubling down. Why?
'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be
an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for
China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable
losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for
Americans' was 'the president's true objective.'
In other words, as was already shown in the case of farm subsidies, the Trump
administration quite accurately does not believe that tariffs and other forms of
economic aggression against China aid US economic prosperity – on the contrary
they cause economic pain. But it decides to inflict this pain on US citizens and
companies in order to pursue neo-con policies trying to block China's prosperity
and national rejuvenation. But this policy requires that 'the harm to the US is
modest.' The problem is that the more tariffs are imposed , and above all if
China retaliates, the greater the pain not only for US financial markets but for
US consumers – that is US voters. As Authers noted: 'Meanwhile, the US can still
impose more tariffs, but the goods it has chosen to attack have been largely
invisible to consumers. Any further tariffs will take it into consumer products
where price rises will be visible and painful, and might even, again, act as a
spur to raise [interest] rates.' The effect on US financial markets, as already
noted, can be far more severe than the direct effect of the tariffs.
Why win-win will not work with the Trump administration
Understanding the Trump's administrations real aim shows not only why its goal
is not to improve the economic position of the US economy or US citizens but
simultaneously makes clear why its policies will not be stopped by appeals to
reason or 'win-win'. Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations
attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting
the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration
becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump
administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a
'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US
should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that
any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the
US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less.
This makes clear while most countries seek a 'win-win' with China, and can
therefore rightly be approached on this basis, and indeed this forms the basis of
China's foreign policy, this will not work with the Trump administration because
it is not seeking a 'win' – it is merely seeking that the 'lose' for the US it
knows will occur should not be sufficiently large to threaten Trump's
re-election.
It follows from this situation that the only thing that will deter the Trump
administration, and force it off its path of attacks on China, is if the 'lose'
for the US is bigger than it had anticipated – that is if the economic pain is
too large to be bearable from the point of view of the interests of the Trump
administration. From what has already been analysed, it is also clear that
Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but
whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if
the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers
Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks
on China.
The only 'win' which the Trump administration takes into account is,
therefore, if the 'lose/pain' of the confrontation with China is seen as
endangering Trump's re-election chances and the 'win' is then simply the
lessening of that pain to a point where it is no longer seen as endangering
Trump's election campaign.
Confirmation of the forces acting on the Trump administration
This situation of the Trump administration which flows from its 'lose-lose'
logic is fully confirmed even in the extremely short term by the chronology of
President Trump's own personal responses to events in US financial markets in
announcing the increase in tariffs against China from 10% to 25%.
On 5 May Trump announced on
twitter
the raising of tariffs against China from 10% to 25%, there was no
immediate announced countermeasure by China, and the S&P 500 US share index
fell by only 0.5% on the following day.
In contrast on 13 May China announced counter tariffs and the S&P 500 fell
by 2.4% in a single day – costing US shareholders $700 billion as Larry
Summers noted.
For the rest of the following week the Trump administration attempted to
claim that trade talks would be resuming, and that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin
would probably be visiting Beijing in the near future – the S&P500 recovered
by 1.7%.
Having achieved this recovery in US financial markets President Trump then
initiated a new attack on China by requiring US companies to have permission
from the US government to sell components and software to Huawei.
China then responded to this strongly on 23 May. As the
Wall Street Journal
noted: ' The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 286
points Thursday after a Chinese official said the US should "adjust its wrong
actions" if it would like to continue negotiations. The losses pulled the Dow
industrials into the red for the week, continuing a dismal stretch as it
hurtled toward its fifth straight weekly loss -- which would be its longest such
losing streak since 2011. '
In response to this fall on US financial markets President Trump then
immediately softened his rhetoric by
announcing
at a press conference that there was a 'good possibility' that
trade negotiations with China would get back on track and that issues with
Huawei might be settled in that deal.
The short term pattern was therefore extremely clear. When there was no
reaction from China, US financial markets did not fall, and Trump continued his
aggression against China. When, on the contrary, China responded strongly, US
financial markets fell and Trump attempted to present a picture he was lessening
his attack on China.
In addition to these short-term movements analysed above the same process over
a longer term also explains the dynamic of the 'hardening' and 'softening' of the
Trump administration's positions in the course of its negotiations with China.
During 2018, when the US economy was experiencing economic strengthening,
during a normal upswing of a business cycle, and with a strong share market,
Trump acted aggressively to China – launching the first set of anti-China
tariffs and threatening to expand them to a wider range of goods and increase
their rate to 25%.
Then in late 2018 the US economy began to slow, the Federal Reserve was
raising interest rates, and the US share market fell. In response to this, at
the beginning of 2019, Trump 'softened' his position – postponing the raising
of US tariffs against China from 10% to 25%.
When the US economy appeared to recover in the first quarter of 2019, with
the Federal Reserve suspending increases in interest rates, and the share
market rose, Trump then announced new aggressive actions against China by
raising tariffs from 10% to 25%.
This therefore clearly reflects the 'lose-lose' framework in which the Trump
administration operates. When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not
great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary,
China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more
reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger
position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration
feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to
China.
What is the Trump administration's bottom line?
While the above clearly shows why the Trump administration will not respond to
a 'win-win' framework, but only to economic pain, to avoid any misunderstanding
it should be made clear that it does not lead to the conclusion that the US and
China are locked in a 'war to the death'. All the evidence is that President
Trump is less interested in the long-term interests of the US than most
Presidents. The precise economic pain which is unacceptable to his administration
is that which would lead to endangering his re-election in 2020.
A relevant comparison which helps understand this dynamic is that is to a real
war, not just a trade one, which the US lost – the Vietnam war. Vietnam's tactics
in this were skilful in that political impacts guided military goals. The two
largest Vietnamese offensives of the war, the Tet Offensive in 1968 and the
Easter Offensive in 1972, were launched in US presidential election years.
Neither resulted in US military defeat but the political damage done to US
presidents ensured Vietnam's victory – Johnson was forced to abandon as hopeless
any attempt to run for re-election as president after Tet, and Nixon was so
convinced that his position as president would be threatened by the war that he
started a progressive US military withdrawal after 1968 and decided on a total US
withdrawal of US forces after the 1972 Easter Offensive.
In short, the 'bottom
line' for Vietnam's victory against the US was not total military defeat of the
US, which was never achieved, but inflicting such pain on US presidents that to
safeguard their own position they were forced to withdraw. The military struggle
in Vietnam was the means by which the decisive political victory in the US was
achieved.
But the precondition for that US political defeat was the military struggle in
Vietnam. If Vietnam had ceased inflicting pain on the US, both economic in terms
of the gigantic cost of the war and in terms of losses of American forces, then
the US instead of withdrawing would have increased its attacks on Vietnam. This
can be clearly seen in the opposite case in which the US achieved a great victory
– the destruction of the USSR. Gorbachev attempted to appease the US and beg for
mercy. The US did not lessen but increased its attacks as a result – culminating
in the catastrophic disintegration of the USSR itself, characterised by Putin as
'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century'.
After this
tremendous defeat of Russia this again did not lead to a lessening but to further
intensification of attacks on Russia by the US – incorporating almost all of
Eastern Europe and large parts of the former USSR into NATO and launching of
attacks on Russia's position in its strategically decisive neighbour of Ukraine.
The strategic conclusion of the present US attacks on China fully confirms the
speech by Xi Jinping
emphasising
that the most important thing is to rely on ourselves. China has not been seeking
a confrontation with the US, a lose-lose. On the contrary China has been seeking
a win-win. But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a
lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on
its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration
that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which
it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on
its chances of re-election.
Fortunately, the present struggle is an economic war and not a real war. The
'small arms' in that economic war are not rifles and revolvers but tariffs
against farmers and the subsidies these require, its medium weapons are consumer
boycotts, its heavy artillery are such issues as the impact on US financial
markets analysed above. It is a measure of the gigantic historical progress made
by China since 1949 under the People's Republic that it now only has to deal with
economic attacks by the Trump administration – for a century before that China
had to deal with actual military invasions.
The sacrifices made by the heroes of the Long March were far greater than
anything the people of China face today in the economic attacks by the Trump
administration. But the comparisons made by Xi Jinping to the Long March are
entirely apposite and not at all merely references to the CPC's historical
tradition.
The Kuomintang's Fifth Encirclement Campaign, the origin of Long March, was
designed by the KMT to destroy and annihilate the forces opposing it – why it is
also called the 'Fifth Extermination Campaign'. It was purposeless to have
attempted to appease or beg for mercy from the KMT, which was determined to
destroy the forces which later created the New China. Any appeasement, or appeal
for mercy, would have been met by the KMT crushing and massacring the forces they
opposed. Only resistance to the KMT created the possibility to later create the
People's Republic of China and lay the basis for China's national rejuvenation.
Similarly, the Trump administration is determined to block China's national
rejuvenation. As already shown, there is no point to attempt to appease it or beg
for mercy from it, this will merely lead to it becoming more aggressive. The
ultimate aim of the neo-cons at present directing the Trump administration's
policies is to block China's national rejuvenation and the final way to ensure
that is to ensure that that China should suffer the same historical catastrophe
as the USSR under Gorbachev.
Who is the 'elite' of Chinese society?
Analysis in China shows it is ordinary people who have understood the
aggressive actions of the Trump regime and supported the firm positions against
this taken by President Xi Jinping and other CPC leaders.
It is some parts of the 'social elite' which have entirely misunderstood the
situation and believed that appeasement and appeals for mercy would lead to the
Trump administration lessening its attack on China. The latter forces are the
exact opposite of an 'intellectual elite' – because to be an intellectual elite
means to see the situation accurately and, as seen, they are entirely in error.
It is the ordinary people of China who have shown they are the 'intellectual
elite' in accurately understanding the Trump administration and supporting the
positions taken by the CPC leadership. Those who wrongly analysed the situation
may or may not be a social elite but they are an intellectual 'non-elite' – those
who fail to see the situation accurately and have naïve illusions.
Conclusion
The analysis of the situation of the US economy and financial markets
therefore fully confirms the analysis made by others of the situation in China.
It shows why the Trump administration cannot be dealt with on the basis of
'win-win' but only on the basis of China's strength and through ensuring that the
Trump administration suffers severely in the 'lose-lose' path it has
unfortunately chosen. Only after the US administration has found that it suffers
pain from its present path will it be possible to return to a 'win-win' framework
between China and the US.
* * * The Chinese version of this article appeared at
Guancha.cn
.
President Donald Trump has announced that he will decide whether or not to add another $300
billion in tariffs on imports from China, in addition to the $200 billion he has already
imposed, and that he will do so in the two weeks following the G20 summit in Osaka. Trump's
"Art of the Deal" pressure tactics are familiar. He wants to try to make China give even
greater concessions, perhaps following a frosty meeting between the two leaders on the
sidelines of the G20, or perhaps no meeting at all.
China, however, is in no mood to make concessions.
Behind Trump's impulsiveness can be glimpsed a profound shift in U.S. trade policy, and in
US diplomacy, which has transformed the nature of international relations, with particularly
disturbing implications in the case of U.S.-China ties.
Donald Trump, acting on the advice of U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer and
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, is making demands of China -- or for that matter
Mexico, Germany, or France -- in a unilateral manner. He has attempted to immediately implement
tariffs and other forms of punishment (such as bans for reasons of national security in the
case of Huawei phones) without any institutional consultative process.
The U.S. constitution has a "commerce clause" that clearly assigns to Congress the power "to regulate
commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." Since 2002, the trade
promotion authority (an upgraded version of the fast-track authority established in 1974) gives
the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can vote for or against,
but cannot amend.
Over the last 20 years, fast-tracking has become the center of trade policy to a degree that
undermines the balance of powers and the constitution.
Although the executive's usurpation of trade authority has a long history, only now is the
president making such a transparent move to exclude the legislature -- not to mention economic
experts, let alone citizens -- from the formulation of trade policy. That means that a handful
of people can make decisions that impact every aspect of the U.S. economy.
Newspapers rarely mention the role of Congress in trade negotiations with China. It's almost
as if the various congressional committees involved in formulating trade policy have no role in
this process.
Equally striking is the absence from the policy debate of multilateral institutions that
address trade issues according to common practices and international law. For instance, the
World Trade Organization was established in 1993 with an explicit mandate to address trade and
tariff issues. The WTO and its trade experts once played a central role in U.S. trade
discussions -- when U.S. policy ostensibly conformed to established global norms, and
Washington even set new models for the world to follow.
Trump's unilateral demands of China make it crystal clear that Trump, and Trump alone, is
empowered to decide trade policy. What institutions and mechanisms remain to assure that the
president's authority in trade negotiations will not be abused and that trade is conducted with
the long-term interests of the country in mind?
But it goes further than that. Now Trump is demanding "detailed and enforceable commitments"
from China as a condition for a trade deal, suggesting that the United States alone determines
whether or not China is conforming with the agreement. Such an approach makes sense in
Washington these days. After all, the U.S. Commerce Department
imposed an export ban on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE last year because it
did not pay fines for violating U.S. sanctions against sales to North Korea and Iran. In other
words, the United States thinks it can unilaterally set sanctions and punish violators without
any consultation with multilateral institutions.
This step goes beyond what the Chinese can tolerate.
"China is not a criminal. Nor is it making any mistakes. Why does the US want to supervise
us?" remarked Professor Wang Yiwei of Renmin University of China in a
recent interview , "If there's a supervision team to oversee the implementation, just like
what happened to ZTE, it is definitely directed at sovereignty and can't be accepted."
These "enforceable commitments" are offensive to China for a reason. This approach to trade
seems little different from the sanctions regimes that the United States put in place against
Iraq before its military invasion, or against Iran as part of an increasing military buildup
that could end in a military conflict. Moreover, the increased U.S. military drills off the
Chinese coast has given the trade negotiations process a negative spin.
The recent comments about the political protests in Hong Kong by secretary of state Mike
Pompeo suggest that those tariffs could quickly become sanctions -- which require even less
adherence to international norms.
And then, in the midst of all that tension, the U.S. military released an
Indo-Pacific Stategy Paper that refers to Taiwan as a "country," the first time the United
States has done so officially in 40 years. The agreement between the United States and the
People's Republic of China, after the normalization of diplomatic relations, required that the
United States not recognize Taiwan as a country, and the People's Republic of China has stated
explicitly that military action was an option in the case of U.S. interference in the Taiwan
question.
The combination of these actions threatens to erase all established norms between the two
nations.
The United States is now considering ending agricultural exports to China, and China is
considering cutting off the sales of rare earth elements to the United States. The latter are
essential for the guidance systems and for sensors in missiles and advance fighter planes. A
F-35 Fighter, for instance, requires 920 pounds of rare earth elements like neodymium iron
boron magnets and samarium cobalt magnets,
according to the Asia Times .
The risk of a rapid acceleration in tensions is no longer theoretical. Remember: the U.S.
decision to end the sale of scrap metal and copper to Japan in 1940, followed by the oil
embargo on August 1, 1941, transformed a trade war into a real war.
Trade should remain separate from security concerns. Moreover, it should not be the
plaything of a small number of men in the White House. The United States and China need to open
a broad dialogue on common concerns, from climate change and rapid technological evolution to
the growing concentration of wealth globally. That dialogue should rely more on citizen-led
dialogues and scholar-led conferences in order to move beyond the narrow negotiation process
that has brought the two countries to the brink of war.
le"> Tariffs raise the cost of goods. Higher generate the opportunities for alternative
sources as well as incentivize domestic production. Never forget that the higher price of
domestic production is offset by the reduction in the costs associated with domestic
unemployment. The reduction of wealth leaving the nation is a primary goal and responsibility
of the federal government. As is maintaining a secure border and civil and economic well
being of it's citizens.
Enjoyed that report. It's refreshing to see a seemingly non-biased examination of Chinese
Economic and Geopolitical relationships. Enjoying the improved air in quality Beijing.
For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment in his
personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction
Trump has two tools at his disposal as president. The first is his mouth: the
insults and threats that he issues verbally or by Twitter.
The second is the tariff. Trump has imposed trade restrictions left and right,
on allies and adversaries, for economic and political reasons, as part of a long-term offensive and out of
short-term pique.
If Trump could use tariffs even more indiscriminately, no doubt he would. He
would delight in slapping trade penalties on the Democratic Party, on Robert Mueller, on the mainstream media, on
all the women who have accused him of harassment, even on the First Lady for
slapping away his hand
at the airport in
Tel Aviv.
Trump the man
favored the legal suit
as his attack of
first resort; Trump the president has discovered the tariff.
With his penchant for naming names, Trump
calls himself
"Tariff Man," as if
boasting of a new superhero power. It's all-too-reminiscent of the cult film
Mystery Men
where the superpowers
are either invisible or risible (Ben Stiller's character, Mr. Furious, for instance, gets really
really
angry).
Trump uses tariffs like a bad cook uses salt. It covers up his lack of
preparation, the poor quality of his ingredients, the blandness of his imagination. It's the only spice in his
spice rack.
The latest over-salted dish to come out of the White House kitchen is the
president's threat to impose a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods on June 10. The threat has nothing to do with
what Mexico has done economically (that's a different set of threatened tariffs). Rather, it's all about
immigration. This time, Trump
will keep inflating
the cost of Mexican
goods "until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP." The tariffs will,
supposedly, rise 5 percent every month until they reach 25 percent in October.
Trump promised as a candidate that Mexico would pay for the wall he wanted to
construct along the southern border. Now, it seems, Mexico will pay for the lack of a wall as well.
The escalation is quite clear. What Mexico has to do to avoid these tariffs is
not.
"So, there's no specific target, there's no specific percent, but things have to
get better," Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney
told Fox News Sunday
. "They have to get
dramatically better and they have to get better quickly."
Such is the usual Sunday morning quarterbacking that happens with White House
officials as they scramble to explain the inexplicable to a baffled news media.
Although they remain in the dark about what's expected of them, Mexican leaders
have warned
that they will apply
counter-tariffs if necessary and that the United States will suffer economically from such a tariff war.
These are not idle threats. Mexico is the third largest U.S. trading partner.
Even congressional Republicans, desperate to avoid this spat, are talking about trying to block the tariffs. Trump
has called them
"foolish" to do so. He
plans to move forward anyway.
Full Spectrum Offensive
Mexico is only the latest country to feel the wrath of Tariff Man.
In 2018, Trump
used Section 201
of the Trade Act to
impose tariffs on solar cells and washing machines, targeting primarily East Asian countries. Shortly thereafter,
he upped his game by assessing a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports, with Canada, Mexico, and the EU getting
hit the hardest.
China, however, has borne the brunt of Trump's animosity. In early May, the
Trump administration announced a surge in tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese
goods. He has also threatened to apply tariffs to the remaining $325 billion worth of Chinese goods entering the
country.
The escalation tactics don't seem to have done much to improve the prospects of
a trade deal between the two countries. China has naturally countered with its own tariffs.
When Trump lashed out against countries competing against the U.S. steel
industry, one of the major exceptions was Australia. That probably won't last long. Just before his Mexico
decision, the president was planning on imposing a tariff on Australian aluminum as well. His advisors
managed to dissuade him
, at least
temporarily.
Canada and Mexico, meanwhile, continue to get a pass on the steel tariffs as
long as the two countries sign a replacement deal for NAFTA. But Trump's latest move against Mexico may
throw that pending agreement
into
jeopardy.
Push Back
The threat and even the reality of retaliatory tariffs seem to have little
effect on Trump. He likes such geopolitical games of chicken. Congressional opposition only whets his appetite for
more confrontation, for he holds even his Republican allies in contempt.
He disregards the more level-headed advice of economic mandarins -- as well as
seven former ambassadors
to Mexico --
because he relishes flouting conventional wisdom in favor of his own unconventional stupidity. If farmers in swing
states protest that the markets for their soybeans have dried up, Trump will just authorize
another massive government purchase
of
their product -- and suddenly prisoners all over America will be surprised by tofu and edamame on their cafeteria
menus.
Republican voters
overwhelmingly support
Trump's trade
policies -- and the president really doesn't care a fig about anyone else.
The only pushback that might have some influence with Trump might be the
business community. The auto sector
is forecasting
billions of dollars in
costs associated with the Mexico tariffs. The Chamber of Commerce, which has come up with a more precise
annual price tag
for U.S. consumers of
$17.3 billion for a tariff level of 5 percent, is
considering
a legal challenge.
If the stock market goes into bearish hibernation, then the president is out of
luck.
Tweeted
Ian Shepherdson, the chief
economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, "he's going to have to blink on tariffs, because the market can't live with
this level of crazy."
Shepherdson is wrong. The market has lived with this kind of crazy for more than
two years. And there are plenty of people who see profit in precisely the kind of volatility that Trump has
brought to financial markets.
When Trump went on a fundraising tour of New York recently, some big-name
financiers leapt at the opportunity to fete the president. Howard Lutnick, the head of Cantor Fitzgerald,
predicted
in 2017 that Trump would
provide a big bump for the world of finance (and, therefore, his own bottom line). Last month, as a reward for
that bump, Lutnick
invited
Trump to his triplex penthouse in
Manhattan and raised over $5 million toward his reelection.
That's the kind of crazy that the market is entirely comfortable with.
Misunderstanding Trade
Tariffs make sense for certain countries.
For instance, East Asian countries used tariffs very successfully to protect
their infant industries -- steel, shipbuilding, information technology -- against the overwhelming market advantages
of more advanced economies. Those tariffs raised the price of imports and encouraged consumers to buy domestic.
Tariffs can be part of a smart industrial policy of picking potential economic winners.
Tariffs can also protect a way of life -- Japanese rice culture, Mexican tortilla
makers, Vermont dairy farmers. Without some kind of trade protection, cheaper goods from outside will completely
overwhelm domestic producers and destroy long-standing traditions. Of course, there are other methods of
preserving such traditions, from government price supports to geographical designations (think: champagne).
Trump's tariffs have nothing to do with either of these aims. U.S. steel is not
an infant industry in need of protection. Trump doesn't care about protecting traditional lifestyles. He has
neither a progressive industrial policy of picking winners and losers in the economy nor a conservative approach
to ensuring the integrity of communities.
For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment
in his personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction. Tariff Man can think of only one way of dealing
with other countries: grabbing them by their trade policies until they squeal.
He believes, mistakenly, that trade is zero-sum (if they lose, American
wins). He also labors under the misconception that the U.S. Treasury somehow grows fat with the proceeds of
tariffs (it doesn't). He is as ignorant of the relations among nations as he is of the relations among people.
Tariff Man's superpower is even more ridiculous than that of Mr. Furious. It's
worse than impotent. It's self-defeating. Let's hope that principle applies ultimately to the 2020 elections as
well.
Share this:
"... Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared, and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy. ..."
"... NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics. ..."
Last month, "Avengers: Endgame" became the highest-grossing American film in the history of
China. It was a seminal moment, suggesting the partnership between China and Hollywood, which over the years has
moved in fits and starts, was finally firing on all cylinders. But the $614 million that Disney-Marvel booked may
turn out to be an outlier.
As the United States ups the stakes in a trade war, there are growing signs that China is quietly
retaliating against the U.S. entertainment business.
Beijing is now constricting Hollywood's ability to peddle its product in the country, say four
people who conduct business in China or closely monitor its relations with Hollywood.
"I don't want to use the words 'total freeze,' but it's real," said John Penotti, the producer of
"Crazy Rich Asians" and head of SK Global who specializes in Asian productions. "They're not saying it officially,
but the industry is operating as if it's close to a total shutdown."
In contrast to many countries, distribution in China requires government approval, and according
to these sources, the Chinese government is unlikely to offer distribution slots to more than a small handful of
movies. The latest Spider-Man, Secret Life of Pets and Toy Story movies appear likely to get the nod, but most other
summer and even fall hopefuls face being locked out of the world's second-largest film market.
Hollywood relies on China to power its foreign box office, which in turn powers its film revenue,
and the standoff reflects how much of a conundrum China represents for Hollywood.
The availability of so many overseas ticket-buyers at a time of intense entertainment competition
at home has been a boon for U.S. studios. But at the same time, the mercurial ways of Chinese regulators and the ways
that market penetration is subject to geopolitical crosswinds also make the nation a vexing place for studios to do
business.
If the trade war wears on and the market remains cut off, it could result in a reduction of the
budgets of studio movies, since it's Chinese yuan that make them possible.
"I think this poses a dire situation for Hollywood," said Aynne Kokas, a professor at the
University of Virginia and author of "Hollywood Made In China," about the complicated relationship between the two
entities. "There definitely will be a trickle-back effect. It's a very dangerous financial position to be reliant on
Chinese box office to recoup profits."
The Chinese market has become a place of increasing importance to the American movie business.
As the country has rapidly built theaters -- it now has more than 65,000 screens, a dozenfold increase compared to a
decade ago -- it has become a cash cow for American studios.
Three of Hollywood's top five movies at the worldwide
box office last year -- "Avengers: Infinity War," "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" and "Aquaman" -- each collected more
than a quarter of their overseas dollars in China.
Other movies owe the country even more of their success. The underwater adventure "The Meg"
notched 40 percent of its foreign total in China, while Steven Spielberg's gamer-themed hit "Ready Player One"
approached 50 percent. China could become the biggest film market as soon as 2020,
according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
But to keep the dollars flowing, studios need those distribution slots. And that's where matters
get dicey.
China officially has a quota allowing in several dozen Hollywood movies per year -- 38 in
2019, 35 the year before. Those numbers are up by more than 20 percent in the past five years.
The Film Bureau and its China Film Group division determine what movies are given a distribution
slot. But with blackout periods, 11th-hour allowances and other unpredictable factors, even those who study the
market say it can be impossible to parse what makes the cut. And lately, with the trade war raging, few movies are.
Vanamali, 6 hours ago
As they say, "Everything is fair in love and war" - the Chinese are using whatever means they have at their disposal
Trump is using Tariffs to hurt the Chinese economy and business and the Chinese of course are going to retaliate with
whatever weapon they have
But gotta love the Trumptards "logic" - "They need our exports, without them they will starve, there will be rioting in
the streets" and "We are doing them a big favor by importing their products, if we shut off our market, their companies
will collapse, massive unemployment, there will be rioting in the streets" Bizarre "logic"
jayster, 12 hours ago (Edited)
Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared,
and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy.
China will defend its interests and retaliate as necessary, especially as they know Trump is an absolute moron.
NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the
Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics.
ES175GC 12 hours ago
Trump is such a vengeful, hating person that it wouldn't surprise me at all that he deliberately wants to hurt all those
Hollywood liberals who despise him so much. "When I get hit, I hit back 10 times harder" is a famous Trump saying.
He operates on a juvenile level, as we all know, like a spoiled whining brat who has to get even with anyone who slights him.
It makes perfect sense that Trump will do everything he can to destroy Hollywood's business with China.
buhaobob, 12 hours ago
I agree except your premise that Trump would do this deliberately would require that Trump have a plan, and he has
demonstrated that his attention span is about the same as that of the average goldfish.
Zop1066, 15 hours ago (Edited)
We certainly do not need Chinese government influence in Hollywood or in any US media, period. Several films recently have
shied away from any even marginally critical reference to China for fear of losing Chinese box office receipts or Chinese
investment.
And the Chinese investors have not even tried to hide that they do indeed influence film scripts to suit the Chinese
government. Enough of that. Best they keep their money and invest perhaps in even harsher great wall internet controls,
internment camps, and super creepy internal population controls.
That'll sure keep the cinema in China boring and nonthreatening. Certainly wouldn't want anyone there to think for themselves
and question their government, no siree.
"... Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce. ..."
"... China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe. ..."
President Trump has threatened China's President Xi that if they don't meet and talk at the
upcoming G20 meetings in Japan, June 29-30, the United States will not soften its tariff war
and economic sanctions against Chinese exports and technology.
Some meeting between Chinese and U.S. leaders will indeed take place, but it cannot be
anything like a real negotiation. Such meetings normally are planned in advance, by specialized
officials working together to prepare an agreement to be announced by their heads of state. No
such preparation has taken place, or can take place. Mr. Trump doesn't delegate authority.
He opens negotiations with a threat. That costs nothing, and you never know (or at least, he
never knows) whether he can get a freebee. His threat is that the U.S. can hurt its adversary
unless that country agrees to abide by America's wish-list. But in this case the list is so
unrealistic that the media are embarrassed to talk about it. The US is making impossible
demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the
surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0.
America's wish list: other countries' neoliberal subservience
At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like
puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to
the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning
China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the
financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.
U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil
(or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology.
This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive
economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S.
demands.
The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade "partners" pay
interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys
monopoly pricing "rights" for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other
countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods
whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade "partner" surrenders.
China's willingness to give Trump a "win"
Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if
his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is
really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers
and investors if China does not acquiesce.
It is easy to see what China's answer will be. It will stand aside and let the US
self-destruct. Its negotiators are quite happy to "offer" whatever China has planned to do
anyway, and let Trump brag that this is a "concession" he has won.
China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama
got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together,
driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to
Europe.
Trump may be too narcissistic to realize the irony here. Catalyzing Asian and European trade
independence, financial independence, food independence and IT independence from the threat of
U.S. sanctions will leave the U.S. isolated in the emerging multilateralism.
America's wish for a neoliberal Chinese Yeltsin (and another Russian Yeltsin for that
matter)
A good diplomat does not make demands to which the only answer can be "No." There is no way
that China will dismantle its mixed economy and turn it over to U.S. and other global
investors. It is no secret that the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the
late 19 th and early 20 th century by heavy public-sector subsidy of
education, roads, communication and other basic infrastructure. Today's privatized,
financialized and "Thatcherized" economies are high-cost and inefficient.
Yet U.S. officials persist in their dream of promoting some neoliberal Chinese leader or
"free market" party to wreak the damage that Yeltsin and his American advisors wrought on
Russia. The U.S. idea of a "win-win" agreement is one in which China will be "permitted" to
grow as long as it agrees to become a U.S. financial and trade satellite, not an independent
competitor.
Trump's trade tantrum is that other countries are simply following the same economic
strategy that once made America great, but which neoliberals have destroyed here and in much of
Europe. U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage and become a high-cost rentier economy. Its GDP is
"empty," consisting mainly of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) rents, profits and
capital gains while the nation's infrastructure decays and its labor is reduced to a prat-time
"gig" economy. Under these conditions the effect of trade threats can only be to speed up the
drive by other countries to become economically self-reliant.
The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? The Chinese won't let the Jews in to loot the place and the Jews are pissed.
Trumpstein, the cryto Jew, has promised his sponsors to rectify the situation. The Chinese
witnessed what happened when Yeltsin allowed the IMF to parachute Jeffrey Sachs and his Jew
Boys into Russia in 1991 Jews looted the place mercilessly, calling it democracy and
capitalism, and Russia is still recovering. The Chinese have a bright future, as long as they
keep the Jews out.
I agree.
I am afraid spokes person Trump and those he is speaking for have it wrong. They believe
external trade is interfering with the La-Zi-Faire fat cat monopoly powered corporations the
CPI (congress, president and Israeli governance represent.
Few western companies can compete because only monopoly endowed Global corporations are
allowed or licensed to compete. Individual ability, the creative mind of the lone rangers
with highly disruptive inventions and ideas, are not allowed access to the knowledge or money
to play. Making people pay for sleazy operating systems when better ones are free, allowing
big corporations to hack the data of everyone, and on and on.
Even when a person finds a way to play and actually produces a product or concept, the
financial condition of the inventor is so weak or the barriers to promote his product is so
strong that as soon as the idea or product is patented or copyrighted it somehow absorbed
into one of the monopoly powered giants; in other words, competition is only allowed if the
competitor gives the profits to one of the monopoly powered giants. China should be
complaining, at least their competitors can produce, in the USA governed America unlicensed
competition is denied.
Copyright, patents, standardized testing and licensing every breath have terminated
competition in America.
America still competes with Americans as long as the business does not compete with the
global corporations.
The problem Trump thinks he can solve, is not sourced in India, China, Iran, Russia, or
any other nation. The problem is at home, in government policy, laws that turn capitalistic
competition into monopolistic fat-cat wealth storing private domain havens. Education by
degree and license by examination and standardization of performance are used to restrict
competition. Education, is a bureaucracy and no matter its efficiency; a degree cannot
provide competitive performance. The USA governance over America has served only the interest
of monopoly endowed corporations and their oligarch owners and investors. Trump is trying to
overcome foreign competition, by threat and blocking maneuvers, to deny foreigners the fruits
of their competitive successes I do not believe he can be successful. Already the Russian and
Chinese have developed a new currency and banking system to circumvent the Trump block. Work
around-s are in progress everywhere.. Soon even the USA will not be allowed to compete I
fear.
It is not a matter of where the competition comes from, its that the monopoly powers have
used the behavior enforcing rule making capacity of the USA to deny native American
creativity; creativity that America needs to be competitive. USA policy continues to be to
enrich a few by channeling and encapsulating all effort within the confines of the monopoly
holders instead of encouraging every back yard to be a new competitor. It will be many years
before Americans will be able to compete..
What Trump is now demanding reminds me of the brutally efficient system that Trump grew up
in: New York City business. (Author Tom Wolfe has a great line in his book The Bonfire Of The
Vanities that the strange, unrelenting background droning sound one hears in NYC is that of
"people constantly braying for money").
New York City real estate in particular is an area of business that is so brutally
competitive, unscrupulous , and backstabbing that it is best described as war under another
name. It is a business arena where a close friend one day can turn into a staunch enemy the
next. Trust is rare.
New York real estate, in fact, brings to mind the old saying about sausage making: You
would never eat it if you saw it being made. Yet deals are made. In fact, a lot of them. This
is the milieu Trump comes from.
Trump isn't one of those more genteel, old-time American negotiators of prior years the
author of this article speaks fondly of. These are the very same people who so readily agreed
to disasters like NAFTA or allowed, for instance, Or allowed Japan to levy two hundred
percent duties on things like American made Harley Davidson motorcycles while the USA was
pressured (or bribed) to apply few if any comparable duties on Japanese motorcycles or
automobiles (or virtually anything else Japan sold in the USA). These toothless. genteel
types also stood back for decades and allowed Japan to use red tape (like obscure safety
regulations for instance) to make it almost impossibly difficult to sell American products
like automobiles in Japan.
These very same US negotiators, politicians, and bureaucrats have more recently stood back
and allowed China to absolutely devastate American manufacturing.
Screw China, It's now payback time. The Chinese are shaking in their boots because the
previously hoodwinked and comatose Americans are finally waking up. No more wimpy Obama or
Bush looking out for our interests. It is now Truly Scary Trump instead.
Wait until the negotiations are concluded to see if they are successful. The sausage that
comes out of them might be very appealing for the first time in many, many decades.
" His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing
sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce "
I get that the US financial system is up to no good with their positions on China but the
criticisms Trump made of China are correct. They have lots of tariffs on finished goods from
the US. They require technology transfer to do business there. Their government and industry
are tied at the hip and they are manipulating their currency. All these things are true and
if we keep trading with them with the same terms we have been we would lose ALL our
industrial infrastructure. Now we hear over and over how we can't build anything but the
Chinese went from being dirt farmers to the largest industrial power in a fairly short period
of time. Could we not do the same at least for our own countries market? Certainly global
trade destruction between countries is not a good thing but we'd be fools to keep on as we
are now. At some point when you dig a hole you have to stop to get yourself out.
I don't think we have a choice if we wish to continue to be an industrialized country. All
those that say China will do fine without us are not taking into account how all the other
countries who are being handled the exact same way as we are, are going to handle China's
trade with them. Will they keep allowing China to have large tariffs on their products while
they Chinese ship whatever they wish into theirs? I'm not so sure they will. If the US starts
refusing the Chinese free entry without reciprocal trade then I can easily see others
following our lead.
We should have stopped this many years ago but as bad as the situation is now it will only
get worse if we don't act.
Let them remove their tariffs. We should take every single anti-trade act and tariff they
have on us, weigh them on China and "then" negotiate. If they don't wish to it's their
country they can do what they please and so can we.
"The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? "
Absolutely. Like inviting a handful of worms into your apple -- economy hollowed out in an
eye blink.
However, there is another side to this "trade dispute" coin.
FIRE want to economicly destroy China. The neocon', MIC, security sector wants to destroy
China's 2025 plan to become high-tech world leaders. 5G, AI, semi conductors etc are some of
the areas that China's public/private sectors are voraciously pushing. Hence, the
(wonderfully "free market") US attacks on Heiwai.
These short term US gambles are more than likely to pay off by the medium-long term
undermining of US hegemony via Eurasian integration led by China & Russia.
And all the time we are left wondering whether the US will choose the "Samson Option" rather
than accept reduced status. (Insane with power lust, the US can't even accept "first among
equals")
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold
War 2.0
.
Typical mobster protection racket threats. Now the US has moved from waging military wars
on behalf of their Jewish owners to aggressively push their neoliberal economic warfare for
them. The facade for promoting democracy and human rights is no longer required.
And to call attempts at starving the population and murdering children by denying them
essential medicines as has happened in Iraq and now is going on in Iran and Venezuela, a Cold
War 2.0 is a gross understatement. It is a flagrant act of war. America is launching a war of
attrition on the world and who better to spearhead that war than an idiot manipulated by
Zionist Jews? The fact that many countries remain silent is testament to their surrender. But
China may prove to be a different proposition.
"the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19th and early 20th
century" That is a myth. The US may have had the highest GDP because it was the leader in
manufacturing, as China is now, but Europe and in particular Germany was far ahead of the US
in technology and science. If you compare China to the US today the situation is very similar
to comparing the US to Germany before 1939. Germany was far ahead of the US in the number of
Nobel Prizes received thru 1945 and very few of the Americans that did receive the Nobel
Prize were native born. The US received a few Nobel Prizes starting in the 1940's because
some recent European immigrants that became US citizens received it for work they had done in
Europe. The three biggest technological breakthroughs of WW II were the jet, the rocket and
the atomic bomb. Germany invented the jet, built the first modern rockets and the German
scientist Otto Hahn split the atom in 1939 (for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1944)
kicking off the USA's atomic bomb project and Germany's limited attempt. The people that
eventually achieved success in the US were almost all recent European immigrants (Bethe,
Teller, etc.), many being Jewish.
I basically agree with the rest of the article. I believe Trump's tactics make sense. The
problem is it's too late. The US economy can't be fixed by anyone. The US has 22 trillion
dollars in debt and will never be able to pay it back. The dollar is going to take a deep
dive within the next few years and it will lose its status as the reserve currency. I believe
this based upon what people like Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, David Stockman and Ron
Paul say.
I think the two biggest events of the last 75 years were WW II, completely changing the
countries that run the world and the emergence of a backwards and dirt poor China to become
an economic powerhouse and I think they will get stronger.
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept.
Yes country. If the world was one big free trade area, it there were no bloks or even no
countries in the sense we understand them then the population of the would be wealthier, on
average. But countries are not primarily economic units, even if one can look at them as
such.
Nation states exist and have the emergent quality that they to survive against other
nation states and the best way to do that is to gain extra power relative to other states, or
at least maintain their position. Why would America agree to terms of trade that do not
maintain its position relative to China.
U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage
There is no absolute standards by which such an advantage could be judged. The terms of
trade that are finally settled on will be a compromise and reflect the interests of both, and
the total balance of forces between the two.
The combination of both nations will make it extremely difficult for Washington to impose
its hegemonic agenda without serious repercussions as two of the world's leading military
forces seek to increase the level of co-operation between their nations.
Trump's Trade Tariff Theatre 2018 results:
Country/Trade Balance/2018 vs. 2017
Mexico: trade DEFICIT -$81.5 billion; up 14.9% from 2017;
Canada: trade DEFICIT -$19.8 billion; up 15.8% from 2017;
China: trade DEFICIT -$375.6 billion; up 11.6% from 2017;
South Korea: trade DEFICIT -$17.9 billion; down 22.4% from 2017;
Japan: trade DEFICIT -$67.7 billion; down 1.8% from 2017
Germany: trade DEFICIT -$68.3 billion; up 7.2% from 2017;
France: trade DEFICIT -$16.2 billion; up 5.8% from 2017;
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: trade DEFICIT -$10.5 billion; up 313.3% from 2017;
Russia: trade DEFICIT -$14.1 billion; up 40.9% from 2017;
Asia: trade DEFICIT -$622.2 billion; up 8.8% from 2017;
Europe: trade DEFICIT -$202.4 billion; up 16.6% from 2017;
World: trade DEFICIT -$795.7 billion; up 10.4% from 2017
To all of the "free traders", the media ,and academia ,i have this simple question:
why i cant purchase a Toyota work van(the best and must popular of the world),neither here in
the USA nor abroad and bring it in?
how come that even in Cuba there are more of those Toyota work van than here in all
continental USA.
In 25 year i has to purchase more than 6 work vans,and like Penelope i have been waiting for
the Toyota ,and still waiting.
They ,the free traders,did not has allowed not even one.
The problem with the zio/US is the control of the US by the zionists and this control is
derived via the zionist privately owned FED and IRS that they got installed in 1913 and then
came the debt and wars and the hijacking of the foreign policy by the satanic zionists and
the US gov was started on a down hill slide pushed started by the zionists!
The trade policy of the zio/US has turned Russia into the largest grain exporter in the
world and turned Russia into an agriculture miracle , this can be shown by watch videos of
Russian agriculture on youtube. Germany is also in Russia building cars and other industrial
products for Russia thus bypassing the zio/US trade sanctions and last but not least Russia
is trading in non dollars in trade with more and more countries such as China thus
effectively rendering the dollar non and void in international trade.
So the people of the zio/US can thank their zionist masters for the demise of America and
true to form the zionist parasites are killing their American host
Join Mike Maloney as he examines the latest moves in the US/China trade war, and visits
some compelling arguments from the Foundation for Economic Education.
The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by
many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the
direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful
families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.
"Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time
if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. "
Tariffs are taxes and both governments like collecting taxes.
Farmers. Farmers sell a commodity so if they cannot sell to China one result is they will
sell to other customers while China buys more from other producers.
Cost of living. DC does not care. There is a solid inflation lobby in the fed that
supports increasing the cost of living.
"Walmart and much of the IT sector against him." I am not buying it.
Well, more accurate to say that Germany and Britain invented the jet engine independently
of each other. Just as they both invented radar independently of each other as well.
As it is, the post-war jet engine was based primarily on the British design of Frank
Whittle, though some of the German ideas were also later incorporated.
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that
the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment
maker's patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion, a person briefed on the
matter said on Wednesday.
Verizon should pay to "solve the patent licensing issue," a Huawei intellectual property
licensing executive wrote in February, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier. The patents
cover network equipment for more than 20 of the company's vendors including major U.S. tech
firms but those vendors would indemnify Verizon, the person said. Some of those firms have been
approached directly by Huawei, the person said.
The patents in question range from core network equipment, wireline infrastructure to
internet-of-things technology, the Journal reported. The licensing fees for the more than 230
patents sought is more than $1 billion, the person said.
Huawei has been battling the U.S. government for more than a year. National security experts
worry that "back doors" in routers, switches and other Huawei equipment could allow China to
spy on U.S. communications. Huawei has denied that it would help China spy.
Companies involved, including Verizon have notified the U.S. government and the dispute
comes amid a growing feud between China and the United States. The licensing fee demand may be
more about the geopolitical battle between China and the United States rather than a demand for
patent fees.
Huawei and Verizon representatives met in New York last week to discuss some of the patents
at issue and whether Verizon is using equipment from other companies that could infringe on
Huawei patents.
Verizon spokesman Rich Young declined to comment "regarding this specific issue because it's
a potential legal matter."
However, Young said, "These issues are larger than just Verizon. Given the broader
geopolitical context, any issue involving Huawei has implications for our entire industry and
also raise national and international concerns."
Huawei and U.S. wireless carriers T-Mobile US Inc and AT&T Inc did not respond to
Reuters' requests for comment. Sprint Corp declined to comment.
The United States last month put Huawei on a blacklist that barred it from doing business
with U.S. companies on security grounds without government approval, prompting some global tech
firms to cut ties with the world's largest telecoms equipment maker.
Washington is also seeking the extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Executive Meng Wanzhou
from Canada after her arrest in Vancouver last December on a U.S. warrant.
China has since upped the pressure on Canada, halting Canadian canola imports and in May
suspended the permits of two major pork producers.
(Reporting by Arjun Panchadar in Bengaluru and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by
Anil D'Silva, Sriraj Kalluvila and Sandra Maler)
The common migrant cannot be tasked with improving the politics, the financial aspects,
the pay scale, the opportunities for work, the safety of his family in his home country.
The USA has prepared his country the way that it endeavors it to be. That is a vassal,
saddled with World Bank, IMF Debt and currency with ever-declining value pegged to the us
dollar.
Often the US controls his country via election rigging, coups, military intervention,
black ops, etc.
He must do that which best serves his family. That is find the most efficient solution -
which is migration.
" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it
consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"
This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.
IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global
supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).
BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake
of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists
desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think
they are losing in the globalisation race.
The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of
mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and
contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries
want to import less and export more.
BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by
being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer,
so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as
Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).
So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it
creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing
international tensions.
We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many
brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it
easy for the UK to play mercantilist.
I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists,
but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed
preference".
This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also
EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are
rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a
rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in
practice trying to do.
The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries
inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that
must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money
finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.
The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as
on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on
an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes
known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)
The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets
VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.
So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic
inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and
asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy
that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net
exporting countries).
The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal
consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where
internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by
exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net
importers.
However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end
up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to
blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are
forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.
“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may
not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”
As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a
(real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict
–
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my
Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.
“As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable
to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese
conflict “
Crash, then conflict?
One possibility is a US market crash entirely due to domestic shenanigans, followed by
demagogue blaming it all on “Chiner.”
The first explicit reaction against globalization to gain
popular attention was the Battle of Seattle in 1999
Why not the Zapatista uprising in 1994? It was explicitly against Nafta and neoliberalism.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis also triggered a very strong reaction against the US centered
globalized financial system, its hedge funds, and the IMF.
the neoliberal ideology on which it rested, didn't face any serious challenge until the
Global Financial Crisis of 2008
In 2003, the unified challenge of the poorer countries was so serious that it the collapsed
the WTO talks to the point that it has never recovered. 2008 was simply catastrophic.
More than globalization being challenged, I think it is US hegemony. Trump is definitely
uniting its challengers with his media circus in Venezuela, disruptive tariff threats against
Mexico, and the blacklisting of Huawei.
Likbez 06.09.19 at 11:38 pm (no link)
Trump election in 2016 was in essence a rejection of neoliberal globalization by the
American electorate which showed the USA neoliberal establishment the middle finger. That's
probably why Russiagate hysteria was launched to create a smoke screen and patch the
cracks.
The same is probably true about Brexit. That's also explains Great Britain prominent role
in pushing anti-Russia hysteria.
I think the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 (along with the collapse of financial
markets) mortally wounded "classic" neoliberal globalization. That's why we see the
conversion of classic neoliberalism into Trump's "national neoliberalism" which rejects
"classic" neoliberal globalization based on multinational treaties like WTO.
As the result of crisis of neoliberal ideology we see re-emergence of far-right on the
political scene. We might also see the emergence of hostile to each other trading blocks
(China Russia Turkey Iran; possibly plus Brazil and India ) vs G7. History repeats
I suspect that the USA neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy and MIC) views the current
trade war with China as the key chance to revitalize Cold War schemes and strategically
organize US economic, foreign and security policies around them. It looks like this strategic
arrangement is very similar to the suppression of the USSR economic development during the
Cold War.
The tragedy is that Trump administration is launching the conflict with China, while
simultaneously antagonizing Russia, attacking EU and undermining elements of the postwar
world order which propelled the USA to its current hegemonic position.
On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of
visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students
thinking of studying in the US over concerns for their safety and security.
Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities
and many now have the impression they are not welcome in the US.
The Global Times , speaking on behalf of the government stated:
The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as
thieves. The US boasts too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its
short history, it lacks understanding of and respect for the rules of countries and laws of
the market.
The Americans of the early generations accumulated prosperity and prestige for the US,
while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by ruining the world's
respect for the US."
... ... ...
The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei
Jianguo, said:
China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience,
and Chinese people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the
Chinese nation has been accustomed to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance
against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or the War to Resist US Aggression and
Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's fundamental
victory in history."
The Peoples' Daily stated, "America is the enemy of the world."
Trump is not a thinker, and never was. He is an impulsive narcissist. So the question is
whether the USA committed a blunder by unleashing open trade war with China, the war which now
extent the Cold War 2 to another nation (cementing emerging alliance between Russia and China
which is a death sentence to the USA global hegemony) and where the USA faces very resilient and
inventive opponent. And they will lose even if they win.
I actually am amazed by the level of reclines and arrogance the USA democratic is such topic.
I do not see multiyear preparation, mobilization of engineering talent and resources that is
needed for successfully procuring such a war. It looks like completely impulsive decision
partially based on the attempt to get some additional concessions from China. That attempt which
spectacularly failed and fueled very dangerous for the USA a wave of Chinese nationalists within
mainland china.
The key issue here is that is current stage of neoliberal decine the USA can't rely on
loyalty of its own key players and citizets ("greed is good" is the motto of neoliberalism; plus
Chinese have probably a very good access to Taiwan high technology industry, the access which is
impossible to cut). Such a low level loyalty previously existed just before the USA collapse,
when the CIA was able to tranfere to the West a mid level cipher officer from KGB headquarters (
Sheymov defected to
the United States in May 1980) and recruit at least one general (Kalugin). Actually KGB was at
the center and the main driving force of neoliberal counterrevolution in Russia (Trojan Horse so
to speak), as under Andropov they switch sides. So they were naturally allied with CIA at this
point
the point is that it does not take too much efforts for foreign intelligence agency now to
recruit the US citizens as the collapse of neoliberal ideology creates fertile ground for such an
efforts, much like the collapse of Bolsheviks ideology did for the USA. Some can just volunteer
appalled by the actions of neoliberal empire. In this sense cases of Manning and Snowen should
serve the US administration a stern warning sign that it is a very dangerous to rock the boat if
the country experience a collapse of imperial ideology (Neoliberalism). In this case the trade
war might be more difficult then they think.
China has more people and produce per year more engineers in STEM. So the USA does not hoild
allthe cards. it it has some advantages over the USA in the long term. Also the current
technologies are pretty established and "innovation" is often is limited to shriking the silicon
die and adding more core for CPUs.
Actually Intel CPUs have a horrible really outdated CISC instruction set and there might be
chance to use different instruction set with better overall chanracteristics. Only the billions
that Intel get from sales allow it to outpace the rivals. Failed stqrtup Transmeta, for exampel,
in late 1990th tried to emulate it via RISK. If throwing out emulation layer speeds up things
twice or more, why not to use this path giving enough man power, money and level of animosity
toward the USA?
The mechanism would "prevent and resolve national security risks", Xinhua said. Details
would be released soon, it added.
The announcement comes amid a souring of relations with the US after the most recent round
of trade negotiations ended without a deal in May.
Since then, the Trump administration has blacklisted Chinese telecommunications equipment
maker Huawei, while China has threatened to punish foreign companies that cut off ties with
Huawei by listing them as "unreliable".
The new Chinese regulations could prove similar to US export controls on strategic
technologies. Those controls -- covering military equipment, some encryption technologies, and
some dual-use products -- have long irked China. Chinese negotiators have often claimed that
their trade surplus could be trimmed if the US would relax controls on high-tech goods.
The mechanism will be developed by the National Reform and Development Commission under the
guidelines of China's national security law ,
passed in 2015, Xinhua said.
"This is a major step to improve [China's system] and also a move to counter the US
crackdown," tweeted Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid that
is sometimes used to float ideas that are not official policy. "Once taking effect, some
technology exports to the US will be subject to the control." Last month, the NDRC implied it
would block exports of rare earths , a material
with many strategic applications. After the trade talks broke down in May, Chinese president Xi
Jinping visited a manufacturer of rare earths magnets, used in electric vehicles and other new
technology applications, as a reminder that China holds some trump cards of its own.
READ Massages and free fish help east Europe tackle labour shortages
Rare earth are used in smartphones, lasers, instrument panels, wind turbines and MRI
machines and more than 90 per cent of hybrid and electric cars.
"... Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York Times ..."
"... "This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration, through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy. ..."
Beijing put big tech on notice last week, threatening 'dire
consequences' if companies such as Microsoft, Dell and Samsung comply with the Trump
administration's ban on sales of key American technology to Chinese companies, according to the
New York
Times . Any companies which cooperate with the new policy ' could face permanent
consequences ,' according to the Times. Chinese authorities also suggested using DC lobbyists
to resist the government's moves.
China - which is already
ditching Microsoft Windows for military applications - held a flurry of meetings on Tuesday
and Wednesday after tech firms for discussions amid the backdrop of Beijing's planned blacklist
of blacklisting
of US firms on an "unreliable entities list."
Also participating in meetings were semiconductor companies Arm of Britain and SK Hynix of
South Korea, according to the report, which cites a KPMG estimate that around 60% of all
semiconductors sold are connected to China's supply chain, so maybe by that new computer sooner
than later.
The breakneck unraveling of the world's most important trade relationship has left
companies and governments around the world scrambling . While the dispute had already been
nettlesome for Chinese-U.S. relations, the sudden ban on Huawei last month caught many by
surprise , raising the stakes by striking at the heart of China's long-term technological
ambitions.
Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic
weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship
is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical
reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to
freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York
Times
"This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration,
through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and
otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy.
More broadly, the warnings also seemed to be an attempt to forestall a fast breakup of the
sophisticated supply chains that connect China's economy to the rest of the world .
Production of a vast array of electronic components and chemicals, along with the assembly of
electronic products , makes the country a cornerstone of the operations of many of the
world's largest multinational companies. - New York
Times
"The Chinese government has regularly resorted to jawboning multinationals to try to keep
them in line when there are disputes between China and others that could lead these companies
to reduce their business in China."
For example, in 2015 Xi dropped by Seattle before heading to meet with President Obama.
While there, he had a chat with Amazon executives and Chinese tech executive in order to woo
them on the prospect of future business, while the Obama administration was reportedly trying
to push back against China's anticompetitive trade practices .
That said, China is far less likely to succeed this time around , according to Kennedy, who
says that " American companies aren't going to violate American laws, especially in such a
high-profile context where their actions are scrutinized."
"The companies are between a rock and a hard place, but that hard place will win out."
Three Chinese government bodies are involved in the recent discussions; the National
Development and Reform Commission (China's central economic planning agency), the Ministry of
Commerce and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The Times posits that the
fact that the three are all involved suggests the meetings came from the top-down in an attempt
to rally support for Huawei - which was not specifically named.
" There is a strong perception in Beijing that the U.S. government is intent on blunting
China's technology rise , and that if this process is not slowed or stopped, the future of
China's entire digital economy is at risk," said Eurasia Group head of geotechnology, Paul
Triolo, adding "Mr. Xi and the party will be seen as unable to defend China's economic future"
it Huawei's 5G rollout is derailed by the Trump administration.
As the trade relationship between the United States and China has broken down, fears have
risen in China that major companies will seek to move production elsewhere to avoid
longer-term risks . In the meetings this week, Chinese officials explicitly warned companies
that any move to pull production from China that seemed to go beyond standard diversification
for security purposes could lead to punishment , according to the two people. - New York
Times
"China Threatens 'Dire Consequences' If Tech Giants Comply With Trump Ban"
"And US Threatens Jail If They Don't"
Love it love it love it. Reminds me of the great line from Pride & Prejudice, "You're
mother will never speak to you again if you marry him, and I (your father) will never speak
to you again if you don't."
In R&D spending, China ranks 2nd place after US. China has over 8M new grads each
year. Do you really believe stealing can make a country great. The trade war is about
suppressing a new rising power of technology and economy.
There's a whole lot more to what China is up to than buying and selling. They've been
working on how to rule the whole earth for 5000 years and the CCP thinks maybe now is the
time. Here's a brief history of Chinese power games. They play for keeps. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189701&sec_id=189701
China's fightback strategy is simple: Force non-us corporations to abandon us-sourced
technologies, and, hence, non-us corporations will not be bound by US laws, and, hence, won't
subject to us blackmail laws.
The strategy already worked. ARM's founder said it will have to abandon US-sourced
technology ( eventually abandon US-located headquarters) to keep the Chinese market, and, so
other non-us corporations, such as Europe, Japanese, or Korean based corporations will have
to follow. They have no other feasible choices.
In short, the world is divided into two groups: US group and non-us group. Congratulations
to Trump: He has succeeded in isolating US from the world.
First step is to encourage, urge and force non-us corporations to make the choice using
the gigantic china market.
Second step is to drive out us corporations at the time when there is alternative for
US-made parts. Whenever US corporation is not the sole supplier, then China will declare that
any product containing that part will be forbidden in the Chinese market. And, to make the
situation even worse for US-sourced technology, any parts produced by non-us corporations
using US-sourced technology will not be allowed in the Chinese market.
This is the reverse of the entity list.
In this game, one that has a bigger market prevails. China just happened to have 1.4
billion consumers while US has less than 0.4 billion. China wins. By poisoning American
sourced technology, China will succeed in isolating US corporations.
You seem to be confused. ARM created a separate joint venture in China called ARM mini
China that will license existing tech to China as a way to circumvent US rules. However, this
creates a Chinese ARM license separate from the rest of the world. So it is China that is
actually separated from further innovation outside of China.
The Roman Emperor Caligula is best known for appointing his horse to one of the vacant
consulships. Given the current quality of professional politicians on offer in the western
world, he does not seem as crazy as he once was thought to be.
But he is also known for something else-- the phrase "Oderint dum Metuant" -- which is
Latin for "Let them hate (us), so long as they fear (us)."
Not my favorite motto but I'll take it over "Here's my wallet. Don't you like me now?"
"... The US has decided that China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital alarm clock can not be allowed. ..."
"... Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time. ..."
"... We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown suit. ..."
"... Much More Than a Trade War ..."
"... it signals the implosion of America's tinsel, derivative-based economy ..."
"... the high dive of the middle class into serfdom ..."
"... Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's right, US politicians and MBAs. ..."
"... The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals. No matter how much they donate to your campaign. ..."
"... Asking this of a politician is like asking a leech to stop living off blood. ..."
I watch Fox News Sunday and today all of the usual suspects were blaming Trump for
everything under the sun--including committing crimes and needing to be put in jail. It bears
repeating that they said the same things about Reagan and his trade wars--which benefited
Americans immensely.
Trump will win unless the Dems can get rid of him. China is a paper tiger and always has
been.
They are a totalitarian communist state and as such are a sworn enemy of the US and its
historic peoples. They must be taken down and that is not hyperbole--they never should have
been allowed to trade with the civilized world in the first place without first shutting down
the Kims in Norkland and dismantling their communist state.
Russia would have been more in
order in 1992 than China. ******* Clintons.
(Those companies and organizations which have contributed to and/or financed the creation
of the Chinese Communist Party's ultra-Orwellian system for command and control: Social
Credit System.)
Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, Yahoo, Narus
Rockefeller Foundation, MIT, Princeton University, University of Texas System,
Northwestern University, Oregon State Treasury, et al.
Recommended Reading:
The People's Republic of the Disappeared --- by Michael Caster
Bullets and Opium --- by Liao Yiwu
The People's Republic of Amnesia --- by Louisa Lim
Recommended Viewing:
In the Name of Confucius --- DVD (Jia Kongzi, Zhi Ming)
Free China - Free China --- DVD (Zi You Zhongguo)
The Sun Behind the Clouds [Tibet's Struggle for Freedom] --- DVD
Is it so hard to understand that the chinks KNOW that the yuan is trash and that's why
both the CB and the public are stacking gold. They're preparing for what comes next.
According to Jim Willie, that will be an Asian gold trade note as proposed by the PM of
Malaysia.
"China and its citizens would greatly benefit from eliminating barriers."
It's too bad they never did this, but now it no longer matters. The US has decided that
China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if
all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital
alarm clock can not be allowed.
China would do best to forget about the US and hope that it can make due with it's
domestic market. With 1.3 billion people this seems like it should be possible.
They need dollars to buy US goods and services. They also need them to buy oil from
Saudis. They have dollar based loans that require payment in dollars.
"The United States has discovered the Achilles heel of China. The same one Japan had in
the 80s when it seemed that it was going to invade the world. Its dependence on the US dollar
to maintain its large domestic imbalances, a very fragile house of cards of excess capacity,
real estate bubble and unproductive spending."
Oh, yeah. .......we just "figured" that one out. It's not like we haven't used that scheme
on.......well, EVERYONE. Even our own citizens are slaves to a debt dollar system. It is all
we got left......well that and the A-bomb. But at the same time, it is our biggest weakness
because if we can't get the world to expand dollar debt, 5 hen we will have to do it
ourselves. Hence the, "China is not the largest holder of US bonds in the world, not even
close. It's the
US . In fact, China has already reduced part of its holdings in US bonds and yields fell
."
We are the largest holder of our own debt.....and can print up what we need to buy what is
necessary to drive yields down. But at some point it will be like playing monopoly with
yourself......a zero sum game. Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures
will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time.
Indeed. Anyone pushing that narrative is part of the totalitarian regime or is dumb as a
bag of hammers. Either way, they lose all credibility in my opinion.
The author has never been to China to know anything about it, much less write about it,
and he knows even less about the trade relationships of the two countries.
For instance, He says: " China has a trade deficit with most of its other partners"....
WRONG!!!! It is the U.S. who has the deficits with other countries, not China! China
has a manufacturing economy, not a consumer economy, so the trade balance is in its favor, as
manufacturing economies are in demand and have very little deficit.
And the author also reveals his biases about China by saying: "China's Achilles heel has
been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining capital controls and increasing state
intervention...." What do you think the U.S. Federal Reserve does, if it is not the very same
thing? Weren't they the ones who sets interest rates, control the rates of inflation,
dictating the supply of money, and doing economic bailouts to the banks in 2008 and 2009 with
our money?
Secondly, he is just regurgitating the same old propaganda already put out about China,
and really doesn't provide anything new. Why can't ZH find better writers to publish than
this?
You are correct. China usually runs surpluses. But not with everyone.
In 2018, China posted a trade surplus of USD 351.76 billion, the lowest since 2013, as
exports increased 9.9 percent, its strongest performance in seven years, while imports were
up 15.8 percent. The biggest trade surpluses were recorded with Hong Kong, the US, the
Netherlands, India, the UK, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia. China recorded trade deficits
with Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Germany, Brazil and South Africa.
"China's Achilles heel has been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining
capital controls and increasing state intervention...."
This is impossible. One cannot institute strong capital controls and have a reserve
currency at the same time. China knows this and has never tried to become the reserve
currency.
yeah, they said they'd work on "migration" into their country, and try to do something
about those staged caravans..but what they didn't do is say they'd stop their citizens from
invading the US like they have been doing for decades, and they didn't say they'd secure
their side of the border between the US and Mexico. So, how is the border more secure
exactly? Oh, and they didn't say they'd pay for a wall.
These same games go on, round and round, between both parties, with people twisting
everything, including nothing burgers and actual defeats into some kind of bizarre "winning"
********, to avoid legitimate criticism of their idol in the White House. Trumpets and
Obamabots are peas in a pod in more ways than they realize, but watch out, you'll get an eye
jab if you walk between them, with all the fingers pointing.
Winning, like alcohol, is addictive. Sometimes you find yourself all out of booze, so you
find yourself taking swigs of Aqua Velva. Lots of Aqua Velva heads around here.
Same old script: China bad. China steals. China need to shape up or else. USA good. USA too soft on China. USA will be great again when China surrenders to US
slavery. Think that about sums up these articles.
I agree. The "investor" class. And by that i do not mean all investors, just the non
productive LEECHES at the top playing games with fake "financial instruments"
They are non producers. They are lampreys. Same as on the bottom. I have absolutely no
problem with rich people. I am blessed to hang with many self made millionaires who are all
about designing / manufacturing unique products sold all over the world. They produce wealth
and a product, not by skimming.
We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth
creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown
suit.
But.... it actually works. There will ALWAYS be a market for well engineered quality
products . ALWAYS.
Don't chase that race to the bottom. That is what was sold to the Us
Consooooooooooooooooooooooooooomer (**** I hate that name, I am not a consumer) for the last
thirty year. They bought the ****, they own it. **** em, let 'em choke on the icrapple and
other swarf.
Ha.
I am not balls deep in debt. My total life debt so far is $800. USA incorporated... THEY
have debt. That is not my debt.
Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not
the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's
right, US politicians and MBAs.
Yes, we have Democrat and Republican pols at the federal level spending this country into
decline by trillions, and financing it all with inflation, which is why we're paying higher
prices for virtually everything now, than we've ever paid.
The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to
undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals.
No matter how much they donate to your campaign.
BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) -- For years, non-U.S. transnational firms, vying to carve a niche
in the global market with cutting-edge technologies or products, often find themselves fronting
an opponent far more powerful and brutal than any commercial rival they have ever contested
with -- the U.S. government.
Many foreign entities, whose business may seem irrelevant to the United States, have been
forced by Washington with threats of sanctions to comply with U.S. domestic laws and
regulations.
"After so many years fancying itself as the champion of the Rule of Law, the U.S. seems to
be making headway in forging a world under the rule of law," said Zhou Qing'an, an analyst of
international relations at China's Tsinghua University. "Only it's the American law of the
jungle."
WEAPONIZED JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM
In recent years, the U.S. government has slapped sanctions on and posed threats to an
increasing array of foreign entities under the pretext of infringements of its tailor-made
rules and regulations concerning anticorruption, taxation, investment and arms exports,
crafting a long-range weapon with its jurisdictional system, the very foundations undergirding
a country's authority.
Citing Cuba as an example of the U.S. jurisdictional overreach, Mauricio Santoro, head of
the Department of International Relations at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that
for many times, the United States has enacted new laws and regulations to justify its
punishments on foreign companies having commercial contacts with Cuba, a country that has long
been taken as a thorn in the flesh by Washington.
In the latest round of sanctions against the Caribbean country, Washington activated Title
III of the Helms-Burton Act, which put companies operating on properties confiscated by the
Cuban government at risk of being sued in U.S. courts.
It's not just the entities from countries deemed by the United States as rivals or
competitors that were exposed to the arbitrary abuse of Washington's jurisdictional power.
Firms of its allied countries which refuse to yield to the U.S. supremacy can also find
themselves under fire of such an overstretched jurisdictional "weapon."
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice fined Alstom, a French power and transportation
conglomerate, 772 million U.S. dollars, alleging the French company has broken America's
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which eventually led to the partial acquisition of Alstom by
General Electric, its arch rival in the United States.
Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department put Huawei, a Chinese company that has taken the
lead in 5G technology, and its affiliates on a blacklist that requires the federal government
approval for any sale and transfer of U.S. technologies to the Chinese firm.
Up to now, the United States is still lobbying other countries to exclude Huawei from 5G
networks construction over groundless accusations of spying.
"What is the most effective way to win a losing race? You change the rules and draw a foul
on your competitors, rude but effective," Zhou explained with a metaphor. "That is exactly what
the United States is doing to its competitors, even allies."
UNABASHED INTERNATIONAL DARWINIST
For decades, the United States has been touting itself as the flag-bearer of "freedom,
equality, justice and humanity," but in recent words and deeds, the Washington government is
exposing itself as an international Darwinist who sees the world as a jungle where the powerful
preys on the vulnerable.
By overstretching its jurisdiction and applying unilateral sanctions, the United States is
challenging the sovereignty of other countries, said Philippe Bonnecarrere, a French senator,
denouncing the U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction as power logic.
Echoing the senator's words, Swaran Singh, professor at School of International Studies in
Jawaharlal Nehru University, noted that extending jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws beyond its
border "has no legal standing whatsoever."
"It's only its position of power in international system that has allowed the United States
to arbitrarily impose its domestic laws abroad while rejecting several other universally
recognized international laws and norms," said the professor.
However, it is also the "universally recognized international laws and norms," which the
United States once paid, even sacrificed so much to build several decades ago and now is
turning its back on, that helped the country build its advantages over other countries.
Thanks to economic globalization, large European firms all have capital from different
countries, including the United States, and due to Washington's threat of sanctions, they have
to comply with American rules, said Bonnecarrere.
Even though an international Darwinist's obsession with the jungle law can not be changed
overnight, if the past is any prologue, "the obsession with power relations," as the French
senator put it, "is mortifying."
BACKLASHES FROM ALL AROUND
In a world where multilateralism and win-win cooperation are still the mainstream of the
times, an international Darwinist with zero-sum mentalities like the United States is bound to
face backlashes from within and outside the country.
David S. Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA and former undersecretary of U.S.
Treasury Department, warned in an article published in April that the U.S. sanctions will not
only weaken countries being punished, but "breed resentment and alienate would-be international
partners."
"In the long run, it works against U.S. foreign policy interests and threatens the American
economy," said the article.
As the world's biggest economy, the United States enjoys "an outsize role in business
transactions around the world." The U.S. extraterrestrial jurisdiction, a typical prelude to
economic sanctions, would certainly cast a bigger shadow over the whole world.
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde said earlier
this week that the existing and potential tariff hikes resulted from the U.S.-initiated trade
tensions with China could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5 percent in
2020.
Earlier this year, The Economist sounded a warning in an article for Washington. "Far from
expressing geopolitical might, America's legal overreach would then end up diminishing American
power," it said.
(Xinhua reporters Tang Ji and Ying Qiang in Paris, Hu Xiaoming in New Delhi, Zhou Xingzhu in
Brasilia contributed to the story.)
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes.
For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the
main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.
Across-the-board
rivalry with China is becoming
an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.
Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and
protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation
from China.
Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are
likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing
white paper on the
trade conflict
, published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.
The US focus on
bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US
is
questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World
Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.
Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach
of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination
to destroy the
dispute settlement system .
A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such
a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.
But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still
more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei
focuses on national security and technological autonomy.
[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".
A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's
policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing,
she suggested at a
forum organised
by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had
that before".
She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan
is forgotten.
But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental.
She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.
Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the
Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.
This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides
or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship
into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's
was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.
An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the
Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives
might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.
Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence
of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy
to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is
illegitimate.
This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with
China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas
made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.
They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly,
while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.
A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating
closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.
The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers,
attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.
Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.
This is end of the classic neoliberal globalization and the start of isolation of the USA
from China and forming an alternative, led by China trading block, unless the deal is reached.
WTO rules were the door openers, which allowed Google and Facebook pollute millions of
smartphones outside the USA. By rejecting them the USA start the process of self-isolation. Now
local government who were afraid to act might want to get even and you can get a stronger
backlash then anticipated.
The only factor here is that while the USA citizens are afraid of their own government
snooping more then snooping by Chinese's government, the same is true to many foreign countries
too. Citizens of those countries move to Gmail because they care less about the USA snooping then
the snooping of their local government by the local webmail providers. This is a widespread
illusion. They should use foreign based ISP for that.
Removal of Facebook is actually a big plus which increases attractiveness of Huawei phones.
But truth be told the value of smartphone is exaggerated. Combination of a tablet and basic flip
flop phone works even better. The same but to lesser extent is true with Google spying
applications, especially Gmail. Only complete idiot uses Gmail as Web client, as Gmail is the
central point of collection of data for both Google and the US government (actually all "Five
eyes" goverments). It is like giving keys for you home or apartment to them. Not the Microsoft is
much better. Using your own Internet Service Provider (ISO) is the best option in the current
environment. It also allows more effectively to combat spam. Unless you want to be a bug under
microscope -- no Google on you your phone is a good, sound policy
Notable quotes:
"... These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei ..."
"... Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which count on their apps being widely installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's the potential for damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that do business there. ..."
"... And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was before. ..."
The US crackdown on Huawei was bound to have unintended consequences. Some of them are
starting to come to the surface.
The Trump administration is looking to shut out the Chinese telecom company from selling its
technology in the US, as well as banning American firms from selling products to the company.
Now Google, which banned Huawei from updates of its ubiquitous Android operating system, is
warning that the restriction could become a national security issue, according to the
Financial Times
(paywall). That's because Huawei, the world's No. 2 handset maker, will likely move quickly to
develop its own parallel version of Android, which could have more software bugs and be more
susceptible to hacking.
That's just one of many potential consequences as the US clampdown ripples through
everything from semiconductor supplies to ambitions for self-driving cars. The American
government blacklisted Huawei for long-simmering
espionage concerns after trade talks between the world's two largest economies broke down.
The Trump administration has since given companies a 90-day window to adjust to the new
restrictions.
In the meantime, chipmakers including Qualcomm, Intel, and Xilinx are reportedly
halting sales of technology (paywall) to Huawei. The embattled Chinese company has
responded by stockpiling chips and components and ramping up its development of
alternatives.
Facebook, which has more than 2 billion users around the world, will no longer allow its app
to come preinstalled on Huawei phones,
according to Reuters . Huawei phone buyers can still download the app from the Google Play
store for now, but that option will go away if Google's relationship with the Chinese company
is severed.
These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech
enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei, and the ban could also slow the implementation of
new technologies around the world. The rollout of self-driving cars, for instance, may get a
boost from 5G gear, and Huawei appears to be the only supplier that can provide reliable 5G kit
widely and at low cost. Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which
count on their apps being widely
installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's
the potential for
damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that
do business there.
And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be
lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could
emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American
blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was
before.
In a series of provocative actions, the United States is making clear it is prepared to
fight a war to block Beijing's rise as an economic and geostrategic competitor.
The "cold war" between the United States and China took a major step toward becoming a "hot"
war over the weekend at the annual Shangri-La defense summit in Singapore. The Financial
Times, not known for hyperbole, wrote that "The growing dispute between the US and China on
trade and technology is increasing the risk of military conflict or outright war."
At the summit, representatives of the Pacific nations that would be caught in the crossfire
of such a conflict warned of the imminent possibility of a new Pacific war.
"Our greatest fear, therefore, is the possibility of sleepwalking into another international
conflict like World War One," said Philippines Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana. "With the
untethering of our networks of economic interdependence comes growing risk of confrontation
that could lead to war."
US officials used the summit to continue their efforts to encircle China militarily and
strangle it economically, with acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan declaring China to
be "the greatest long-term threat to the vital interests of states across this region."
Just days earlier, Vice President Mike Pence, addressing the graduating class at West Point,
predicted war in the Pacific, in Europe and in the Americas within the graduates'
lifetimes.
"It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in
your life Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific,
where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China
challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an
aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even
be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.
"And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty,
and you will fight, and you will win."
The United States' actions are extraordinarily reckless and provocative. Seeing a challenge
to its dominance, it is seeking to use every tool at its disposal, including military force, to
compel China's submission to its will. The United States is simultaneously escalating conflicts
around the world -- including its regime change operation in Venezuela and its dispatch of
additional troops to the Middle East to "counter" Iran -- to shore up its flagging global
hegemony through military means.
Chinese Defense Secretary Wei Fenghe responded to the US threats with militarist bluster of
his own, saying, "Should anybody risk crossing the bottom line, the [People's Liberation Army]
will resolutely take action and defeat all enemies." He warned the United States against
encouraging Taiwanese separatism, declaring, "If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the
Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs."
The divisions between the United States and China are centered on the Chinese state
initiative called "Made in China 2025." The plan envisions a substantial expansion of Chinese
industry into high-value-added and high-technology manufacturing, areas traditionally dominated
by the United States and its allies.
In recent decades, Chinese companies have made substantial developments in the
high-technology sector, including robotics, mobile phones and IT infrastructure. This
development was expressed most directly in the growth of Huawei, the Chinese mobile phone and
telecommunications firm, which was on track to become the world's leading smartphone maker by
the end of the year.
Last month, the United States moved to effectively destroy Huawei as a global competitor to
Apple and Samsung by banning US companies from selling it software and components. Google
locked the company out of the Android operating system and associated services, while Broadcom
and Qualcomm announced they would no longer sell the company chips it needs to continue
production.
The move enjoys broad bipartisan support beyond the Trump White House. There is an emerging
consensus within the American ruling class that China must be prevented from becoming a global
technological, and thus military, peer of the United States.
The growth of US-China tensions has overshadowed the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen
Square massacre. At the summit, Wei defended the bloody crackdown against the 1989 protests by
workers and students, declaring the protests were "political turmoil that the central
government needed to quell, which was the correct policy."
He continued, "Due to this, China has enjoyed stability, and if you visit China you can
understand that part of history."
But three decades of "stability" -- the effective transformation of China into a gigantic
sweatshop for American and world capitalism -- have come at a tremendous cost. China is not an
imperialist country. It remains dependent on foreign corporate investment and finance. Now, it
is once again in the crosshairs of a nuclear-armed United States determined to go to any
lengths to secure its global hegemony.
In the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the International Committee of
the Fourth International wrote, "The repression in China is being carried out in the direct
interests of the imperialists. In attacking the Chinese workers, the bureaucracy is acting as
their agent, seeking to restore 'labor discipline' and to repress the mass opposition of the
working class to the policies of capitalist restoration and the rampant exploitation and social
inequality which it has engendered."
While publicly condemning the massacre, the first Bush administration secretly made clear to
the Chinese government that the event was an "internal affair" and affirmed the value of the
Sino-American relationship "to the vital interests of both countries."
The ICFI statement continued, "Imperialism gloats over the broken bodies of the Chinese
workers, seeking to exploit them for the purpose of crude anticommunist propaganda, while at
the same time calculating that the brutal state repression will translate into higher rates of
exploitation and even greater profits from the tens of billions of dollars worth of direct
investment and joint ventures already operating on Chinese soil."
This is precisely what happened. Following Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour of 1992, in which
he encouraged Chinese entrepreneurs to "get rich," US investment in China ballooned, leading to
a profit bonanza for American corporations, along with the fantastic enrichment of the upper
echelons of the Chinese Communist Party, through the exploitation of the Chinese working
class.
The arguments by leading Chinese figures that an accommodation and partnership with US
imperialism would offer a peaceful road toward China's national development have proven to be a
pipe dream.
If Chinese officials accept US demands, it will be a massive blow to the Chinese economy,
causing mass unemployment and engendering protests and political turmoil. But to stand up to
the United States means, sooner or later, to fight a war between nuclear powers, in which
millions dead on both sides would be an optimistic scenario.
Thirty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, all the arguments that the laws of
imperialism identified by Lenin after the outbreak of World War I had been superseded by
globalization and technological development have proven false. The capitalist system, riven by
a new scramble for a re-division of the world, is hurtling toward a new world war.
The only thing standing between humanity and this catastrophe is the international working
class. It is urgently necessary for the workers of China, the United States and the whole world
to unify their struggles in a common fight against the capitalist system, which is the root
cause of imperialist war. This means building sections of the International Committee of the
Fourth International in China and all over the world as the vanguard of a working class
movement against imperialist war.
The US trade war against China, which started just over a year ago, has now escalated to a
full-scale economic confrontation backed by the military might of American imperialism.
The rapid acceleration of the US drive against China and its increasingly bellicose
character was underscored in a major speech delivered by the acting US Defense Secretary
Patrick Shanahan on the weekend.
Over the past month, the US has hiked tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
Chinese goods, threatened the imposition of new imposts on all Chinese imports and virtually
black banned the telecoms giant Huawei from the supply of US-made components in an attempt to
cripple its global operations.
Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, organised by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, which included participants from China, Shanahan delivered a
40-minute blast against Beijing in which he emphasised US readiness to use military power to
secure its interests.
The speech coincided with the release of an Indo-Pacific Strategy Report by the US Defense
Department accusing China of seeking "Indo-Pacific hegemony in the near-term and, ultimately
global pre-eminence in the long-term."
The report called China a "revisionist" power that sought to undermine the international
system from within, attempting to exploit its benefits while eroding the values and principles
of the "rules-based order" -- the standard reference to US dominance.
While claiming that the US "does not seek conflict," Shanahan said "we know that having the
capability to win wars is the best way to deter them." The US had already committed $125
billion for "operational readiness and sustainment" for the next financial year and is
preparing to allocate an additional $104 billion for research and development of emerging
technologies.
"This finding will boost the depth and capacity of our armed forces, and also help expand
our training -- including with allies and partners -- to improve mission readiness critical to
meeting this region's challenges" he said.
The read out of his remarks provided by the Defense Department said the Indo-Pacific was
"our priority theatre." The US Pacific Command had four times more assigned forces than in any
other area, with more than 370,000 service members devoted to the region.
The US had "more than 2000 aircraft, providing the ability to project power across the vast
distances of this region" together with "more than 200 ships and submarines to ensure freedom
of navigation."
The integrated character of the US offensive -- on the economic, diplomatic, political and
military fronts -- was emphasised in remarks clearly directed against China.
"[Some] actors undermine the system by using indirect, incremental actions and rhetorical
devices to exploit others economically and diplomatically, and coerce them militarily. They
destabilise the region, seeking to reorder its vibrant and diverse communities towards their
exclusive advantage."
This characterisation most closely fits the actions of the United States, extending over
decades -- from the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in the dying days of World War Two,
the launching of the Korean War in 1950 in which an estimated 2.5 million people lost and the
Vietnam War in which killed more than three million.
US intervention has not been confined to military action. In the wake of the Asian financial
crisis of 1997-98, the International Monetary Fund, at the direction of Washington, imposed an
economic "restructuring" program across the region which plunged it into a crisis, equivalent
in scope and depth to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The enduring image of that intervention is the photograph of IMF managing director Michel
Camdessus standing over seated Indonesian president Suharto as he signed a so-called IMF
bailout program to impose what was known as the "Washington consensus."
Economic devastation resulted in Indonesia and across the region as "structural adjustment"
was imposed. Indonesian real wages feel by 30 percent, the incidence of poverty doubled and
more than 20 million workers were made jobless. Unemployment rates in South Korea and Malaysia
tripled.
In the years since then, the IMF policies -- directed by the US Treasury Department -- have
been branded as a "mistake." They were anything but. The economic firestorm was a consciously
directed operation.
At that point the US feared its economic supremacy in the region was being threatened by
Japan. When the crisis broke in July 1997, with the devaluation of the Thai baht, setting off
currency devaluations and a financial crisis across Southeast Asia, Tokyo intervened with a
proposal to set up a $100 billion Asian Monetary Fund in order to safeguard its economic
interests in the region.
This was forcefully rejected at a September 1997 meeting of the IMF and G7 in Hong Kong.
Faced with the prospect of a conflict with the US, Japan withdrew its proposal, opening the way
for the imposition of Washington's "restructuring" demands, based on the breaking up of the
economic and financial ties between the countries of the region and Japan.
However, the Asian crisis was to bring about a major economic shift in which China was to
become the major global manufacturing centre. Following Deng Xiaoping's southern tour in 1992,
foreign capital flowed into the country, secure in the knowledge that, as the Tiananmen Square
Massacre of June 1989 and the far broader suppression of the working class in all the major
industrial centres had demonstrated, the regime would act as the guarantor of its profit
interests.
By the end of the 1990s, China had become integrated into the global circuit of capital and
on that basis its entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was backed by the Clinton
administration. After China's admission into the WTO in 2001, the flow of global capital
increased as the regime committed itself to further market opening.
The policy of the US was grounded on the premise that collaboration with China would be
encouraged so long as it remained a producer and assembler of consumer goods, boosting the
profits of US and other corporations that used it as a base for their manufacturing operations.
A new term was coined to describe this collaboration "Chimerica."
However, the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008, centred in the US financial
system, marked another major turning point, with far-reaching consequences in China as more
than 23 million workers lost their jobs. Fearful of an eruption in the working class, the
Chinse regime undertook a massive stimulus program, spending more than $500 billion and opening
up credit for the provision of vast infrastructure projects.
This policy, based on a rapid expansion of credit, could not continue indefinitely and under
President Xi Jinping a new turn was initiated. In order to maintain economic growth and prevent
a crisis that would call into question the legitimacy of the regime, a new policy had to be
initiated.
This was the origin of the "Made in China 2025" plan in which China would move up the value
chain, not only producing cheap consumer goods and relying on infrastructure spending but also
moving into the development of high-tech manufacturing in areas such as telecommunications,
health and pharmaceutical products and artificial intelligence.
This, however, is regarded by the US as an existential threat to its global economic and
military dominance, which, as the latest strategic report by the Defense Department and the
speech by Shanahan has underscored, it is determined to crush by all means necessary including
war.
"... The short-term impact on China could be smaller than previously expected. Factories that sold only to the United States have developed new markets over the past year. Even if those factories stop exporting to the U.S., they will not go bankrupt immediately. It helps that the service sector is experiencing a labor shortage and could absorb some slack. For example, in China a delivery man sometimes makes more than an average office worker. ..."
"... Shipments to the United States and shipping prices have dropped since the new tariffs were announced. ..."
"... Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year. ..."
"... "China has been slaughtering USA" It is American corporations not China. ..."
"... “The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly 97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade. “They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all fabricated.” ..."
...The main takeaway from our notes below: The Chinese are buckling up for a long ride.
Beijing is preparing for a protracted standoff. The leadership has concluded that the
intention of U.S. negotiators is not just to resolve trade imbalances but also prevent China
from moving up the value chain, a key long-term objective for the Chinese.
Tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese products would hurt China, but the
United States would also feel the pain. Profit margins for consumer goods manufacturers
average less than 5 percent. U.S. importers would either have to pay the tariffs, charge
their customers more, or find suppliers elsewhere.
The short-term impact on China could be smaller than previously expected. Factories
that sold only to the United States have developed new markets over the past year. Even if
those factories stop exporting to the U.S., they will not go bankrupt immediately. It helps
that the service sector is experiencing a labor shortage and could absorb some slack. For
example, in China a delivery man sometimes makes more than an average office
worker.
Huawei will not be a part of any negotiations. Beijing thinks that Huawei is more of a
political issue and would be targeted whether or not they make concessions on trade.
... ... ...
There has been a significant shift in the way that Beijing manages nationalist sentiment
inside China. Until May the government had been trying to contain hawkish views on the
U.S.-China relationship, but now they are just letting it grow. (See
Now China's Got Its Own Anti-U.S. Trade War Song .) Not only does this demonstrate that
Beijing does not expect any short-term solution, because the negative sentiment will make it
difficult for President Xi to make concessions, it also allows China to harden its diplomatic
position given popular domestic sentiment.
As for whether the Chinese are front-loading shipments to the United States to avoid
pending tariffs, port data and local analysts indicate this has not yet happened.
Shipments to the United States and shipping prices have dropped since the new tariffs
were announced. The pending tariffs could cause some front loading, but it would be hard
to beat the latest round of tariffs because they were imposed a few days after the
announcement. Only products shipped before the new tariffs' effective date are exempt.
The consequences of a protracted trade war are manifold. The economic impact includes a drag
on economic growth, import price inflation which will allow U.S. domestic and other foreign
policy makers to raise prices, and the knock-on effects to other trading partners as the
shuffle begins to find new sources and markets for different products. Researchers at the
New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the
typical American household an additional $831 per year. Trade barriers between the world's
economic superpowers will slow global growth and put political pressure on all affected
governments, stoking increasing nationalism and protectionism overseas while increasing
inflation and reducing living standards at home.
The investment implications of a protracted trade war are still playing out. We have seen
how sensitive markets have been to the trade news, with a strong risk-off bias resulting from
adverse developments in the fourth quarter. While volatility will continue, there is no
indication that the Chinese will attempt to liquidate their large holdings of U.S. Treasury
securities. To do so would only drive down the value of the dollar, which would run counter to
Beijing's desire for a weaker yuan. There is also no imminent change to monetary policy from
the Federal Reserve as a result of trade saber-rattling, but if the financial markets begin to
spiral out of control because of tariffs, then we could see a repeat of 1998, when the Fed
eased as a result of the Asian financial crisis. With neither side apparently willing to step
back from the brink, investors should be discounting a higher probability for a drawn-out
fight.
... ... ...
The conclusions are obvious. Unless the current trajectory is quickly changed, the Chinese
are digging in for a long fight. The cost to the United States will be high; the cost to the
Chinese will be higher. The only question is who will endure and be the most innovative in this
battle of wills. As I have written before in "No One Wins a Trade War," the short-term costs
are likely to outweigh the long-term benefits regardless of who "wins."
Comments
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
1. Guggenheim Partners is based in Chicago and represent Obama's point of view
2. Apr 4, 2018 Scott Minerd predicted at 50% plunge in the stock market
3. Once again Scott predicting a 50% drop in the market in 2020
4. April 29, 2019 Scott predicted a rate hike by the Fed
The Long march is a propaganda piece hoping people will invest more in their bond mutual
funds. Scott should spend a lot less time on TV and more time in the office.
The longer this trade war goes on the more and more unstable the Chinese economy will
become. Because the current tariffs on China are small peanuts to the remaining $200+ billion
which will shut down their electronics industry.
Agreed with the second point, that they are finding new markets and shifting production
line to new place. A new leather goods factory just opened in Cambodia, majority owner is a
Chinese friend, rest is a Cambodian business group. His products are in every major markets,
and third party label for our brand names. Business as usual for him, he can’t close
his China shops because he lives there.
You don’t get the point. We are printing worthless paper to exchange the actual
products, such as computers, furniture and machines. We don’t “eat” money,
we consume products. To an extent that we can maintain dominance is to innovate and turn into
“affordable” products domestically and overseas.
Now all the foreigners including
not white anglo saxon protestant waking up and will circumvent dollars/sterlings,
that’s bad trend. Germany and Russian would be pleased.
Umm.. If you want to gauge the effect of the Chino - Mericah Trade Tariff Circus, then it
doesn't get real until Trump goes after the mid-point trans shipment points....all those
mutually accessible ports of call that have equal access to both party's...Geeezzze, is
everyone working for CNN, Clown News Network......Trump and Friends are just going to set up
different ways to ship goods into and out of the Merikah.... it's that simple!!!!!
The LAST man brave enough to publish anything critical of Chicoms throws in the towel. Not
worth the prison terms, the violence, the relentless state attacks on journalists and their
families. Totalitarian cuks with their asshat trolls. Glad Trump will starve them out with
tariffs. Be happy never to trade with China until their people throw out the commie murderous
imperialists - let them do business with their like-minded asshat buddies in Moscow -
Staged arrest with planted drugs, beaten upon arrest, protesters immediately arrested
(even though they protested one at a time to avoid the law making group protests illegal -
the mark of every totalitarian regime). THIS is your brave PUTIN. Cannot allow any TRUTH
about his corrupt kleptostate, lest Russians finally have ENOUGH of the rape and thievery
that pillages their national assets and resources for the oligarchs' gain, with their lips on
Putin's sphincter as he gives them a reach around.
Tell me again how GREAT China and Russia are, and how the USA sucks. We don't arrest and
kill our journalists. In fact, they are allowed to stage absurd, fact-free assaults on the
ruling party without end.
I'll take freedom over tyranny every time.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
Laugher NYC: Best post of the afternoon! This is the type of post that makes Zero Hedge
comments worth reading.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
"As I have written before in “
No One Wins a Trade War ,” the short-term costs are likely to outweigh the
long-term benefits regardless of who “wins.""
Translation: The US should give up fighting the trade war and go back to losing the
trade war. Americans don't want to withstand short term pain , so just give up and surrender
to the Chinese communist government.
Reality Check: If the US stays the course then the following will happen:
New factories will open up to replace the Chinese suppliers.
More US workers will be employed with rising wages.
The US will reopen critical industries like rare earths making the US much more
militarily secure.
Existential menaces like Fentanyl exported from China will be drastically
reduced.
"New Long March" Cross Rubicon─Save/Lose. The CCP Didn’t Fight Imperial Japan; the KMT Did. While the KMT military defended China against Japan during WWII, the CCP built up strength
for the civil war.
This was not by accident but by design. The CCP had a choice: it could have prioritized
defending the country against Japan during the war, or it could have prioritized seizing
control of China from those who did fight the Japanese. It chose the latter. Meanwhile, by
choosing to actually try to defend China against Japan during the war, the Nationalists
handed the country to the CCP afterwards.
Which is why Xi and the CCP’s decision to create a national observance day to honor
its defense of China during the second Sino-Japanese War represents the height of hypocrisy.
It’s one thing to try to suppress all information exposing the Party’s failings,
which killed millions of Chinese, while demanding Japan take a correct view of history (which
Tokyo should do). It’s another thing altogether to falsely claim credit for one of the
defining moments of your country’s modern history. And it’s really something
unprecedented to create a national holiday to honor your Party for doing something it
consciously avoided; namely, putting China’s defense over the CCP itself.
Classy.
✅ China gives little credit — and less help — to Kuomintang vets who
fought in WWII
“The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly
97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade.
“They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all
fabricated.”
Most independent historians agree that it was the forces of the Kuomintang, led by
Mao’s archrival, Chiang Kai-shek, that led the anti-Japanese struggle and suffered the
vast majority of casualties.
Following the war’s end, the exhausted and divided Kuomintang were defeated by
the communist s in a renewed civil war and fled to Taiwan, cementing Mao’s claim to
having defeated imperialism, unified the country and overthrown the old feudal order.
“This joint victory over the external enemy and the internal one, including the
landlord class, is a fundamental component of (the party’s) founding myth,” said
Harvard University China scholar Anthony Saich.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
B-Bond: Interesting history background. The commies have always been the cowards waiting
to pounce on an exhausted opponent. Same formula in Russia 1917. The Czar exhausted his
soldiers in WWI which opened the door for Lenin to cowardly sneak in on a sealed train
courtesy the German government. That treachery only got the Germans a very temporary victory
in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk for a few months. Post war, the commies came close to
overthrowing the new Weimar republic. That's what happens when you make deals with a Godless
murderous cult based on hate and envy called communism.
So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a bunch of other
globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking points.
Big surprise, they were happy to do so. As usual, they blather about no winners in a trade
war-- then launch into an explanation of how badly the US consumer will lose and how
beneficial this will ultimately be to China. That sure sounds like an apportionment of trade
war winners and losers if you ask me.
What emerges is a picture of cynical beneficiaries of the current global order trying to
frighten the Americans into giving up by harping upon the costs, yet trying to assuage their
national pride by suggesting that giving up will actually be scored as a draw, which is the
best result they can ever hope for due to the fact that there are no winners and losers in a
trade war.
Yet it is China who is comparing this event to the Long March -- not a time of glory but
of acknowledgement of crushing defeat and gigantic sacrifice to set the table for a future
triumph. They seem to understand that they could lose this war if they are not fanatically
dedicated to victory. They sure as **** aren't telling their people that nobody wins a trade
war. Wonder why this dichotomy exists?
Well, Scott Guggenheim can tell you. It's because HE LOSES if Trump wins. Him and his
profitable Chinese pals. They'd all have to go out and find a new gig rather than keep
sucking off their current comfy one.
Creative destruction starts with knocking **** down and it is high time and beyond that we
knocked this **** down. Even if it puts Scott and his buddies on the unemployment line.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
Cheap Chinese Crap:" So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a
bunch of other globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking
points." Good cogent analysis of Scott Guggenheim's real motivation. it's the old WIFFM mentality.
What's In It For Me. If Scott is such a cheerleader for the Chinese, then it might be time for him to move to
China and 'enjoy' his social credit score.
It's not about who wins but about who looses. Chinese are used to hardship, not the Americans. Even if the pain is greater
for Chinese, it will be political suicide in the USA for their administration to pursue this policy....
A centrally planned, in huge debt, social credit focused country like China, will NOT
survive the long term damage. They have one billion plebes to feed and keep happy. Think T Square.
The business of China is business. The business of the US is war. China is better situated to endure a long fight. They've made themselves self sufficient,
have ambitious economic plans with the Belt and Road initiative, and are sitting on a
mountain of gold. The US depends on an economic hegemony that is dwindling and doesn't think long term. The US empire is in a managed decline
The Chinese can manufacture anything. The US can't say that. Their agricultural technology is second to none and their energy sector is advancing by
leaps and bounds. They are innovative, the US has lost it's innovative curiosity. Too many
public education mouth breathers staring at their TVs and phones to be bothered with
thinking. Just the way the state like it.
Chinese investment in Africa is solving their raw materials and energy issues, hence the
Belt and Road initiative. People think that building roads and ghost cities in the African
desert is a bad idea, but they know the desert is greening and are thinking long term. The
US, on the other hand, sends troops.
"Their agricultural technology is second to none..." Stop reading there.
China can not come close to feeding itself, and its agritech is decades behind the US. TFP
ranking, growth..by any measure, China's ag sector, while it has improved, is far behind the
US.
Population growth and the "growing middle class" has also reversed the growth in ag
acreage, while fewer young Chinese are going in to farming. Even with the most optimistic
growth projections from CHINA itself, it won't reach even 75% of its needs domestically by
2030, far less if growth continues to slow.
If China pisses off enough of the world, it will once again starve. That's one way to
control population growth.
Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?
Simple. It's because like China -- Joe Biden, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Justin Amash, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc., etc., they have all been bought off with Chinese money.
The dumb American Political Sellouts have been bought with U.S. dollars. Now how dumb is that, when the Thief that is buying your favor, plucks it out of your
right pocket to hand you the loot.
"Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?"
It's simple. They are not Nationalistic. They are complete Globalist sell outs . In their
book, USA comes LAST. Anything that weakens mom and pop USA makes them stronger.
Click bait investment firm with Chinese investments that are not going well, so he wants
your support. This should be an add off the the side not a FEATURE Tylers.
This is a GOOD thing. We have lost our manufacturing to China (and Asia) to benefit Wall
street and the globalist and the Rich. There is no solution except to have these tariffs.
With our government taxes and structure there is no way we can have 1 or 2 dollar wages. It
might take an adjustment, but we MUST stop this cheap stuff from coming in. Sad but
True>
Good luck pinning your hopes on Trump for bringing jobs back lol. Why would you want those
jobs back anyway, I thought you had a ton more job openings than needed?
Please, this is not a trade war, this is a trade reset, it is needed to make MAGA. China is dependent on foreign trade to be successful. Well over 40% of their economy is dependent on exporting.
Trump knows the central bank economy is on a path to total destruction. He knows that soon
we will have a global reset. Anything he can do to weaken China now will ensure they continue
to be weak at the time of the reset. By diverting the USA supply chain away from China by
bringing it back to the USA or getting new suppliers from other nations he is helping to
ensure a better position for the USA at the time of the reset.
Yes, this is no trade war, it is a trade reset...people are being filled with propaganda
like the wording "trade war" even though the truth is right there in front of them...it is a
big puzzle, just need to find the pieces and they then fit like a glove (not OJ'S glove) and
you have the real truth...
Only 18% of Chinese GDP is export. Of this, only 18% goes to the U.S. So less than 4% of
Chinese GDP is export to the U.S. The fact that you could not set such records straight makes
the rest of your post pointless.
Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese
products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year.
Why is it these so called experts never say what doing nothing HAS cost the American
household...like lost jobs?
Correct, NOT doing this has cost Americans billions in lost earnings / revenue over the
last 30 years. They certainly don't want to factor THAT wet mess into the equation.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled down on vilification of Сhinese telecoms giant Huawei as "an
instrument of government" suggesting that the company was a national security threat by acting as an
agent for Beijing.
Like his boss, President Trump, and many others in Washington, Pompeo seems blind to an alternative
glaring reality. The US government is the consummate instrument of American corporations. Its
congenital service to corporate profit-making is the real national security risk to American citizens
and a global security threat for all people of the world due to the wars that Washington unswervingly
pursues on behalf of US corporate interests.
The irony could not be richer. President Trump has
banned Huawei from US markets by executive order on the grounds that the company's smartphones could
be spying devices for the Chinese government. This move by a nation whose government espionage
agencies were
exposed
using every US telecom, tech and social media company as a conduit for their global
harvesting of private citizens' data as well as that of foreign heads of state.
Moreover, the White House claim that Huawei is an instrument of Beijing state authorities is a
risible form of guilt projection. The Trump administration's ban on Huawei is nothing more than US
government abusing its state power to hamper a Chinese competitor from outperforming American tech
corporations. Huawei's products are reputedly cheaper and smarter than US rivals. Some observers also
point out that the Chinese technology is invulnerable to hacking by the American spy agency, the NSA,
further adding to its consumer appeal. Outperformed on market principles, the US government takes a
legalistic, propagandistic sledge hammer to smash Huawei from the marketplace in order to bestow an
unfair advantage to inferior American corporations.
So, just who exactly is being an instrument for whom?
Governments in all nations of course use their legislative, fiscal and policy resources to try to
build up key companies for their national economic development. It's standard practice throughout
history and the world over. Governments can use subsidies and grants to boost companies, or tariffs to
shield them from foreign competition.
The US, however, is a stellar example of how government intervenes strenuously at every stage in
the market to benefit private corporations. Without massive injections of public money for grants, tax
deductions, subsidies, and so on, American corporations would not have risen to the scale they have,
as Michael Parenti documents in 'Democracy for the Few'. This relationship, of course, negates the
myth of US "
free market capitalism
." In reality, American corporations are publicly supported
entities whose profits go to private shareholders. The overarching agent for this process of
centrally-planned corporate capitalism is the American government.
From its earliest days as a European colony, it was the newfound federal authorities who rolled
back frontiers with the native Americans through genocidal wars in order to benefit cattle and cereal
companies, mining magnates, transport and telecoms, oil firms, and firearms manufacturers.
In its young years as an imperial power, it was Washington that organized and dispatched federal
troops to wage wars in the Caribbean and Latin America – all for the sole benefit of Wall Street and
the expanding agro-industry. Retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler, in his 1930s book 'War is a
Racket', described the American military as a henchman for US corporate profits. But without the
government acting as recruiter, financier and commander-in-chief, the US Army could not function as a
henchman for the corporations.
Let's take a few specific examples in history to illustrate the instrumental role of the US
government in advancing or defending corporate interests. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized the
coup in Iran organized by the CIA and Britain's MI6. A main objective of that intervention was to
seize Iranian oil. Five US corporations subsequently exploited the Iranian feast, until the revolution
in 1979 kicked them out along with the American puppet dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It's a
fair bet that current military threats from the Trump administration against Iran are prompted by a
strategic desire to reclaim American corporate interests.
In 1954, Guatemala's elected leader Jacobo Arbenz set out to nationalize underused agricultural
land to benefit the rural poor. His land reforms involved expropriating properties belonging to the
American-owned United Fruit Company, as William Blum details in 'Killing Hope.' Acting on United's
interests, Washington intervened with a CIA-backed coup against Arbenz, which subsequently led to
decades of mass murder of indigenous Guatemalans under US-backed military dictatorships.
Following the Cuban revolution in 1959, one of the main protagonists for US military invasion of
the island and for covert sabotage operations was the American soft drinks industry, headed up by
Coca-Cola and Pepsi. They feared the nationalization of sugar plantations by the Castro government
would hit their profits.
There are also
suggestions
that President John F Kennedy may have been assassinated by powerful US state forces,
working in cahoots with American corporate interests, because he didn't adopt a sufficiently
aggressive policy towards Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Related to JFK's assassination
was his reluctance to go to war in Vietnam in the early 1960s, which big oil companies and weapons
manufacturers were all avidly pushing. His successor, the Texan Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was
close to both industries, duly obliged by paving the way for all-out war in Indochina after 1964. Up
to two million Vietnamese were killed, as were some 58,000 US troops. Millions more maimed. The
corporations made huge profits from the decade-long slaughter. But the US economy began a long descent
that continues today from incurring fiscal debts over Vietnam, which prompted Washington to abandon
the gold standard, and heralded the age of funny money with the dollar acting as an overrated
international reserve currency.
Many more examples could be cited to illustrate how US government – both the White House and
Congress – are agents for corporate profits, often to the horrendous detriment of international peace
and the common good of ordinary Americans.
The 2003 war on Iraq – killing over one million civilians and maiming tens of thousands of
Americans – was widely seen as a pretext for grabbing Iraqi oil for US corporations like Halliburton,
for whom then vice president Dick Cheney was previously an executive board member.
The present warmongering towards Venezuela by Washington is openly touted by White House National
Security Advisor John Bolton as being about US corporate lust for the country's oil reserves – which
are reckoned to be the biggest on the planet.
Out of the top 12 corporate financial
donors
to politicians in Washington, three of them are weapons companies: Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
and Northrop Grumman; a fourth is oil titan Exxon-Mobil. There is an obvious correlation between
corporate bidding and foreign policies embarked on by US governments which leads to conflict and wars,
which in turn repays these corporations with soaring profits.
The American government is the best instrument that corporate money can buy.
Thus, when Trump, Pompeo and other Washington political (and media) prostitutes pontificate and
rail against Huawei, just remember: these talking heads are bought and paid for – lock, stock and
barrel.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Technoimperialism is effective, but what it Huawei can switch to some derivative CPU and
chipsets?
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Fan Yu via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced technology from supplying the Chinese. ..."
"... What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up. ..."
"... Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs. ..."
"... If Bibi ask Chump to drop the tariffs on China for the security of Israel, What do you think will be Chump's answer? ..."
During the Cold War ,
around half of the world ran on the technologies, machinery, and political ideologies developed
by the Soviet Union. The other half - the free world - adopted those of the United States and
its allies.
As trade war
tensions between the United States and China escalate, could we be on the cusp of a new
version of the cold war, one which is driven by technology and finance?
Since U.S. President Donald Trump has deemed Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies as a national
security threat and barred it from purchasing key U.S. equipment, Beijing has engaged in an
escalating tit-for-tat that could have lasting ramifications on the technology industry going
forward.
And Huawei may just be the beginning. Several other Chinese companies are being considered
to join the blacklist with Huawei.
If a technology cold war does come to pass, it would significantly alter the existing
technology landscape, dismantle global supply chains, and cleave off the global trade network that has underpinned
China's rise as a global economic power .
Decoupling of the Global Supply Chain
Global consumers are used to seeing this familiar description donning Apple products'
packaging for years: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China."
That's the model followed by most technology companies during the past few decades. American
companies develop new technologies and products in the United States, which are assembled by
comparatively cheap labor in China, and then shipped for sale globally.
Going forward, purchase orders would likely need to be rerouted.
A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would
effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced
technology from supplying the Chinese.
What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and
manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were
low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up.
Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling
investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in
China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies
will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice
given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs.
Another 35.5 percent of respondents are adopting an "In China, for China" approach to
mitigate the impact of tariffs , according to the AmCham survey. That refers to manufacturing
products to be sold in China, within China. That strategy may be broadened in a full-on
technology cold war, as research and innovation may also need to be localized and companies may
need to erect internal information barriers.
Losers, Big and Small
Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements for
many U.S.-sourced components. For example, Huawei's chip-making arm HiSilicon currently derives
its Kirin chip architecture on license from UK-based semiconductor firm ARM Holdings. But in
May, ARM notified Huawei that it would stop licensing its chip designs to HiSilicon due to
having certain U.S.-sourced origins.
Huawei also lost access to Google's Android software platform, which is the main operating
system running on all Huawei smartphones. As of the end of May, the U.S. Commerce Department
gave Huawei a temporary, 90-day license to provide security patches to existing phones.
In addition, Huawei has been suspended from the Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry standard-setting
body for technology protocols.
These events don't just hobble Huawei -- they effectively ground its ambitions to a halt.
Without access to these technologies, there's simply no way for Huawei to reach its goal of
overtaking Samsung as the world's No. 1 smartphone supplier. And on the networking front,
Japan's SoftBank became the latest potential customer to reject Huawei for 5G networking
equipment, announcing on May 31 that it would be turning to European telecom giants Nokia and
Ericsson instead.
Should similar bans extend to other Chinese companies -- many of which have far smaller
operational support and balance sheets than Huawei -- many of them could cease operations
altogether.
Comments
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
China's empire is growing and the US empire s shrinking. Unfortunately many can't grasp
that and will deny it till the end instead of accepting it and working with the next world
power. All empires come to an end.
Our economy is a consumer based economy not a manufacturing based economy like it once
was. Can we return to a manufacturing based economy? Not sure if Americans are ready to push
their kids into getting a job at the factory making boots, footballs, washing machines......
instead of swaying them into going to college. Don't forget, someone has to work in the
factories if we are going to make stuff.
If you study high wage manufacturing driven economies like Germany, you will notice that
the productivity of their workers is sky high (as it has to be in order to remain
competitive). The plants are highly automated. Workers are very well trained and have expert
skills in keeping the production line running at peek pace and quality.
Frankly, I just don't think American workers have what it takes to adopt that kind of
model.
Not with the education system we have now....the Fed has killed off the industrial trades,
and everyone thinks they will can spend $100,000 a year for an education to sit behind a desk
and play solitaire......or become a politician.
Someone has to fix the machines and get their hands dirty. Not all our kids are IT
'coders'. Now we want the gooberment to give them 'free' college for a 'diversity degree' and
they graduate with NO SKILLS and no knowledge. So we drug up our youth with drugs imported by
China and open the flood doors for worker bees. Sounds like a plan.
The free world flourished during the cold war. it was great for the West. Technology
advanced by leaps and bounds and the middle class grew. Nothing bad about this at all.
So you believe Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication? What's missing in the article is the
most obvious: the trade war will force China to climb the value chain a lot quicker. The most
like scenario is that China will become a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse before much, if
anything, is moved back to U.S.
What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them
being made in China? Has that ever worked for anything else, ever?
their tech will fall behind as the US advances. Same thing happened with the Soviet Union
once they ran out of Germans and US tech. By '91, they were woefully behind the West--like 35
years.
There was never anything wrong with Research in the USSR, Development was their problem, now as Russia again they remain at the leading edge of Research, and seem to have finally gotten a handle on Development. They have never been behind in Research, any serious scientist in the West can and will read Russian just to keep up.
Its been that way all my life, the US seems to have
forgotten it though, because they believe they're exceptional and only they can do
research.Hubris will kill you.
The Russians are pulling way ahead because of that Ubermensch stupidity, laughing the whole time at it. That smirk of Putins, its there for a reason.
What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them
being made in China?
No kidding. For instance, take this statement:
Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements
for many U.S.-sourced components.
Propaganda via lies of omission. This could easily be turned around to say:
American companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic
replacements for many Chinese-manufactured "U.S.-sourced" components.
But hey, the Epoch Times is a propaganda mill for the Falun Gong cult which the Chinese
government banned 20 years ago, so it's kind of the anti-China equivalent of The
Gatestoned Institution .
the chinese domestic market is the new big dog on the block. it is big enough to dictate
what the rest of the world will use. the hubris of the usa is arrogance squared. the
consequences are potentially damning to usa tech. this is the dumbest move in business and
geopolitical history.
The West is in for a big surprise. China has technologically advanced neighbors (Russia,
India) and a host of countries who want to do business who are also technologically advanced.
The Silk Road is well advanced to supplant trade with North America. Germany is already in
place in Russia and China and will not lose sleep with the loss of North America. It is the
US that has the most to lose.
They cannot see past their own jingo. The Chinese just thanked Trump at the Moscow summit, for forcing them to do what inertia
stopped them doing years ago. Seems like its already backfiring, and now full dedollarization is now the official
agenda. Yuan futures in most everything, convertible to gold, were just announced at one press conference. The ruble looks around -95% undervalued right now.
umm--you do know that it wasn't so long ago that Russia defaulted on all of its loans,
right? and that no one with a brain is going back into that market again, right?
No worries, the PTB in our fed government (both sides) and the globalists want cheap labor
from the illiterates that are allowed to flood our country and Europe. We will look much like
the cheap labor in China. I find it funny that 'open border' morons like the D's demand
$15/hour min wage laws for flipping a hamburger. They are nuts. Can't have it both ways.
No they didn't, they were disconnected from Gargoyle Play.Android is open source and HW played a big part in its development. Maybe more than Gargoyle.. This kind of disinformation discredits the whole article, the author is a no nothing
hack, probably Mosley moonlighting from his janitors job.
My small anecdotal experience was back in 2008 when I worked for a US Company who made
large components for nuclear projects. Like AP1000. Within a year of my working there, we
were hosting the chinese and actually sending our engineers and quality people to live in
China for 6 months at a time to TEACH THEM HOW TO MAKE THE PRODUCT. The quality people came
back disgusted because they didn't care about 'tolerances'. I have since left there, but it
was eye opening how US companies willingly sell our technology to them.
In the meantime, the corp bosses built a huge addition onto our building with luxurious
soundproof walls/doors/windows to move in. Big bucks stuff. No expense spared.
Not really, the Chi-Com government OWNERSHIP of businesses is dramatic.
When a chinese government entity (think strawman, shell company, a "holding
company") answerable and subservient to the state party apparatus owns the majority of
any company's stock and/or gives it direction from on high, it cannot be said to be "a
private company". At least not by any kind of western standard of the meaning of the word
"private".
They're trying to fake people out (and succeeding to some degree) as the western mind may
misinterpret it as merely being crony-socialism but in fact it's communist via the shell
corps.
What you describe sounds like fascism i.e. capitalism is allowed, private companies are
allowed but are directly answerable to government.
Anyways you look at it, China has a strong capitalist element. They have private property
now. They have billionaires as a result of these companies FFS. They have a stock market .
They have realestate developers. That's no longer 'communism'.
The largest corporations are government owned and a "private company" is not given
direction by any government entity in what to supply or in what quantities to supply to "the
market", there are no government mandated quotas.
And you are confused (or being evasive) about what socialism and capitalism are, fascism
& communism are both Marxist.
With capitalism, the market decides all, from pricing to profits to wages and companies
rise & fall on what is sold into that market ...thats why rickshaws never caught
on here because people didn't have to eat their horses for meat and we eventually produced
affordable cars for transport...lol.
Need I remind you that the CCP means the Chinese Communist Party?
Perhaps they need some better capitalist marketers to "rebrand" their, ahem,
operation ;-)
"... If the U.S. follows through on this threat, we should expect European governments to react very strongly. As Henry Farrell has explained , the quarrel with the U.S. over the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions is not just about Iran. The EU and our European allies see this as the latest example of our government's excessive use of secondary sanctions, and they aren't going to give in if the U.S. escalates further. ..."
"... By threatening to sanction them for doing what they can to keep the JCPOA alive, the U.S. is giving them a big incentive to create an alternative system that will protect them from further harassment. Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat will make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the future. ..."
"... Are we really trading Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan for … Israel and Saudi Arabia ? ..."
"... Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo are destroying our oldest, best friendships and alliances, and they don’t even pretend they’re doing it to advance American interests. They’re doing it at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Israel, which wield immense power in the form of the huge campaign donations they control in US elections. “Russian meddling” can’t hold a candle to it ..."
"... This is how you lose reserve currency status. The sad thing is they don’t even understand what that means and what the results would be. ..."
"... I predict Europe caves. They are post WW II satrapies, not allies. The refreshing thing about Trump is he doesn’t pretend otherwise. ..."
"... Is Trump insane? Sanctioning Iran at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia, two global pariahs, and rubbing the US’s traditional allies’ noses in it would be disastrous in a world where old alliances are still valid. But let’s look at the world through Trump’s eyes. ..."
Bloomberg reports that the U.S. is
threatening major European allies with sanctions over their "special purpose vehicle,"
formally known as the Instrument in Support of Exchange (INSTEX):
The Trump administration escalated its battle with European allies over the fate of the
Iran nuclear accord, threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the
U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions, Bloomberg News
reports.
Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial
intelligence, signaled in a May 7 letter obtained by Bloomberg that Instex, the European
vehicle to sustain trade with Tehran, and anyone associated with it could be barred from the
U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.
Europe's INSTEX has been designed first and foremost as a workaround to handle humanitarian
trade with Iran that is effectively blocked because financial institutions are afraid of doing
any business with Iranian customers as a result of U.S. sanctions. The immediate goal is to
allow trade in medicine and food to be processed without risking U.S. penalties. The U.S. is
now threatening to penalize anyone involved in this effort to get food and medicine to the
Iranian people. European governments assumed that putting their officials in charge of running
it would deter the U.S. from attacking it, but they have underestimated just how deranged our
government is on this issue.
Threatening to sanction European officials
and companies for making use of this mechanism shows just how irrational and destructive U.S.
policy is. The Trump administration's Iran obsession is driving it to threaten punitive
measures against its own allies because they created a means to engage in legitimate trade in
humanitarian goods. That confirms a few things that we already suspected. First, it tells us
that the U.S. is determined to cut off all legitimate trade with Iran, including trade in
supposedly exempted humanitarian goods. They are actively working to cause the Iranian people
as much misery as they can. Second, it tells us that the administration is willing to
wreck its relations with some of its closest European allies to pursue their economic war
against the Iranian people. U.S. interests and longstanding relationships with important allies
are being sacrificed for the sake of a vindictive and outrageous policy of collective
punishment against a population of more than eighty million people.
If the U.S. follows through on this threat, we should expect European governments to
react very strongly. As Henry Farrell has explained , the quarrel with
the U.S. over the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions is not just about Iran. The EU and our
European allies see this as the latest example of our government's excessive use of secondary
sanctions, and they aren't going to give in if the U.S. escalates further.
By threatening to sanction them for doing what they can to keep the JCPOA alive, the
U.S. is giving them a big incentive to create an alternative system that will protect them from
further harassment. Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat
will make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the future.
“Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat will
make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the
future.”
Are we really trading Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan for … Israel and Saudi
Arabia ?
Is Trump out of his mind?
Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo are destroying our oldest, best friendships and alliances, and
they don’t even pretend they’re doing it to advance American interests.
They’re doing it at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Israel, which wield immense power in
the form of the huge campaign donations they control in US elections. “Russian
meddling” can’t hold a candle to it.
Is the Pope Catholic? Seriously, it’s been clear since he rode down his fancy
escalator that Trump is mentally ill. Any one of a number of clinical diagnoses can be made.
Not to mention the fact that his core supporters are clearly in the Cult of Trump.
Trump’s complete disdain for our European allies has been evident for years. So,
naturally he’s all about threatening them. Remember, it’s a zero sum game for
Trump on everything. If Europe isn’t losing, than he is. And that just can’t
happen. He has to be the winner 100% of the time. Reality and facts be damned.
This is a gambit to destroy European political opposition ahead of war with Iran. Uncle
Sam is going to need unfettered access to NATO military bases if the war becomes protracted
(which it will).
The Europeans should realize that knuckling under on INSTEX is not going to be the end of
the story for them.
Is Trump insane? Sanctioning Iran at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia, two global
pariahs, and rubbing the US’s traditional allies’ noses in it would be disastrous
in a world where old alliances are still valid. But let’s look at the world through
Trump’s eyes.
He sees these traditional allies heaping up troubles for themselves by abandoning any
immigration quality control in favour of ‘one world’ nonsense, and doing so in
the face of palpable discontent from their indigenous populations – in what is arguably
an insane case of democracy deficit. Welcoming potential terrorists and culture destroyers
into Europe en mass is, for Trump, evidence of a cultural marxist mindset deserving of little
of his respect. His body language around Frau Merkel speaks volumes.
On the other hand, Israel’s leadership uncompromisingly champions its culture and
national security, and Trump is happy to reward such policy. Netanyahu is tough on
Israel’s enemies, not tough of his own people. Trump respects that ‘bigly’,
as he would say, while Europe’s policies seem culturally suicidal, inexplicable. Of
course, Trump needs campaign funding and support from America’s Israel lobby, and Saudi
contracts mean jobs in the important defence sector, but you get the impression that Trump
actually despises the current European elites as ideological enemies.
"... Trump administration is escalating its battle with "European allies" over the fate of the Iran nuclear accord, and is "threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions. " ..."
"... While it is obvious that the US ire was sparked by the realization - and alarm - that cracks are appearing in the dollar's reserve status, opponents of Instex argue - at least for public consumption purposes - that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing sanctions from the U.S ..."
"... "When transactions move beyond that, it doesn't matter what vehicle's out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction," Pompeo said. "It's very straightforward." ..."
"... In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled ..."
"... that's too Boltonesque or Pompeonish and would only denigrate Europe for no reason. ..."
"... This is the latest move (in a very long line) by Jewish-freemason banksters to take over the world. The USA is owned and run by them and is used simply for their ends and purposes. ..."
"... Trumpsters cheering on DJT need to be aware that they have as much regard and affection for you and for your country as they do for a mangy dog. ..."
"... The US is starting to act a bit too unhinged now. Even the zombies are starting to wonder what the problem is with the US and the USD. Not very smart to be so loud, aggressive and threatening all the time. ..."
"... What we are witnessing in the US sanctions, threats, and illegal and costly military operations around the globe are the final throes and spasms of a dying, yet still dangerous, wounded animal ..."
"... Global trade in its current form with trade routes stretching all around the world is unsustainable due to rapidly depleting oil/energy. ..."
"... If you cut through all the propaganda and look only at actions taken by the U.S. government, it certainly does look like America is taking numerous intentional steps to disconnect itself from global trade with long-standing international partners in Europe, Asia and the Middle East ..."
"... America acting the big bully and pissing off all our international trade partners is just an act. Don't worry, the long term plan is exactly what you're wishing for, more or less. Though, since the Middle East still has so much oil, chances are America and its military will remain there for quite a while longer -- but that's the only reason. ..."
"... America is on the path of sanctioning itself into isolation. The US is shooting itself someplace much more sensitive with all these sanctions, tariffs, and warmongering. ..."
"... Soon the isolated US will ONLY have Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada and Britain to have economic relationship with. I wonder what do these assets of the US and former British colonies can offer to one another in the form of meaningful trade? Oil, maple syrup, weapons, sand, and British tea. ..."
"... In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled. ..."
"... It's easier to replace SWIFT than replace a reserve currency the petro-dollar is today. They've tried at no avail. So long as our economy kicks ***, it will be hard to replace USD as a reserve money. ..."
"... The issue isn't just SWIFT. It's "access to US markets". Sayanim Pompeo is threatening them with the nuclear option: Financial MAD. ..."
"... Trump seems to think he's CEO of the planet and all the countries are just different departments of his corporation. ..."
"... It's worse than that. Thump thinks that Bibi is Chairman of the Board, and Adelson is a Senior Board Member of a small (((Board))) ..."
It's going from bad to worse for Europe, whose currency had
just hit session lows after Brussels confirmed that Italy faces a massive fine over its debt, when the Euro was hit with a double
whammy after Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration is escalating its battle with "European allies" over the fate of
the Iran nuclear accord, and is "threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield
trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions. "
According to Bloomberg, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, sent
a letter on May 7 warning that Instex, the European SPV to sustain trade with Tehran, and anyone associated with it could be barred
from the U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.
As a reminder, last September, in order to maintain a financial relationship with Iran that can not be vetoed by the US, Europe
unveiled a "Special Purpose Vehicle" to bypass SWIFT. Back then
we predicted that Washington would not be too delighted with this development seeking to undermine the dollar's reserve status.
We were right.
"I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex," Mandelker wrote in the letter to Instex President
Per Fischer. "Engaging in activities that run afoul of U.S. sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access
to the U.S. financial system."
Germany, France and the U.K. finalized the Instex system in January, allowing companies to trade with Iran without the use of
U.S. dollars or American banks, allowing them to get around wide-ranging U.S. sanctions that were imposed after the Trump administration
abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last year.
Not surprisingly, a senior admin official behind the eltter said the U.S. decided to issue the threat " after concluding that
European officials, who had earlier downplayed the significance of Instex in conversations with the Trump administration, were far
more serious about it than they had initially let on. "
The official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the letter was intended to serve as a
warning that the U.S. would punish anyone associated with Instex -- including businesses, government officials and staff -- if
they were working to set up a program to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions.
"This is a shot across the bow of a European political establishment committed to using Instex and its sanctions-connected Iranian
counterpart to circumvent U.S. measures, " said Mark Dubowitz, the chief executive officer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
in Washington.
When asked to comment on the letter, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying "entities that transact in trade with the
Iranian regime through any means may expose themselves to considerable sanctions risk, and Treasury intends to aggressively enforce
our authorities."
At the heart of the latest US move is the argument that Iran and its central bank use deceptive financial practices and haven't
implemented minimum global safeguards against money laundering and terrorism financing, according to Bloomberg.
While it is obvious that the US ire was sparked by the realization - and alarm - that cracks are appearing in the dollar's
reserve status, opponents of Instex argue - at least for public consumption purposes - that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian
institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already
facing sanctions from the U.S .
Meanwhile, during a visit to London on May 8, Mike Pompeo also warned that there was no need for Instex because the U.S. allows
for humanitarian and medical products to get into Iran without sanction.
"When transactions move beyond that, it doesn't matter what vehicle's out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will
evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction," Pompeo said. "It's
very straightforward."
In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would
continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take
no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with
China - has fizzled.
Makes me wonder why year after year China's GDP increases and never decreases while the US GDP does periodically go into the
negative zone and when it is positive, it isn't that much positive.
With our control we try to have over foreign countries coupled
with our antiquated and overpriced education system, we are heading nowhere very fast while China continues to grow.
This is the latest move (in a very long line) by Jewish-freemason banksters to take over the world. The USA is owned and run
by them and is used simply for their ends and purposes.
Trumpsters cheering on DJT need to be aware that they have as much regard and affection for you and for your country as they
do for a mangy dog.
Europe has been servile to the US since the end of WW2. Germany in particular has continually bowed to US pressure and surely
the time has come to kick the US out of Ramstein Air Base which houses over 60,000 personnel including 5000 non US military.
The US also continues to stir its anti Russia interference in compliant countries especially the Ukraine. Europe should dismantle
the EU and the euro and revert to sovereign nations using their own currencies. NATO is US driven and hinders not helps European
cooperation. There is no military threat in Europe full stop.
The US is starting to act a bit too unhinged now. Even the zombies are starting to wonder what the problem is with the US and the USD. Not very smart to be so loud, aggressive and threatening all the time.
What we are witnessing in the US sanctions, threats, and illegal and costly military operations around the globe are the final throes and spasms of a dying, yet still dangerous, wounded animal. The US has been killed by the criminal Satanic
Ashkenazi Bolshevik Khazar filth who did 911. The US and Israel are the two most hated countries on earth.
This is all part of a long term plan intended to rearrange global trade arrangements. The future we are heading into is one
where "global" trade will be much more regional, by necessity. Global trade in its current form with trade routes stretching all
around the world is unsustainable due to rapidly depleting oil/energy.
Europe, Asia and the Middle East need to make their own
financial and trade arrangements -- this manufactured disagreement will force companies and governments to adapt to that reality.
America is intentionally cutting itself off from trade with Europe and Asia to force self-sustainability for the Americas continent
and for American companies, because that's what the future demands -- it is what's sustainable long term.
The Trade War and this
contrived spat with Europe and many other trade-related "conflicts" getting publicity are all part of a multi-pronged action plan
to force painful and politically untenable changes on companies and governments in preparation for a future that will be characterized
by much less oil/energy and by extension, much more localized and regional trade and finance.
America is intentionally cutting itself off from trade with Europe and Asia to force self-sustainability for the Americas
continent and for American companies
I'd love to believe that but you're going to have to take your war machine home with you or what you say means **** all.
If you cut through all the propaganda and look only at actions taken by the U.S. government, it certainly does look like America
is taking numerous intentional steps to disconnect itself from global trade with long-standing international partners in Europe,
Asia and the Middle East.
Actions speak louder than words. The rational for bringing an end to all these energy-intensive trade
and financial arrangements that were created back when oil WAS cheap and plentiful begins to make a lot of sense.
America acting
the big bully and pissing off all our international trade partners is just an act. Don't worry, the long term plan is exactly
what you're wishing for, more or less. Though, since the Middle East still has so much oil, chances are America and its military
will remain there for quite a while longer -- but that's the only reason.
"Iran and its central bank use deceptive financial practices and haven't implemented minimum global safeguards against money
laundering and terrorism financing, according to Bloomberg." This is akin to Stalin telling Mao to be nicer to his citizens.
potkettleblack.
No nation will ever be sovereign until the International Banking Tyrants and their relatives to the third cousin receive a
very public guillotine haircut.
Everyday, a new threat by the rusty meat-grinder known as the Untied State of Israel. Which country will we read a war tweet
about next?
America is on the path of sanctioning itself into isolation. The US is shooting itself someplace much more sensitive with all
these sanctions, tariffs, and warmongering.
Soon the isolated US will ONLY have Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada and Britain to have economic relationship with. I wonder
what do these assets of the US and former British colonies can offer to one another in the form of meaningful trade? Oil, maple
syrup, weapons, sand, and British tea.
In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would
continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't
take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade
war with China - has fizzled.
however obsolete the SWIFT system is there isn't any credible alternative to the old bank wire system. It's coming though.
Should be an easy fix in this day and age. US doesn't want to lose control of who's wiring what and to whom, Capisce?
It's easier
to replace SWIFT than replace a reserve currency the petro-dollar is today. They've tried at no avail. So long as our economy
kicks ***, it will be hard to replace USD as a reserve money.
"... China assembled an "unreliable entities list" for retaliation against foreign companies, individuals and organizations that "do not follow market rules, violate the spirit of contracts, blockade and stop supplying Chinese companies for noncommercial reasons, and seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies." ..."
"... And out of nowhere, Trump warned Mexico to stop the immigrant flow in 10-days or face tariffs. Global CEOs who were rushing to rearchitect their China supply chains, digested the risk that these investments could be instantly devastated by some future tariff - imposed to achieve Americas geopolitical objectives - and they prepared to warn shareholders they're putting new investment on hold. As the US treasury yield curve inverted, with 3mth bills at 2.34% and 10yrs at 2.12%. Which of course, is one of the most reliable warnings of looming recession. ..."
"... "Tariffs are being used as a proactive, combative tool. The GDP hit will be at least double. Modelling these tariffs require more complex frameworks." ..."
"... " Global trade was already in the process of fracturing ," added the strategist. "Now Huawei can't use Google's operating system." Their phones are as good as paperweights. "But do you really want to bet that Huawei can't spend the next 6mths building a competing operating system?" We're entering a world of competing superpowers. " The overall impact will be to operate economies with redundant technologies, fewer efficiencies, lower ROEs, lower ROAs. And ironically, or perhaps by design, it'll be bad for profits, but okay for labor ." ..."
Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
"Don't say we didn't warn you!" declared the China People's Daily. And historians rushed to remind us that Beijing used the phrase
in advance of their 1962 border war with India and 1979 war with Vietnam.
China assembled an "unreliable entities list" for retaliation against foreign companies, individuals and organizations that "do
not follow market rules, violate the spirit of contracts, blockade and stop supplying Chinese companies for noncommercial reasons,
and seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies."
Pence responded by warning Beijing we could double tariffs. "Engaging in activities that run afoul of US sanctions can result
in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the US financial system," warned the US Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism
– you see, the Europeans are building systems to circumvent American sanctions. Today, those sanctions are directed at Iran, Russia,
North Korea, Venezuela, but tomorrow they may be directed at China.
Naturally, the Europeans threatened only themselves - 1,500-year habits are hard to break. Germany and France fought bitterly
over who would become European Commission President. Brussels warned Rome to honor its obligation to contain its growing debt. Italy's
Salvini threatened to launch a parallel currency – step #1 in the process to abandon the euro and default.
And out of nowhere, Trump warned Mexico to stop the immigrant flow in 10-days or face tariffs. Global CEOs who were rushing to
rearchitect their China supply chains, digested the risk that these investments could be instantly devastated by some future tariff
- imposed to achieve Americas geopolitical objectives - and they prepared to warn shareholders they're putting new investment on
hold. As the US treasury yield curve inverted, with 3mth bills at 2.34% and 10yrs at 2.12%. Which of course, is one of the most
reliable warnings of looming recession.
Framework
"Economists generally use tax frameworks to evaluate the trade war," said my favorite strategist. "They calculate a -0.4% hit
to GDP, which is not such a big deal. But they're using the wrong tool." Tax frameworks treat tariffs as a tax. They then model
how a nation's currency adjusts to the tax, how corporate profit margins shrink to absorb the tax, and how consumers shoulder the
remaining burden. "Tariffs are being used as a proactive, combative tool. The GDP hit will be at least double. Modelling these tariffs
require more complex frameworks."
"If all of the affected nations simply agreed to adopt new tax regimes, then the tax framework would work fine," continued my
favorite strategist. "But the world has built specialized supply chains. So if Nation A tries to hurt Nation B, and Nation B is
part of critical supply chains that impact Nation A, then there are many things B can do to harm A in non-linear ways." Banning
rare earth metal exports is a small example. "Once Apple locks down their product production for Nov 2019 release, China knows exactly
how to push that past Feb 2020."
" Global trade was already in the process of fracturing ," added the strategist. "Now Huawei can't use Google's operating system."
Their phones are as good as paperweights. "But do you really want to bet that Huawei can't spend the next 6mths building a competing
operating system?" We're entering a world of competing superpowers. " The overall impact will be to operate economies with redundant
technologies, fewer efficiencies, lower ROEs, lower ROAs. And ironically, or perhaps by design, it'll be bad for profits, but okay
for labor ."
"... "It is foreseeable that the latest U.S. tariff hikes on China, far from resolving issues, will only make things worse for all sides," according to the white paper, which also listed details of what it described as U.S. backtracking. ..."
"... As Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen, who led the working-level team in the negotiations, said China is willing to work with the US to find solutions, but the latter's strategy of maximum pressure and escalation can't force concessions from China: "When you give the U.S. an inch, it takes a yard", he said. ..."
And, as of this weekend, we now appear to be in the "despondent acceptance" phase (unlike
the Kubler-Ross model, acceptance precedes anger and nuclear war), because as Xinhua reported
overnight, China is now laying the blame squarely on the US for the breakdown of trade talks
between the world's two biggest economies, but hinted at its willingness to resume stalled
negotiations with Washington while rejecting any attempt to force concessions from Beijing.
In a
white paper on China's official position on the trade talks released by the State Council
Information Office on Sunday, Beijing made it clear the US government "should bear the sole and
entire responsibility" for the current stalemate, and hit back at allegations that Beijing had
backtracked from its earlier promises.
The trade war has not " made America great again," the white paper said, but has done
serious harm to the U.S. economy by increasing production costs, causing higher prices hikes,
damaging growth and people's livelihoods, as well as creating barriers to U.S. exports to
China.
"It is foreseeable that the latest U.S. tariff hikes on China, far from resolving issues,
will only make things worse for all sides," according to the white paper, which also listed
details of what it described as U.S. backtracking.
"The Chinese government rejects the idea that threats of a trade war and continuous tariff
hikes can ever help resolve trade and economic issues," according to the white paper. "Guided
by a spirit of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, the two countries should push
forward consultations based on good faith and credibility in a bid to address issues, narrow
differences, expand common interests, and jointly safeguard global economic stability and
development," it said, according to
Bloomberg .
As Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen, who led the working-level team in the
negotiations, said China is willing to work with the US to find solutions, but the latter's
strategy of maximum pressure and escalation can't force concessions from China: "When you give
the U.S. an inch, it takes a yard", he said.
Meanwhile, when asked about US firms’ complaints that customs clearance was taking longer since the start of the trade war, he advised companies to contact the relevant authorities. “If certain firms are faced with specific issues, they can talk to local commerce departments,” he said.
On the increasingly touchy matter of exports of rare earth minerals, Wang repeated Beijing’s comments of the past week. “With the world’s richest rare earth resources we are willing to satisfy the normal needs of other countries,” he said. “But it’s unacceptable if other countries use rare earths imported from China to suppress China’s development.”
But in what could be the worst news for bulls who are clutching at any straw now to indicate an improvement in diplomatic relations, when asked about the possibility of a summit between Xi and Trump on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan later this month – as suggested by the American president in May – Wang said he had no information on the matter, according to the SCMP.
Shi Yinhong, an adviser to China’s State Council and a specialist in US affairs at Renmin University in Beijing, said that despite the pressure from the US, Beijing had shown restraint in its efforts to fight back... which it has indeed, suggesting that Trump's read of the calculus - one according to which China has more to lose than gain from taking trade war to the next level - is the correct one.
“In the areas of trade and technology, China has less leverage than the US, but it has kept its retaliatory measures within these areas,” he said. “If it extended its efforts to areas like North Korea and Iran, it could do much greater damage to Trump.”
The punchline: when addressing the chances of the two sides achieving a breakthrough in their trade negotiations by the time of the G20 summit, Shi said: “The difference is too wide and would be impossible for them to bridge in a month.”
"... Meanwhile on Thursday a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to the White House position at a moment Pompeo keeps up the pressure campaign on European allies, saying, the US has not offered proof that Huawei's products present a security risk. ..."
"... "We hope that the United States can stop these mistaken actions which are not at all commensurate with their status and position as a big country," said spokesman Geng Shuang, according to Reuters. ..."
"... And Huawei, for its part, is reportedly taking steps to block its employees from taking part in technical meetings with American contacts, which has even included sending home American employees that were based at its Chinese headquarters in Shenzen. ..."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has again put Germany and the rest of Europe on notice regarding China's controversial
telecom giant Huawei, warning they could be cut off from crucial US intelligence sharing over Huawei's 5G networks now
being built.
Pompeo issued the ultimatum following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Friday, saying the decision
on whether to allow Huawei equipment would have severe consequences, according to
Reuters
. His
words came at the start of a five-day European tour: "They [Germany] will take their own sovereign decisions, [but we]
will speak to them openly about
the
risks
... and in the case of Huawei the concern is
it
is not possible to mitigate those anywhere inside of a 5G network
," Pompeo
said
.
Germany, alongside the UK and France, has refused to budge amidst the ratcheting pressure from the US over worries that
China's intelligence is using its next generation networks as "back door" for aggressive telecommunications
eavesdropping.
Pompeo told the news conference further:
"(There
is) a risk we will have to change our behavior in light of the fact that we can't permit data on private citizens or
data on national security to go across networks that we don't have confidence (in)."
As we reported previously the Trump administration
first
notified its Berlin counterparts
of the intelligence sharing concerns in early March, when US Ambassador to Germany
Richard A. Grenell told Germany's economics minister in an official letter that the European ally and intelligence
partner "wouldn't be able to keep intelligence and other information sharing at their current level if Germany allowed
Huawei or other Chinese vendors to participate in building the country's 5G network."
It was noted at the time the warning is
"likely
to cause alarm among German security circles"
amid persistent terror threat, largely the result of Merkel's
disastrous "Open Door" policies which allowed over 1 million middle eastern immigrants into he country. And yet it
appears Germany's national security state establishment has remained unmoved, or at least unable to prevail over
Merkel's government.
Meanwhile on Thursday a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to the White House position at a moment Pompeo
keeps up the pressure campaign on European allies, saying, the US has not offered proof that Huawei's products present a
security risk.
"We hope that the United States can stop these mistaken actions which are not at all commensurate with their status and
position as a big country," said spokesman Geng Shuang, according to Reuters.
And Huawei, for its part, is
reportedly
taking steps to block
its employees from taking part in technical meetings with American contacts, which has even
included sending home American employees that were based at its Chinese headquarters in Shenzen.
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
"But what,"
asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
My father,
Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street
Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
I thought
about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as
Theresa
May
announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British
politics in the age of
Brexit
.
Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least
of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain,
visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British
society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of
people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May
was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a
single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her
valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with
imminent defeat.
Charging
ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster
and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been
blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down
the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to
the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a
place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
Her
miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from
its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the
interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
The balance
of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though
Boris
Johnson
and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort
of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed
in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
Accusations
of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by
self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient
history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication
coincided with the referendum in 2016.
Brexiters
who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The
only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In
this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant
emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
Just how
decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised
what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting
scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got
them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up
critics, as in Turkey.
Britain is
entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17
th
century.
Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant,
the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through
which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation,
privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
The
proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they
can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the
rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you,"
they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers
in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why
should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
May is
getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a
startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on
compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan,
though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end
of the country.
The Wall
Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain.
In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a
low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
Apparently both Lighthizer & Mnuchin opposed the tariffs on Mexican goods. If these
tariffs remain in place for some months it could have a major impact on the profitability of
the auto companies who are already sucking wind as sales slow.
I suppose this is an attention getter for AMLO to get his act together to reduce the flood
of illegals attempting to cross the border.
jdledell Agreed. The Mexican tariff threat is incredibly stupid. Trump pretty much had
that trade deal in the bag and this may just ruin it. I fought the falsely "sold" Iraq
invasion as hard as I could including to Hannah, Scooter and Cheney's faces. Once the thing
was decided I offered to accompany the 3rd Infantry Division as an adviser but the neocons
would not allow it in spite of the land force commander's request.
Colonel Lang, It was your stand against the Iraq invasion that first brought you to my
attention. To the detriment of this country and much of the world, your advice was not taken.
I have seriously wondered since those days, if this country will ever recover from the damage
done by following Cheney and gang.
"... The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick Lawrence. ..."
"... The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars elsewhere. ..."
"... In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its peak. ..."
"... With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from it. ..."
"... The only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it has already done. ..."
"... "When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director, wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for global economic and technological dominance." ..."
"... Last week the president suggested that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country to warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector. ..."
"... There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a strategic threat to the U.S. -- as the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year. ..."
"... Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it, as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies. ..."
"... Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again." ..."
"... Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the western Pacific. ..."
"... The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of China. ..."
"... ‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on steel and aluminum. ..."
"... Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is. ..."
"... Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s. ..."
"... Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since. ..."
"... Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks – certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to religiosity. ..."
"... America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. ..."
"... They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges ..."
"... One thinks of the infamous German industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical. ..."
"... You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars. ..."
"... The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just “old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the sonorous Barack Obama included. ..."
"... Constant warfare is a big part of US consumption. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real potential. ..."
"... We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil. ..."
"... This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global model ..."
"... While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy hawks seem committed to rolling the dice. ..."
"... Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation, extortion and racketeering. ..."
"... This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate the great depression? And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it….. ..."
"... But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You wouldn’t doubt him would you? ..."
"... The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly under Clinton and Bush II. ..."
"... It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter gallery. ..."
"... So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump, compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western controlled telecoms. ..."
The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick
Lawrence.
Special to Consortium News
P resident Donald Trump's trade war with China is swiftly taking a decisive turn for the
worse.
Step by step, each measure prompting retaliation, a spat so far limited to tariff increases,
now threatens to transform the bilateral relationship into one of managed hostility extending
well beyond economic issues. Should Washington and Beijing define each other as adversaries, as
they now appear poised to do, the consequences in terms of global stability and the balance of
power in the Pacific are nearly incalculable.
The trade dispute continues to sharpen. Later this week Beijing is scheduled
to raise tariffs already in place on $60 billion worth of American exports -- the latest in
a running series of escalations Washington set in motion nearly a year ago. Two weeks later the
U.S., having increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese products earlier this month, is
to consider imposing levies on an additional $325 billion worth of imports from the
mainland.
The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by
itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide
economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in
favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to
reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars
elsewhere.
For its part, China is already rotating its gaze westward toward the Middle East and Europe.
As if to underscore the point, the East Hope Group, a large Chinese manufacturer, announced
late last week that it plans to
invest $10 billion in Abu Dhabi's industrial sector. Beijing is already drawing Western
Europe into its trillion-dollar Belt
and Road Initiative . In time, Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the
foreign investment capital China needs.
Decoupling
In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic
relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its
peak.
With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by
inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as
appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from
it.
Two weeks ago, the White House issued an executive order barring
purchases of telecommunications equipment from any foreign company deemed to pose a threat to
U.S. national security. It also requires American companies to obtain licenses before exporting
U.S. telecoms technology to such firms. While an administration official described the order as
"company and country agnostic," it is all but explicitly intended to damage the global position
of Huawei, the highly competitive Chinese company that is a leader in cellular telephone sales
and 5G telecommunications networks.
Huawei has long been in Washington's sights. Chief among the allegations against it , the
company is accused of providing China with a "back door" into its telecoms networks, so
allowing Beijing to spy on any entity using Huawei equipment. The U.S. has never provided
evidence of this, and both Huawei and Beijing vigorously deny any such arrangement. The
only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which
hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents
Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it
has already done.
"When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack
on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director,
wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by
Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of
the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for
global economic and technological dominance."
Contradictory Narrative
There is little question that freezing Huawei out of the U.S. market and depriving it of
U.S. -- made components will do damage, in all likelihood lasting, to the company. The
Eurasia Group terms the administration's executive order "a grave escalation with China
that at a minimum plunges the prospect of continued trade negotiations into doubt." But as it
has on other policy questions, the Trump administration is tripping over its own contradictory
narratives at this point.
Last week the president suggested
that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same
time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country
to
warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business
with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector.
There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the
game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as
a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a
clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a
strategic threat to the U.S. -- as
the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year.
Beijing has so far shown restraint in its responses, but there are signs it is stiffening
its spine. On Friday it issued a draft of its own set of
tighter regulations governing potential cyber-security breaches.
Xi Jinping had earlier visited a rare-earth processing facility in Jiangxi Province -- a
move read as the Chinese leader's subtle suggestion that Beijing may consider blocking exports
of minerals that are essential components in a variety of high-tech devices.
Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it,
as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly
three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales
to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was
mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies.
Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long
March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the
Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again."
With formal talks lapsed for the time being, there is now no shortage of signaling from
either Washington or Beijing. But Xi, China's most assertive leader since the Great Helmsman,
appears to understand the moment as larger than mere gestures. U.S. -- China relations have
entered a decisive phase. America cannot win in a long-term confrontation with China.
Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely
prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power
in the western Pacific.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time
No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist . His web site is www.patricklawrence.us.
Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you value this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
dean 1000 , May 31, 2019 at 11:12
The Empire the US built and acquired after WWII could not last no matter who is president.
We have been advised of this coming reality for 30 or 40 years. Washington can’t adjust
b/c it is controlled by a two party system that is owned by the 10%.
Since wall street bought a bunch of manufacturing companies and exported them to China the
US hasen’t had a real economy. It has been one bubble economy after another. A stock
bubble, tech bubble, dot com bubble, and a killer 8 trillion $ housing bubble, and a
completely unnecessary bank bailout.
The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of
China.
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:14
Trump, in effect, is walling the US off from the rest of the world, as Ming-Qing dynasty
China did until 1911.it turned out badly for Chinese people. It’s likely to turn out
badly for the US.
Truth , May 29, 2019 at 17:27
One solution to rare minerals is to break the illegal clinton & bush era mining
agreements around the Grand canyon and Nevada which has turned our resources into cash from
russia and canada into the pockets of the deep state “elected” in D<C and
these states. It would be nice if every now and then a real journalist who publishes a full
story would get a complete story published. Consortium does better than most but still needs
to step up their game.
An article that includes explaining why all NAFTA and trade agreements since Kennedy have
been total sellouts of USA in exchange for party owned companies of the "elected"
‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is
truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in
trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on
steel and aluminum.
I think the truth is that he is a man ready to use any gimmick to get what he wants,
regardless of logic or facts or principle. Another way to say that is to speak of a criminal
mentality.
It is exactly what the mob has always done in making someone an offer they can’t
refuse. “Don’t want to pay protection money? Well, don’t be surprised if
your joint gets burned down.”
Trump essentially wants to transfer huge amounts of trade surplus from China to the United
States, not by any change in the economic activity or policies of the two countries but by
fiat.
But of course, the world doesn’t work that way.
The United States’ trade deficits are its own doing, not China’s. The United
States doesn’t save, and it doesn’t tax adequately. It consumes, and a productive
country like China is only too pleased to supply what it wants. That makes a flow of goods in
one direction and a flow of money in the other. Economics 101.
Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and
there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is.
Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot
happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the
thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s.
He genuinely does not understand – or if he understands, he doesn’t care
– what is behind the surpluses and deficits and just insists that they will be changed
as a matter of his personal will. Does that not remind us of anyone from history?
At any rate, it comes down to his admiring “the strong man” and believing he,
and he alone, can play that role for the United States. And there are more than a few
Americans that believe him too. After all, the great American journalist and historian who
documented the rise and fall of the Nazis, William L. Shirer, once said that he thought the
United States might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. He based that thought on
his observation of many attitudes and beliefs and trends in the United States.
Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that
heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many
decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American
Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while
America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the
world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since.
In today’s world, all the old competitors have not only come roaring back, but a lot
of new ones have come into being, and that reality is the future.
Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the
nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks –
certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to
religiosity.
America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same
way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. They have been
working away for years on the problem, as in their past bashing of Japan or China, but they
are not ready to work for fundamental change in America, as, for example, in its tax and
savings structures and its grotesque inequalities.
They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract
concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its
role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges. And
while most of them do not like Trump’s style or background, I think for now they are
willing to see whether he can get the ugly job done. One thinks of the infamous German
industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early
support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical.
You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts
like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic
activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars.
Even if they don’t go so far as war, they are shaking up some fundamental post-WWII
arrangements that America is going to miss. Decades-old allies, like some of those in Europe,
are beginning to re-think their relationship with such a hostile, single-minded America and
to glance around in other directions, as towards the very China Trump attacks and towards
Russia, a country whose openness to business would have resembled a miracle under the
communists and whose wealth of natural resources offers altogether new opportunities.
Realist , May 30, 2019 at 01:32
The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the
fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just
“old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst
attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the
sonorous Barack Obama included.
The problem that bothers the US policy makers is real: what to do about the balance of
payments deficit? The Trump team seems to be nit-picking areas where imports can be reduced,
for instance by blocking Chinese tech exports.
All of these moves are nonsense because they
miss the real problem: the US economy has a long standing structural quandary. It devotes so
much of its resources to flashy, ornamental and useless defense high tech weapons and gismos
that it is running itself into the ground.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is
subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real
potential. What needs to be done is to cut the military budget in half and redirect the
resources to improving the infrastructure of the country and making investment once again
profitable inside the USA. Where is the politician who dares make these proposals? Wake up
America. We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles
wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil.
bardamu , May 29, 2019 at 00:07
It is strange to discuss confrontation with China only in terms of trade deals so soon
after Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” Trump’s militarism with respect to
North Korea, and the militarism of both the Obama and Trump regimes as regards Russia and
also through western and central Asia, which are clearly areas in which China has no less
natural interest than the United States.
Among these, surely tariffs are the least of most anyone’s worries.
jaycee , May 28, 2019 at 16:27
This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be
understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global
model.
The hegemonic global model has been an American project since the demise of the Soviet
Union, usually presented in euphemism – “globalization”, the
“exceptional” nation, the “rule-based international system”, etc. In
recent years, US politicians have overstepped by a reckless use of the international
financial system to deter designated adversaries.
Presently moving through Congress are bills
designed to use sanctions (“maximum pressure”) to attack both Russia’s Nordstream natural gas pipeline to Europe and China’s claims in the South China Sea.
While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding
confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic
structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing
for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be
for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy
hawks seem committed to rolling the dice.
Realist , May 28, 2019 at 17:41
Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation,
extortion and racketeering. If you look up the definitions of those words you will see they
describe to a tee what the American government does. Shutting down Nordstream (and all the
other sanctions over transparently absurd claims) is meant entirely to damage the Russian
economy and destabilise the country’s government, plus to steal away customers in the
energy sector.
They are protecting nobody’s “rights of navigation” in the
South China Sea, rather they are telegraphing to Bejing that Chinese trade with the world can
be shut down on a moment’s notice by Uncle Sam, specifically they are trying to put the
kibosh on the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative.” The cusses in Washington have
gone so far as to tell Canada that it does not have control over the Northwest Passage, long
considered to be within its internal waters–you know, all those islands connected by
ice for most of the year. Hence forth, Washington decreed that they are international waters
and that it would control them. If that’s being a good neighbor to a country that has
supported your every crazed demand for over 200 years, the “Great White North”
needs to get a restraining order from the World Court against Uncle Sam, plus they need to
find better friends elsewhere on the planet.
I tend to substitute the euphemism “rogue nation” for those others.
Excellent comment.
Realist , May 28, 2019 at 16:22
India, Vietnam, and the Philippines will thank China for the opportunity to manufacture
schlock for sale at Wal*Mart and for the major investments that new Chinese shareholders will
have made in their companies. These countries will now have wares to trade along the Belt and
Road linking all of Eurasia where everyone keeps getting richer by the day. Since people the
world over, except for congenitally retarded neocons, know a good deal when they see one, all
these countries will start telling Uncle Sam to cram it when he keeps demanding they sanction
their new found friends and trading partners because freedom and democracy, Putin and the
other names on Sam’s shit list. They’ll start deciding that all those American
bases give them no clout, no influence, no pay-off and no security… nothing useful at
all, unless prosecuting the crimes and repairing the damage caused by the garrison soldiers
provides local entertainment. It will be time to relocate those rat-holes to the American
side of Trump’s Wall.
Will the silver lining be new American self-sufficiency in manufacturing? The development
of needed resources using new innovative technologies? A plethora of jobs at good pay for
working American men and women? Will American oligarchs once again begin investing in America
itself? If you can arrange that with American greenbacks now buying a tenth as many Yuans,
Euros, Yen, Rupees, Rubles and even Pesos than they once did because Trump decided to
“shake things up,” maybe you can sell all those treasuries needed to run the
government in Washington to the Tooth Fairy.
It’s not true that “you can never go
home again:” just watch the dollars come flooding back to North America when the whole
rest of the world stops trading in them. This whole bit of history should be engaging to
watch on some future television show similar to James Burke’s
“Connections.”
If only Barack Obama had eased up on the extreme Trump bashing at
that White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Harpo Kondriak , May 28, 2019 at 20:13
“Watch those dollars come flooding back” – when the real fun starts.
Those that don’t understand why there has been little inflation from the bank bailouts
will get their answer. And they won’t like it.
Seamus Padraig , May 28, 2019 at 14:46
As a life-long protectionist, I always believed that our foolish dependence on imports
would ultimately end in tears, and it is now clear how right I was. Just to think: we could
have saved ourselves all this trouble and misery simply by voting down NAFTA and declining to
extend Most-Favored Nation trade status (as it used to be called) to China 25 years ago. But
now, putting our industry back on track is really gonna hurt. Pity …
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:39
Any US reindustrialization is likely employ robots. The homeless will just keep on
increasing.
Godfree Roberts , May 28, 2019 at 12:29
“Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the foreign investment
capital China needs.”?
China is the leading recipient of FDI but its need for foreign capital is rapidly diminishing
and it is the world leader in IP
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:40
A fair amount of foreign investment is laundered bribe money from China.
evelync , May 28, 2019 at 11:28
This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate
the great depression?
And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the
neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it…..
I can’t help but secretly imagine that perhaps the retaliation that Patrick Lawrence
writes about – namely China’s shift to other trade partners – happens
smoothly and quickly enough to deprive our neocons of their super power resources to put an
end to what Charles Misfeldt in his comments refers to as Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and
traitors running things…..errr ruining things.
I know that’s not the answer because it could be devastating too.
It’s up to the electorate to shift away from the ideologues, both neoliberal and
neocons.
But will we demand better government?
Most politicians in power have been too afraid to challenge the idea of
“exceptionalism” which is used to keep the primitive war machine going.
Thanks for the article and the interesting and informative comments….much
appreciated…
Jeff Harrison , May 28, 2019 at 11:19
But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You
wouldn’t doubt him would you?
Actually, one wonders why anyone takes the US and its accusations seriously. Especially by
the European vassal states. Yes, your equipment/software will have a backdoor if the US wants
one there. That much is clear from the Snowden releases. And a Reuters report this morning
gives a hint at how it’s done. Huawei apparently is continuing to make the mistake of
sending things out via FedEx. Magically, two of the parcels wound up in the US without the
benefit of Huawei changing their shipping request. Huawei would never have known if they
hadn’t looked at the routing of the parcel after they got it. Hopefully, there
wasn’t any sensitive information in the documents routed to the US because it’s a
sure thing that the USG now has copies of them. Same for the European vassals. Angela
Merkel’s phone hacked. Electronic interception equipment installed on undersea
telephone cables. That’s before we get to the NSA office in all the telecoms spying on
us. Most of the world’s telecommunications run through the US. So, not only do we get
to listen in on a phone call from Paris to Des Moines, we get to listen in on one from Paris
to Shanghai.
And the European vassals continue to toe the American line albeit a bit more
reluctantly.
michael , May 28, 2019 at 11:15
The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy
industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while
outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly
under Clinton and Bush II.
Short-term profits soared with the cheaper labor, but giving away
high end technologies leading to innovations for China was resoundingly stupid. Chinagate was
(is) much more dangerous than Russiagate to National Security.
Having given away
America’s capabilities to China, no amount of negotiating will “level the playing
field” . We can no longer compete with China not because of labor costs, but because of
the improvements the Chinese have made in so many fields over twenty years, while America sat
stagnant (except of course for overpriced weapons and surveillance tools to watch American
citizens).
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:47
The US has always imported its Einsteins and Teslas. We Americans are educated to be
cannon fodder in wars of vanity. At best, we’re educated to be Trump – Romney
style connivrrs and crooks.
Historically, when two hegemonic powers clash the result is always war. What we are
witnessing between Washington and Beijing today is no different. But Washington will not
allow China to ‘displace the US as the preeminent power in the western Pacific.’
The trade war will become world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
does not have a valid certificate (Firefox warned me).
Charles Misfeldt , May 28, 2019 at 08:44
I look at this picture and see all the representative’s on America’s side of
the table are conservative scumbags who have no intention of engaging in behavior that
benefits myself or the majority in America. Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and
traitors…
MichaelWme , May 28, 2019 at 06:55
“a spat so far limited to tariff increases”
Not quite. The US has announced that any Chinese person travelling outside of China can be
arrested, as it had Meng Wanzhou arrested in Canada for selling Huawei phones to Iranians.
China threatened to execute 3 Canadians in retaliation, so Canada released Ms Meng from
prison and put her under house arrest while the legal processes of extradition are now
thought to require many years.
China hasn’t executed the 3 Canadians, and Ms Meng is in
her C$20 million home, and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. What
happened to Ms Meng can happen to any Chinese executive who travels outside China to the EU
or the Americas or Japan.
E Wright , May 28, 2019 at 04:50
It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the
same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter
gallery.
So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump,
compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s
facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western
controlled telecoms.
They don’t want to lose that access by allowing an outside
operator, so they accuse Huawei of what they are doing, on the assumption that Beijing does
what they do.
A January 2018 Bloomberg article suggests that Chinese officials may reduce their purchases
of U.S. government bonds. It is very unlikely that China can do so in any meaningful way
because doing so would almost certainly be costly for Beijing. And even if China took this
step, it would have either no impact or a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
China reduced its holdings of U.S. debt in March by about $20.5 billion, bringing its
overall ownership down to $1.12 trillion.
There was some more detailed coverage of this not long ago, probably on Strategic Culture.
China has largely stopped buying US treasuries for a few years now, and more recently has
been very slowly reducing its holdings. It has to recycle its US dollars from its exports to
the US somehow - instead of buying US treasuries and thereby funding the US military
encirclement of China, it is using them for infrastructure investments in Eurasia under BRI -
much of that is denominated in US dollars.
So that Carnegie Endowment crap is nothing but mindless bullshit propaganda*. No wonder
the US fails in everything it tries to do these days - these are the sort of idiots who
"advise" the US government what to do!!
As to that troll - B's advice is always this: Don't feed the trolls
* Disclaimer - I haven't read the troll's links, nor do I intend to.
Russia has largely eliminated its holdings of US treasuries. Many other countries have
also reduced their holdings, including several US allies (eg Japan, if I recall correctly).
Many countries in Eurasia now have huge gold reserves instead, which is a much better bet -
not just Russia and China but also Kazakhstan, for example.
China reduced its holdings of U.S. debt in March by about $20.5 billion, bringing its
overall ownership down to $1.12 trillion.
Those U.S. Treasuries fluctuations are very likely following trade movements rather
than political intentions. As commented before, China's enormous exports require large-scale
FX handling and USTs are the easiest way to do that.
It's not a credible political threat to sell those off, as the next wave of 'QE' money
printing is imminent and it will specifically target USTs (per Bloomberg article two days
ago, with projected Fed balance sheet to soon grow beyond the recent peak). In other words,
anything China might sell will be absorbed by the Federal Reserve with freshly printed money.
In the scheme of the money printing madness, another trillion USD is not a large
amount.
Why has Russia then sold their USTs? Probably for fear of being disconnected from the
SWIFT system and being stuck with worthless paper. In any case Russia's total divestment of
their entire UST stock didn't register in the ebb and flow of the market.
President Trump loves to blame China for the job losses that have devastated American
workers under globalization. But the truth is that Trump is blaming the wrong party. Trump's
reckless trade war against China is misguided and amounts to a colossal charade that will not
solve the actual problem.
Yes, it is true that numerous American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas to
China, thereby leaving American workers jobless and suffering. But China did not steal these
jobs.
No. These jobs were given to China. It was all legal and legitimate. China merely accepted
the gift.
What would anyone expect China to do? Accepting these jobs was a perfectly rational course
of action.
China was an underdeveloped nation with a large population of poor people willing to work
for a fraction of the hourly wages of American workers. And then corporations came along and
presented China with an attractive offer: We would like to build manufacturing plants in China
and hire droves of your unemployed people to work there. What was China supposed to do?
Naturally, China said yes.
This is hardly stealing.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
It is true that these new jobs in China were intended to displace American workers. But does
that concern belong to China? Does China have the responsibility to care for the well-being of
American workers? Is China supposed to prioritize American workers over its own workers?
Of course not.
China is supposed to look out for itself and for its own workers, not for American workers.
Thus it was perfectly proper for China to allow the manufacturing plants to be built in China
and employ Chinese workers. China did not steal these jobs.
So if China is not at fault, then who is to blame for the devastation caused to American
workers?
The answer is plain to see, and it lies within our own shores. The fault belongs squarely
with corporate America.
It was corporate America that made these decisions. Corporate America decided to close their
American plants and open new plants in China. Corporate America decided to lay off multitudes
of American workers and ruin entire American communities.
And who profited from the destruction to American workers? It was the wealthy executives and
shareholders of American corporations. They earned millions of dollars for themselves by
cutting the costs of their workforce.
This is part of the larger trend of economic inequality that is eroding the entire middle
class in America. Wealth is being shifted away from the workers down below and transferred up
into the hands of the wealthy executives and shareholders at the top.
Trump blaming China is nonsense. China is not at fault. To be sure, China is hardly an angel
and indeed engages in improper trade practices. But even if China agreed to whatever
bone-headed demands Trump is seeking, the problem still would not be solved. The truth is that
America cannot possibly compete against China on labor costs. The standard of living is much
lower in China and thus Chinese workers are willing to accept wages far below living wages in
America. So corporate America will continue to transfer more and more jobs to China and
elsewhere. If we do not address this fundamental economic reality, then we will never solve the
problem.
Trump blaming China has an insidious aspect to it as well. Focusing all the ire upon China
is a grand misdirection that conceals the true culprit, namely, the super-rich corporate
executives and shareholders in America.
This is part of Trump's standard playbook. Trump falsely proclaims to be fighting for
blue-collar workers, when in truth, Trump acts entirely in favor of the rich at the top.
Surprisingly, this seems to work. Some of the hard-working Americans who are being crushed
by Trump's idiotic trade war and who should be denouncing Trump, nonetheless praise him for
standing up to China, believing that Trump is fighting for blue-collar jobs. It is painful to
witness such good people falling victim to Trump's despicable con job.
In order to actually save the middle class, we need to focus on the true cause of the
problem. We must direct our great powers of reform where they belong -- upon the wealthy
executives and shareholders of corporate America who caused this problem in the first
place.
The nature of the problem is that corporate America has no incentive to protect American
workers. In fact, corporate America has every incentive to harm American workers by shifting
their jobs overseas.
So the financial incentives must be reconfigured. If corporate America is going to ship
American jobs overseas, it must not be permitted to pocket all the profits themselves and leave
their displaced workers with nothing. Instead, corporations that send jobs offshore must be
required to sufficiently compensate their displaced American workers. Executives and
shareholders must not be permitted to enrich themselves unless and until their workers are
financially secure.
Our society must favor people over profits, not profits over people.
This article was
originally published by "
Salon " -
Amid the escalating economic war between the
US and China, discussions have intensified on how Beijing might stand up to the economic
power of America,
especially given that the global economy is increasingly dependent
on the US dollar as the main currency for international trade, and the closing of US markets
could do some serious damage to China's export-oriented companies. China's main foreign-policy
publication, the
Global Times
, points to three trump cards that Beijing could use
to at least level the playing field in its fight with the Trump administration and cause
appreciable harm to the US economy, possibly forcing its opponent to temporarily scale back
its ambitions.
According to an
article
in the
Global Times
by a professor at the Renmin University of China, the three
trump cards are:
1) banning the export of rare earths to the US;
2) blocking US companies' access to Chinese markets; and
3) using China's portfolio of US Treasury bonds to bring down the US government debt
market.
Each of these trump cards are worth looking at in detail,
both in terms
of their impact on the US economy and also in terms of any possible retaliation from the
US and the repercussions for the global economy as a whole.
Banning the export of rare earths to the US would actually be a pretty serious
blow for US electronics manufacturers and, indeed, US high-tech manufacturers generally.
This is because rare earths are a key raw material for the production of smartphones, various
chips, and other high-value-added products that are the biggest cash cows of US companies
such as Apple and Boeing.
President Donald Trump during a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He over trade
talks in the Oval Office, February 22, 2019
Reuters, an agency one could hardly accuse of sympathising with Beijing,
reports
: "The United States has again decided not to impose tariffs on rare earths and
other critical minerals from China, underscoring its reliance on the Asian nation for a
group of materials used in everything from consumer electronics to military equipment."
China does not exactly have a monopoly on such materials, but the market would
definitely be in short supply
without Chinese exports, with all the price implications
that would bring. Moreover, it is likely that some deficit positions will be impossible
to close no matter how much money is involved.
Not everything is that simple, however. Should such a ban be introduced, then
Beijing will encounter certain technical difficulties.
If sanctions are only imposed
on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through
Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a
total export ban, then it won't just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well,
leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful
for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European
markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.
It appears that a ban on rare earth exports is a powerful weapon, but its use will require
the utmost delicacy and serious diplomatic efforts to avoid any extremely unpleasant side
effects.
The second trump card mentioned by the
Global Times
is blocking US
companies' access to the fast-growing and extensive Chinese market.
This should
be looked at from a political, rather than economic, point of view (although the latter
may seem logical). The aim of such restrictive measures is not to inflict unacceptable damage
on the US economy, but to make the full might of America's corporate lobbying machine work
against Donald Trump and support his political opponents.
According to
the S&P Dow Jones Indices, Asia only accounts for around 14 per cent of
the sales of S&P 500 companies. If we assume that China makes up the majority of this, then
not even a complete closure of the Chinese markets would be a disaster. There are a few
important details, however.
First,
China is the only (and final) market for sales growth for many US
companies.
So if China closes, the graphs at business presentations won't be
showing any kind of growth.
Second,
China plays a key role in many production chains that end with sales
in the US and other markets
. A loss of access to Chinese production would therefore
severely damage the competitiveness of American companies on the world (and even on
the US) market, especially if their European and Japanese competitors retain complete
access to China's production facilities.
As a result, the profits of US companies and the future of the American stock
market (which is a key political barometer given that many Americans have invested their
savings in shares) would be at risk.
It might be possible to offset these problems
by transferring production to other Asian countries with cheap labour and favourable terms,
but this couldn't be done quickly and it would be risky, given that Trump is waging trade
wars with everyone from the European Union to loyal US allies such as Japan and India. In
light of this,
US companies will have a huge incentive to prevent Trump from being elected
for a second term, and the lobbying and political capabilities of that part of the US corporate
sector that will suffer the most from this trump card could really play a key role in the
political victory of Trump's opponents.
The third trump card involves China dumping its portfolio of US Treasury bonds.
The
Global Times
writes: "China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds.
China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the
financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down." One
can conclude from this that
Beijing will most probably save dumping its portfolio
of US treasury bonds for dessert – in that it will have the biggest impact when the US stock
market is experiencing its next crisis.
China's Vice Premier Liu He (left) speaks during a meeting with President Donald
Trump (right) in the Oval Office of the White House on February 22, 2019
The move is not likely to cause catastrophic damage in and of itself (although the value
of US bonds will definitely fall), but if it is done at the moment when America is most
vulnerable, then China's portfolio may well end up being the straw that breaks the camel's
back.
Beijing is not displaying a particularly cocksure attitude.
As the
Global Times
' editor-in-chief quite rightly notes on
Twitter
:
"Most Chinese agree that the US is more powerful than China and Washington holds
initiative in the trade war. But we just don't want to cave in and we believe there
is no way the US can crush China. We are willing to bear some pain to give the US a
lesson."
As China lays its trump cards on the table, the world's globalised economy will
creak and collapse.
Globalisation is going backwards, and chances are we'll
end up with a completely different economic system that has more protectionism. Instead
of a global market, there will be several large regional markets with their own rules, dominant
currencies, technical standards, and financial systems.
Just as the US attack on Huawei is shortsighted
and will have serious consequences for USA,
the same would apply to China if they were to
reciprocate.
China wants to boost international
trade, not harm it, so they will work around
the bans to promote trade with others (long
term strategic play), not go head to head. I
suspect China may do something small just for
domestic optics, but the smart play is to let
the consequences of US actions play out on US
businesses, whilst boosting import substitution
and alternative supply chains.
I don't believe rare earth exports will be
banned (they may be restricted a bit as part
of a long term protection of domestic supply)
and I don't expect US Treasuries to be dumped
(buying at any scale had already ceased).
This isn't about backing one side over the
other - I just think one party is going to play
this smarter than the other.
This is a copy paste article. Why are all
these so called articles parrotting the same
line: Rare earth monopoly, whereas in
reality, they can' t even name the product
of dependency and how much it would cost to
find a different supplier.
If sanctions are only imposed on US
companies, then they will still be able to
purchase the necessary materials through
Japanese or European straw buyers, making
the embargo pointless. But if China imposes
a total export ban, then it won't just be US
companies that suffer but European ones as
well, leading to EU reprisals against
Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be
very painful for China, especially given the
economic war with the US that is making
access to European markets invaluable to the
Chinese economy.
If that is all the options they have,
they got nothing!
China watchers,
economists, and investors have been forming
battle-lines for years as they debate the
true strength and sustainability of China's
economy and its role as a global player.
Those of us that paint a picture of future
collapse and a day of reckoning are often
accused of spreading "doom-****" when we
claim that the Chinese have masked over
their dire situation by continually
expanding credit.
In January, Beijing injected a staggering
$685 billion in new credit into its
financial system and the money continues to
leak out causing assets to rise across the
globe. Today China continues to prop up the
unpropable, and yes, while no such word
exists, when it comes to China's economy it
should, for "unpropable" describes the
financial collapse that can only be
postponed but not stopped.
The article
below argues that this will have a major
impact in currency markets going forward.
Big Bad Wolf, 5G can wait, it's a luxury not
a necessity. Our networks run plenty fast
and, like Europe, we can pay higher prices
for a local workforce. China works due to
slave labor, if the people there wake up
they are done. That's why a complete
security state is necessary. Nip that
awareness in the bud. Now, go back to
Germany and celebrate Islam.
We'll just starve the rats out. China has
zero hold over us, there is nothing that
they make or export that cannot be
replaced. Will prices of some goods rise,
yes, but at the end of the day we don't need
them as much as they need us.
3 dumb cards. Strategical US dumb thinking.
US have a very short term strategy. That's
easy to understand. US will have elections
in 1.5 years and the campaign for election
is knocking at the door. China has a long
term strategy. China do not have elections.
Those US guys simply do not understand this.
rare earths (RE). Look at Russia. It
provides US with rocket engines and take
US cosmonauts to ISS. Why? To slower the
research. If Ru will not sale, the US
will accelerate the development of space
ships. So will do China with RE. They
will provide RE, maybe it will increase
the price a bit.
blocking US companies' access to
Chinese markets. Why you should do this?
China needs some US products which do
not have replacements or are protected
by IP laws. And to be clear. It is also
easier to import legally a product and
reverse engineer it, that to acquire it
illegal or spying in other countries
dumping US Treasury. Russia had far
more less US Treasury. They gradually
dump them not to interfere with the
market price. They do not want to loose
large amounts of money. But if China
sells all of them together US dollar may
crash and with it all China's financial
assets. What if US will print trillions
of dollars? US will loose, but also
China.
US is still the larger economy. Those
measures are affordable only if China is far
ahead of US. All this dumb cards will
backfire in less than 5 years. US sanctions
just showed the week points in China's
development. They will address them in order
to neutralize the effects. What should they
do? They have to look north and do what
Russia did. They will invest in software,
research, they will substitute the products.
They should just develop themselves
independent from US system. Also they will
gradually sale dollars and US Treasury.
1) banning the export of rare earths to the
US; (Hurts China exporters too)
2) blocking US companies' access to Chinese
markets; (US companies pull back US dollar
invested)
3) using China's portfolio of US Treasury
bonds to bring down the US government debt
market. (US buys back without a problem).
If China depends on this 3 matters, then it
has no Trump Cards,
President Xi's trade war is a threat, no
doubt. China's trade war against the United
States has resulted in hollowed out cities
where a once strong manufacturing sector
supported communities across the nation.
Have no illusions, this war that Xi is
waging against America is something that has
hurt us for thirty years and will likely
continue to do so. Best to fight back now
while we still can.
China will do none of these -- neoliberalism
is the reason. The key to imploding the
amerikan rat regime is to STOP buying
amerikan goods and especially services of
ANY kind...... much of the stuff is junk
anyway and can be replaced with far higher
quality goods and services available from
other states and nations.
Banning the export of rare earths to
the US....Not everything is that simple,
however. Should such a ban be
introduced, then Beijing will encounter
certain technical difficulties. If
sanctions are only imposed on US
companies, then they will still be able
to purchase the necessary materials
through Japanese or European straw
buyers, making the embargo pointless.
But if China imposes a total export ban,
then it won't just be US companies that
suffer but European ones as well,
leading to EU reprisals against Chinese
exporters to Europe. This would be very
painful for China, especially given the
economic war with the US that is making
access to European markets invaluable to
the Chinese economy.
Alternatively, China could impose quotas
on its exports to Japan and Europe based on
their current need of rare earth. It'll be
their prerogative if they want to re-export
to the US at (much higher) price. OR they
could use the US trademarked brute, thuggish
method of sanctioning those who dare to do
business with the US.
The second trump card mentioned by
the Global Times is blocking US
companies' access to the fast-growing
and extensive Chinese market. This
should be looked at from a political,
rather than economic, point of view
(although the latter may seem logical).
The aim of such restrictive measures is
not to inflict unacceptable damage on
the US economy, but to make the full
might of America's corporate lobbying
machine work against Donald Trump and
support his political opponents.
It takes more than corporate sponsorship
to get a presidential hopeful nominated.
It's really up to Deep State - the very same
Deep State that has allowed Trump launch and
take the trade war as far as he has now.
Trump's defeat in the poll would only
indicate Deep State's defeat in the trade
war with China. But the election of a new
president will not change the game. The
entire experience has left a bad taste in
China's mouth. They know about the shadow
government and no figure head will be able
to tame the angry dragon now. They could
demand the lasts of these corporations to
move and invest in China if they want access
to the 1.5 billion people's market. This
will facilitate more technology transfers or
the so-called "theft."
The third trump card involves China
dumping its portfolio of US Treasury
bonds. The Global Times writes: "China
holds more than $1 trillion of US
Treasury bonds. China made a great
contribution to stabilizing the US
economy by buying US debt during the
financial crisis in 2008. The US would
be miserable if China hits it when it is
down." One can conclude from this that
Beijing will most probably save dumping
its portfolio of US treasury bonds for
dessert – in that it will have the
biggest impact when the US stock market
is experiencing its next crisis.
Understanding that China may likely dump
their holdings, other nations (Japan, the
UK, Ireland, etc) might rush to dump theirs
before China gets the chance to have their
"dessert." Nobody wants to be left holding
the bag (of worthless treasury notes). So
it's not China's act of dumping that will
trigger the avalanche. It's the fear that
they might. So far, they are saying they
won't and giving no indication they would
for good reasons. They don't want to start
the panic now.
The Chinese have a fourth Trump
card..........stop doing business with the
U.S. all together. The U.S. does this with
Venezuela and it works very well at
collapsing the economy of the country.
The 5th option would be to get OPEC to stop
trading oil in dollars. Just that alone
would make the U.S. currency worthless, and
bring America to its knees. 9 of the
14 OPEC nations are already toying with the
idea of doing just that.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. President Donald Trump's
decision to blacklist Huawei Technologies
Co. is making it more expensive to fatten up
China's seafood.
Futures on rapeseed meal,
which is used to feed China's massive
aquaculture industry, posted their longest
winning streak since October on expectations
supplies will tighten. The world's top fish
producer has stopped buying Canadian
rapeseed, also known as canola, for the
coming months -- a time when China usually
boosts purchases.
"There have so far been no purchases of
Canadian canola for arrival between April to
August," said Hou Xueling, an analyst at
Everbright Futures Co. That means "the bulls
could drive up prices to an unimaginable
level."
China, the largest buyer of Canadian
canola, typically increases imports from
April to August to make rapeseed meal. This
period is the peak demand season for its
fish farming sector, Hou said. The official
China National Grain and Oils Information
Center also confirmed that the Asian country
hasn't bought any Canadian canola for the
coming months.
The ongoing diplomatic spat after
Canada's arrest of Huawei's Chief Financial
Officer Meng Wanzhou late last year on a
U.S.
"I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart
people."
I wouldn't say that at all; or at least I would say the situation isn't quite what you may
think of it. Changing demographics* can certainly change economic/scientific/national policy,
perhaps disastrously so. Karlin's piece ends with an ominous reference to the Brazilian
president, but it just as easily might have been someone like America's AOC and her very
unwise 100% green energy in 10 years scheme. Changing demographics means more AOC's and more
turns at the economic disaster roulette wheel. In a democracy (or a representative republic),
it's easy for a lower IQ population to impose its disastrous ideas on the higher IQ former
majority; hence, the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the resultant economic
dysfunction.
In the future, not only will China produce quality scientific research, but efficiencies
conferred by its cultural and ethnic homogeneity may allow its corporations to out compete
American companies to a much greater degree than mere scientific discovery might otherwise
suggest. Additionally, China's economy will be so large that its companies will be able to
afford the massive R&D costs required for making ever more difficult discoveries. Their
smaller global competition likely won't be able to match spending, so China's corporations
could one day become far more dominant than you might anticipate. After all, it's really
about who can best exploit new discoveries and not just about who makes them first.
Otherwise, ancient China would have ruled the world; they invented paper, gunpowder, and the
compass.
Huawei was maybe 3% of the global smartphone market in Q4 of 2011 but it is set to pass
both Samsung and Apple in marketshare within the next five years. You see a bit of this
cultural/linguistic/ethnic homogeneity = efficiency phenomenon with the video game industry,
specifically in regards to competition between Sony and the much larger, but more
multicultural and less efficient Microsoft. Japan's Sony corporation dominates Microsoft in
sales just like their car companies dominate their American competition; GM was recently
chased out of Europe because it couldn't compete and none of these companies can sell
anything in Japan.
Also, notice that the EU core area has a white European population probably on par with
the white European-American population, but the US still has the greater share of scientific
discovery. I would posit this has much to do with the efficiency conferred by language
homogeneity in the United States (English) -- among other things. China in the future will
enjoy many of the same efficiencies the US has now, in terms of both language and culture.
And this is why India isn't as dynamic as some have predicted. Despite having a "smart
fraction", it is a low trust society deeply divided by color and class. Its leadership,
imposed by the lower IQ fraction, is also somewhat inept. The same fate awaits the United
States under current demographic trends.
*Has there been a single example of a global superpower in modern history that has lost
its ethnic majority but still retained functional status and prosperity over the long term?
Maybe Singapore (but they weren't a superpower), although I admittedly know little about that
country. Austria-Hungary? In any case, I would suspect the sample size here is far too small
to make any definitive prediction about the future of scientific discovery and resultant
economic success for the United States of America.
While the decision hasn't been made official, it was reported earlier this month by Canadian
military magazine Kanwa Asian Defense , which noted that Beijing won't just jump over to Linux
- and will instead develop their own over fears of US surveillance (and of course, in
retaliation for Huawei's blacklisting).
Thanks to the Snowden, Shadow Brokers, and Vault7 leaks, Beijing officials are well aware
of the US' hefty arsenal of hacking tools , available for anything from smart TVs to Linux
servers, and from routers to common desktop operating systems, such as Windows and Mac.
Since these leaks have revealed that the US can hack into almost anything, the Chinese
government's plan is to adopt a "security by obscurity" approach and run a custom operating
system that will make it harder for foreign threat actors -- mainly the US -- to spy on
Chinese military operations. -
ZDnet
The new OS will be developed by a newly established "Internet Security Information
Leadership Group" as reported by the
Epoch Times , citing Kanwa.
The group does not trust the "UNIX" multi-user, multi-stroke operating system either ,
which is used in some of the servers within the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Kanwa
reported. Therefore, Chinese authorities ordered to develop an operating system dedicated to
the Chinese military.
The group also believes that the German-developed programmable logic controller (PLC),
used in 70 percent of China's industrial control system today, poses huge risks to China's
national security . In its opinion, China is not a "network superpower," but merely a
"network giant," Kanwa reported. Therefore, Chinese authorities have laid out plans to
upgrade China's network -- to become more advanced in cyber technology. -
Epoch Times
Huawei, meanwhile, is dropping Android OS for its own operating system, code-named HongMeng.
It should be ready to launch in late 2019 domestically, and sometime in 2020 for international
markets, according to TechRadar .
Google announced on May 20 that it would partially cut off Huawei devices from using the
Android operating system, however the Mountain View - based company was given an extension
until August 19 by the White House. Other tech companies which have blacklisted Huawei include
Qualcomm, ARM, Micron and several tech industry standards organizations such as Bluetooth, SD
and WiFi alliances.
"Huawei knew this was coming and was preparing. The OS was ready in January 2018 and this
was our 'Plan B'. We did not want to bring the OS to the market as we had a strong relationship
with Google and others and did not want to ruin the relationship. Now, we are rolling it out
next month," said Huawei's Managing Director and VP of the Middle East Enterprise Business
Group.
The OS,
which could be called Ark OS when launched , is expected to be compatible with mobile
phones, computers, tablets, TVs, connected cars, smartwatch, smart wearables and others.
All applications that work with Android are expected to work with this new OS without any
need for further customization, Elshimy claims, adding that users will be able to download
apps from the Huawei AppGallery. - TechRadar
It is unknown whether apps available via Google's Play Store will be carried in Huawei's
store.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (Project Syndicate) -- "When governments permit counterfeiting or copying
of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade." So said
President Ronald Reagan, commenting on Japan after the Plaza Accord was concluded in
September 1985.
Today resembles, in many respects, a remake of this 1980s movie, but with a
reality-television star replacing a Hollywood film star in the presidential leading role --
and with a new villain in place of Japan.
Back in the 1980s, Japan was portrayed as America's greatest economic threat -- not only
because of allegations of intellectual-property theft, but also because of concerns about
currency manipulation, state-sponsored industrial policy, a hollowing out of U.S.
manufacturing, and an outsize bilateral trade deficit.
In its standoff with the U.S., Japan ultimately blinked, but it paid a steep price for
doing so -- nearly three "lost" decades of economic stagnation and deflation. Today, the same
plot features China.
Notwithstanding both countries' objectionable mercantilism, Japan and China had something
else in common: They became victims of America's unfortunate habit of making others the
scapegoat for its own economic problems.
Like Japan bashing in the 1980s, China bashing today is an outgrowth of America's
increasingly insidious macroeconomic imbalances. In both cases, a dramatic shortfall in U.S.
domestic saving spawned large current-account and trade deficits, setting the stage for
battles, 30 years apart, with Asia's two economic giants.
Deficits made in America
When Reagan took office in January 1981, the net domestic saving rate stood at 7.8% of
national income, and the current account was basically balanced. Within two and a half years,
courtesy of Reagan's wildly popular tax cuts, the domestic saving rate had plunged to 3.7%,
and the current account and the merchandise trade balances swung into perpetual deficit.
In this important respect, America's so-called trade problem was very much of its own
making. Yet the Reagan administration was in denial. There was little or no appreciation of
the link between saving and trade imbalances. Instead, the blame was pinned on Japan, which
accounted for 42% of U.S. goods trade deficits in the first half of the 1980s.
Japan bashing then took on a life of its own with a wide range of grievances over unfair
and illegal trade practices. Leading the charge back then was a young deputy U.S. trade
representative named Robert Lighthizer. Fast-forward some 30 years and the similarities are
painfully evident.
Predictable decline in savings
Unlike Reagan, President Donald Trump did not inherit a U.S. economy with an ample
reservoir of saving. When Trump took office in January 2017, the net domestic saving rate was
just 3%, well below half the rate at the onset of the Reagan era. But, like his predecessor,
who waxed eloquently of a new "morning in America," Trump also opted for large tax cuts --
this time to "make America great again."
The U.S. national savings rate has fallen from 7.8% of GDP when Reagan took office to just
2.8% today. The result was a predictable widening of the federal budget deficit, which more
than offset the cyclical surge in private saving that normally accompanies a maturing
economic expansion. As a result, the net domestic saving rate actually edged down to 2.8% of
national income by late 2018, keeping America's international balances deep in the red --
with the current-account deficit at 2.6% of gross domestic product and the merchandise trade
gap at 4.5% in late 2018.
And that's where China assumes the role that Japan played in the 1980s. On the surface,
the threat seems more dire.
After all, China accounted for 48% of the U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2018, compared
to Japan's 42% share in the first half of the 1980s. But the comparison is distorted by
global supply chains, which basically didn't exist in the 1980s.
Data from the OECD and the World Trade Organization suggest that about 35%-40% of the
bilateral U.S.-China trade deficit reflects inputs made outside of China but assembled and
shipped to the U.S. from China. That means the made-in-China portion of today's U.S. trade
deficit is actually smaller than Japan's share of the 1980s.
Like the Japan bashing of the 1980s, today's outbreak of China bashing has been
conveniently excised from America's broader macroeconomic context. That is a serious mistake.
Without raising national saving -- highly unlikely under the current U.S. budget trajectory
-- trade will simply be shifted away from China to America's other trading partners.
With this trade diversion likely to migrate to higher-cost platforms around the world,
American consumers will be hit with the functional equivalent of a tax hike.
Lighthizer as clueless today as he was then
Ironically, Trump has summoned the same Robert Lighthizer, veteran of the Japan trade
battles of the 1980s, to lead the charge against China. Unfortunately, Lighthizer seems as
clueless about the macro argument today as he was back then.
In both episodes, the U.S. was in denial, bordering on delusion.
Basking in the warm glow of untested supply-side economics -- especially the theory that
tax cuts would be self-financing -- the Reagan administration failed to appreciate the links
between mounting budget and trade deficits.
Today, the seductive power of low interest rates, coupled with the latest strain of voodoo
economics -- Modern Monetary Theory -- is equally alluring for the Trump administration and a
bipartisan consensus of China bashers in the Congress.
The tough macroeconomic constraints facing a saving-short U.S. economy are ignored for
good reason: there is no U.S. political constituency for reducing trade deficits by cutting
budget deficits and thereby boosting domestic saving.
America wants to have its cake and eat it, with a health-care system that swallows 18% of
its GDP, defense spending that exceeds the combined sum of the world's next seven largest
military budgets, and tax cuts that have reduced federal government revenue to 16.5% of GDP,
well below the 17.4% average of the past 50 years.
This remake of an old movie is disconcerting, to say the least. Once again, the U.S. has
found it far easier to bash others -- Japan then, China now -- than to live within its means.
This time, however, the movie might have a very different ending.
I use both. Up to Ubuntu with Mint. Plus Raspbian and Android.
But, for somethings, you can't beat Microsoft for ease of use and interoperability. I rip
and transcode my DVDs in Windows 7. I use Microsoft Office '13. Browse using Firefox, Thor
and Chrome. And I have some specific audio processing tools that only exist in Windows.
And if you are a Chinese military or other intelligence professional with access to a
"SIPR" class network it probably would be safe bet that US manufactured computer systems
and networking gear has been appropriately "modified" not to use those chipsets since long
before the "deal" of "deals" was made with the Yankee Dog ( http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
) to send the remaining American technical manufacturing labor force out on the
street!...
Rinse and repeat for India's government intel and military professionals as well!....
Doesn't deal with the hardware back doors, but its a start. I do believe they have their own o/s already waiting after Kaspersky got banned a few years ago for finding both the hardware and s/w backdoors.
That hard disk firmware that called home was a classic.
Oh, yes. They're going to develop their own OS, just like Huawei. What ********. Huawei
will use vanilla android and China will pull an Apple, and rebrand Linux. But it sounds good,
to say you're going to crank out a brand new operating system, like it's a CRUD web app.
"... Since Apple gets 20% of its revenue from China and manufactures its iPhones (which generated 60% of its total 2018 revenue) there, few companies are as exposed to Beijing's retaliation. Apple has already been suffering in the region, seeing sliding revenue as consumers buy more phones from Huawei and other local brands. ..."
"... Citi warns that independent due diligence reveals " a less favorable brand image desire for iPhone and this has very recently deteriorated." As a result, Citi is materially lowering its sales and EPS estimates below consensus as China represents 18% of Apple sales "which we believe could be cut in half. " ..."
"Apple's iPhone, iPad, and Mac systems are at risk of experiencing demand
destruction due to collateral damage from the sales ban to Huawei."
U.S. companies such as Apple and Nike, which rely on China for a major part of their growth
and which have targets painted on their backs as Beijing and Washington ratchet up trade-war
tensions, are "bracing for China's retaliatory wrath" according to
Bloomberg
.
While Beijing has yet to formally retaliate after Trump blacklisted Huawei,
Chinese state media last week said China is "well armed to deliver counterpunches," without
giving specific details. And as companies await China's next move, there is rising, if
unwelcome, suspense over what form retaliation might take. Companies might "just have to
read the tea leaves on how their business operations are being treated,'' Erin Ennis, senior
vice president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said in an interview with Bloomberg
Television on Saturday.
As Bloomberg notes, one option China could use is from the 2017 "template" when relations
with South Korea deteriorated over Seoul's decision to deploy a missile shield. The
government curbed travel to South Korea, hurting cosmetics companies that rely on Chinese
tourists, while local authorities shut most of Lotte Shopping's China stores, alleging fire
safety violations. Consumers boycotted South Korean products, dealing a devastating blow to
Hyundai Motor sales. A similar pattern of action took place during the 2013 trade feud with
Japan which escalated over territorial disagreements in the East China Sea.
... ... ...
Since Apple gets 20% of its revenue from China and manufactures its iPhones (which generated 60% of its total 2018 revenue)
there, few companies are as exposed to Beijing's retaliation. Apple has already been suffering in the region, seeing sliding revenue
as consumers buy more phones from Huawei and other local brands. According to relatively optimistic research by Wedbush analyst Dan
Ives, blowback from Trump's Huawei ban could cost Apple about 3% to 5% of its iPhone sales in China.
... ... ...
Citi warns that independent due diligence reveals "
a less favorable brand image desire for iPhone and this has very
recently deteriorated."
As a result,
Citi is materially lowering its sales and EPS estimates below consensus as
China represents 18% of Apple sales "which we believe could be cut in half.
"
The article is devoid any technical substance and operated with value threat notion. As such this attempt of to spread FUD.
In this case the USA are fighting to preserve their technological edge by trying to destroy the leading China company which became a
competitor to domestic firms.
Control of Wi-Fi network is damaging to the targeted nation security. The question is: who would allow such a control? All
measures will be deployed against foreign powers exploitation.
But what about control of telecoms and putting NSA equipment directly in telecom data centers like the NSA practices
domestically and in vassal countries, for example, in Ukraine. And they manages to spy of Angela Merkel phone in Germany. Please
note that Germany is one of the most sophisticated technically nations in the world.
Notable quotes:
"... The anti-Huawei campaign intensified last week, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that effectively banned the use of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom networks on national security grounds and the Commerce Department put limits on the firm's purchasing of U.S. technology. Google's parent, Alphabet, suspended some of its business with Huawei , Reuters reported. ..."
"... The Americans are now campaigning aggressively to contain Huawei as part of a much broader effort to check Beijing's growing military might under President Xi Jinping. Strengthening cyber operations is a key element in the sweeping military overhaul that Xi launched soon after taking power in 2012, according to official U.S. and Chinese military documents. The United States has accused China of widespread, state-sponsored hacking for strategic and commercial gain. ..."
"... "Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger," the company said in a statement in response to questions from Reuters. Such moves, it said, would only limit "customers in the U.S. to inferior and more expensive alternatives." ..."
n early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a
destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation's top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a
challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment
installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The
offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously
exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for
the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so
important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country's critical infrastructure - everything from electric
power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech
juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing's bid to expand its global influence. Yet
Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in
pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are
caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six
months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world's largest maker of telecom
networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game.
After the Australians shared their findings with U.S. leaders, other countries, including the United States, moved to restrict
Huawei.
The anti-Huawei campaign intensified last week, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that effectively banned the
use of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom networks on national security grounds and the Commerce Department put limits on the firm's
purchasing of U.S. technology. Google's parent, Alphabet,
suspended
some of its business with Huawei
, Reuters reported.
Until the middle of last year, the U.S. government largely "wasn't paying attention," said retired U.S. Marine Corps General James
Jones, who served as national security adviser to President Barack Obama. What spurred senior U.S. officials into action? A sudden
dawning of what 5G will bring, according to Jones.
"This has been a very, very fast-moving realization" in terms of understanding the technology, he said. "I think most people
were treating it as a kind of evolutionary step as opposed to a revolutionary step. And now that light has come on."
The Americans are now campaigning aggressively to contain Huawei as part of a much broader effort to check Beijing's growing
military might under President Xi Jinping. Strengthening cyber operations is a key element in the sweeping military overhaul
that Xi launched soon after taking power in 2012, according to official U.S. and Chinese military documents. The United
States has accused China of widespread, state-sponsored hacking for strategic and commercial gain.
If Huawei gains a foothold in global 5G networks, Washington fears this will give Beijing an unprecedented opportunity to
attack critical infrastructure and compromise intelligence sharing with key allies. Senior Western security officials say
this could involve cyber attacks on public utilities, communication networks and key financial centers.
In any military clash, such attacks would amount to a dramatic change in the nature of war, inflicting economic harm and
disrupting civilian life far from the conflict without bullets, bombs or blockades. To be sure, China would also be
vulnerable to attacks from the U.S. and its allies. Beijing complained in a 2015 defense document, "China's Military
Strategy," that it has already been a victim of cyber-espionage, without identifying suspects. Documents from the National
Security Agency leaked by American whistleblower Edward Snowden showed that the United States hacked into Huawei's systems,
according to media reports. Reuters couldn't independently verify that such intrusions took place.
However, blocking Huawei is a huge challenge for Washington and its closest allies, particularly the other members of the
so-called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group – Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. From humble beginnings in the
1980s in the southern Chinese boom town of Shenzhen, Huawei has grown to become a technology giant that is deeply embedded
in global communications networks and poised to dominate 5G infrastructure. There are few global alternatives to Huawei,
which has financial muscle – the company reported revenue for 2018 jumped almost 20 percent to more than $100 billion – as
well as competitive technology and the political backing of Beijing.
"Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger," the company said in a
statement in response to questions from Reuters. Such moves, it said, would only limit "customers in the U.S. to inferior
and more expensive alternatives."
For countries that exclude Huawei there is a risk of retaliation from Beijing. Since Australia banned the company from its
5G networks last year, it has experienced disruption to its coal exports to China, including customs delays on the Chinese
side. In a statement, China's foreign ministry said it treated "all foreign coal equally" and that to assert "China has
banned the import of Australian coal does not accord with the facts."
Tension over Huawei is also exposing divisions in the Five Eyes group, which has been a foundation of the post-Second World
War Western security architecture. During a trip to London on May 8, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a stark
warning to Britain, which has not ruled out using Huawei in its 5G networks. "Insufficient security will impede the United
States' ability to share certain information within trusted networks," he said. "This is exactly what China wants; they want
to divide Western alliances through bits and bytes, not bullets and bombs."
Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) is shown around the offices of Huawei in London by company founder Ren Zhengfei in 2015. Ren
has rejected allegations that Huawei would engage in espionage on behalf of the Chinese government. REUTERS/Matthew Lloyd/Pool
Employees work on a mobile phone production line at Huawei's factory campus in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan. Huawei has
eclipsed telecom equipment giants Ericsson and Nokia in terms of market share. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
Huawei's 74-year old founder, Ren Zhengfei, is a former officer in China's military, the People's Liberation Army. "Mr. Ren
has always maintained the integrity and independence of Huawei," the company said. "We have never been asked to cooperate
with spying and we would refuse to do so under any circumstance."
In an interview with Reuters at the company's headquarters in Shenzhen, Eric Xu, a deputy chairman, said Huawei had not
allowed any government to install so-called backdoors in its equipment - illicit access that could enable espionage or
sabotage - and would never do so. He said 5G was more secure than earlier systems.
"China has not and will not demand companies or individuals use methods that run counter to local laws or via installing
'backdoors' to collect or provide the Chinese government with data, information or intelligence from home or abroad," the
Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement in response to questions from Reuters.
Washington argues that surreptitious backdoors aren't necessarily needed to wreak havoc in 5G systems. The systems will rely
heavily on software updates pushed out by equipment suppliers - and that access to the 5G network, says the United States,
potentially could be used to deploy malicious code.
So far, America hasn't publicly produced hard evidence that Huawei equipment has been used for spying.
Asked whether the United States was slow to react to potential threats posed by 5G, Robert Strayer, the State Department's
lead cyber policy diplomat, told Reuters that America had long been concerned about Chinese telecom companies, but that over
the past year, as 5G loomed closer, "we were starting to talk more and more with our allies." Banning Huawei from 5G
networks remains "an end goal," he said.
It is unclear whether May really wanted to implement Brexit deal but at least she negotiated several EU offers. It was UK
Parliament that rejects the offers.
I think May claim to fame might be not her failure in Brexit negotiation, but orchestration of infamous Skripals poisoning
false flag and the bout of Russophobia, as well as her attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. ..."
"... she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking". ..."
"... a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ..."
"... When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. ..."
"... the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period. ..."
"... What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business. ..."
"... We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task ..."
"... The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves. ..."
"... Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. ..."
"... It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money. ..."
"... May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely. ..."
"... The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge". ..."
"... She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment ..."
History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself
at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that,
contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who
would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the
briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of
poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of
homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords,
services starved of funds and price rises.
And that's without even mentioning Brexit.
Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly
failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George
Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".
That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political
party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be
that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn,
in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a
thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring
campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.
The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political
nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct
sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her
intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and
global laughing stock ".
This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative
Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence
prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the
length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a
quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party
has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has
managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period,
however much one may deplore that climate and that period.
What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power
and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a
difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is
too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the
leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who
came from a (brief) career in business.
Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.
May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the
tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her
to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against
insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?
She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed,
she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand.
We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel
– and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the
task .
The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of
her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment
in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after,
much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing
Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her
admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.
Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its
lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a
politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of
having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from
beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris
Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be
enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.
In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a
safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments,
thrills and spills.
Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially
insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What
do they get in return? Nothing at all.
This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US
had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.
Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and
most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute
force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.
The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US
took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.
The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is
anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military
support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.
ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer.
Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in
5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with
ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take
their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.
The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with
Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G,
they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.
Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp.
Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to
forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with
Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the
Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.
Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without
out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump
the idiots idiot.
May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the
shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under
the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.
The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors
contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been
the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you
may as well be looking at yourselves.
Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane
hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration
in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your
products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the
Parent Abuser.
Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why
should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in
this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain
should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is
looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses
to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global
investment FOR NOTHING!
It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as
everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not
personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper.
Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about
themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.
May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.
To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.
As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an
alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I
swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.
When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT
party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous
referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other
mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the
electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.
Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British
democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.
May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to
"negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after
wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and
water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially
be bound to the EU indefinitely.
The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery,
in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has
prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be
a process of "subtle subterfuge".
The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything
else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by
Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed
away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the
clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats
work out the details later; they aren't that important.
She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM
who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment
**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until
you RIP.
May fits in with the other Prime Ministers of the Paedoph Isles:
"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are 'unfair' and even convicted
paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said."
"... The sort of result that's to be expected from a Fire-Aim-Ready approach to policy making ..."
"... They're trying real hard to take a large company out of business without any evidence of said company doing anything wrong. Never even looked at them before but this definitely makes me want to get a Huawei phone next. And to stay well clear of everything from any US based company. ..."
"... Nothing here is really Huawei's fault - they're just the coincidental closest target to impact point of a greater trade war. All the posturing against Huawei specifically is just that - posturing. ..."
"... Basically it's because Mr. President is paranoid and somewhat crazy. A sane president would not be so childish, ..."
"... It's an empire in decline fighting the was for global supremacy, the democrats are just as crazy, not that I like Trump ..."
"... It's often said that wounded animals are the most dangerous. That's what this looks like to me. The US empire might be near dead, but one swipe of its huge tail can still break you if you get in the way. ..."
"... The US will never be as dominant as it was in the decades after WW II, but that was a one shot deal mainly because it had the only large industrial base that hadn't been blown to smithereens by the end of the war. ..."
"... Indeed. And how much have we heard about backdoors in Cisco and others here of late - it's a multiple, not a percentage. They all need a bit of pointing and laughing in a sense. IIRC, the telnet "backdoor" required one to be inside the LAN already...while the other baddies the Reg has reported on did not. ..."
No cybersecurity rules means networks are destined to be balkanized
... ... ...
One possible consequence, Steven Weber, professor of political science and international relations at UC Berkeley, told The Register
, is a world where boundaries are shaped more by technology standards than geographic features.
That is to say, we may be headed toward nationalized technology stacks that don't interoperate and nationalized supply chains.
This defeats the entire purpose of an open internet
... ... ...
Google has suspended Huawei's license to use its Android mobile operating system. The decision prevents the Chinese company from
adding Google services like Gmail, Google Maps, Play Store and other Google apps to new devices, though existing ones
will continue to function . It also complicates
security updates and all but guarantees Huawei will forge ahead with its rumored fork of the Android Open Source Project.
Microsoft has pulled the Huawei MateBook X Pro from its online store; Huawei devices are no longer available at BestBuy.com. At
Amazon.com, however, Huawei laptops, tablets and phones can still be had.
Huawei forward
Huawei could open up a branch company in the USA. Design, program, manufacture, and market those USA products as a USA company.
Nothing left to target.
Of course, still sending the profits home.
Re: Huawei forward
Also Chinese investors could buy a significant number of shares of US companies, making them suspect of Chinese affiliation, and
the US government will be faced with the dilemma of closing US companies. Re: Huawei forward
Trump conveniently forgets..
Anything that doesn't accord with his very, very limited world view. He also tends to forget which lies he told last time and
will happily contradict himself.. Re: Huawei forward
Unless the Chinese govt rolls over and declares Trump the winner of his trade war, apparently. If that happens, all the security
worries will blow away like a fart in the wind.
How does that work, exactly? Well, since Trump has never bothered to spell out what he wants the Chinese to do, he can declare
victory at any moment, but he wants a statement of surrender to show the faithful.
They're trying real hard to take a large company out of business without any evidence of said company doing anything wrong.
Never even looked at them before but this definitely makes me want to get a Huawei phone next. And to stay well clear of everything
from any US based company.
Nothing here is really Huawei's fault - they're just the coincidental closest target to impact point of a greater trade war.
All the posturing against Huawei specifically is just that - posturing.
But that's not the same as saying the greater trade war is without merit. It absolutely makes a difference how overall trade
between the US and China is structured, and a certain segment of our market has been saying for a long time that we had the short
end of the stick here and needed to change things. Even the El Reg author acknowledged that.
Of course it's much more complex to ask whether this tactic is actually going to fix anything, or just make things worse. Your
mileage may vary.
And I can imagine that if you are neither an American nor a Chinese citizen, then you don't really stand to gain anything from
this fight no matter who wins, so it's understandable if you're more frustrated than anything else. I don't blame anyone for not
wanting to jump into a fight that doesn't affect them - just remember that it does affect someone else.
It will be interesting to see what the Chinese targets are going to be. Probably GM and farmers since that hits Trump's base
- just as electioneering starts for 2020.
Then wait for Boeing to be really suffering from the 737Max before announcing a ban on Boeing in China (airbus manufacture there)
There is a lot of 'good ole boy' stuff that goes into every Airbus plane no matter where it is made so Trump could easily stop
Airbus from operating in China.
China could retaliate by treatening to start calling in all the US Debt that it carries. That will sink the DOW in a flash.
The Trump bubble will burst and he'll be impeached (well that's what I hope)
The Yuan could easily replace the USD as the world's currency.
Trump had better watch out or this will end badly for him. His grasp of history relating to trade wars can probably be measured
on a pinhead.
It's often said that wounded animals are the most dangerous. That's what this looks like to me. The US empire might be near
dead, but one swipe of its huge tail can still break you if you get in the way.
I seem to remember the same being said in the 80s when it was Japan that had the huge trade advantage over the US. Now granted
China is FAR larger and will easily overtake the US as world's largest economy without its per capita GDP needing to exceed 30%
of the US's, but like Japan did with its aging population China has some demographic challenges awaiting it when the parents of
the two "one child" generations reach retirement age, which is just beginning.
The US will never be as dominant as it was in the decades after WW II, but that was a one shot deal mainly because it had the
only large industrial base that hadn't been blown to smithereens by the end of the war.
Indeed. And how much have we heard about backdoors in Cisco and others here of late - it's a multiple, not a percentage. They
all need a bit of pointing and laughing in a sense. IIRC, the telnet "backdoor" required one to be inside the LAN already...while
the other baddies the Reg has reported on did not.
What makes the Huawei router telnet backdoor (now patched) unusual is that for 8 long years GCHQ has been code-reviewing Huawei
products in a dedicated department. Didn't that include routers?
Japanese CPU designer Arm has a facility in Austin, Texas, USA, that validates Arm-compatible and licensed chip designs for
customers around the world, including those in China, and thus is restricted by the White House's latest crackdown.
Moral of this story. Don't do business with the US, they will turn on you whenever it's financially beneficial for them and
unilaterally break deals, without any means for recourse.
An unreliable partner. Like any other bully, best to let them play in the sandbox by themselves.
What is interesting is that Huawei got some fundamental patents in connection to 5G, without licensing these patents there
will be no 5G role out, and Nokia and Ericsson are at least 1 year behind Huawei in development of 5G ...
This is political, and is being used by Trump to get China to move on the Trade agreement, which he want to "fix", but it might
end up causing the rollout of 5G to be delayed by years.
"What are the Chinese going to do - sue them in Federal court ?"
What could happen is that Huawei starts to sue every competitor, in every market the competitor sells in, whose competing products
use the components they're not allowed to use on the basis of unfair competition, illegal government subsidy or whatever fits
in the jurisdiction. There are a lot more courts around the world than Federal courts.
As if the US is goi g to honour those patents when it's no longer convenient.
International law is for everyone else, just look at the US' violations of the the Venezuan embassy in Washington and railroading
the UN's investigation into US war crimes.
We have a US govt that thinks that 'might makes right'. Literally the definition of a rogue state.
"The 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry
for performing diagnostic functions. It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register,
adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network
in Italy'.
Remember it was Bloomberg that published the article about motherboards that were made in China having an extra chip that 'leaked'
stuff back to china.
Apple and Supermicro were the main targets (amongst others).
Both companies undertook extensive investigations and found no evidence of these chips.
Despite repeated appeals Bloomberg refused to relase their evidence to the world.
To me this implies that it was a bit of fiction designed to make certain stocks go down so that shorters could make a killing.
People may take it for granted that their 'phones work everywhere but it was not ever thus. I used to have to borrow a tri-band
'phone for visits to the US. My normal mobile worked everywhere except the US. Later on I had the same problem with South Korea.
There was a time (back in the analogue TV days) when a TV bought in one European country wouldn't work in many of the others.
Digital TV is based on common underlying compression standards. (Although, even here there is scope for creating artificial incompatibilities.)
Unfortunately there is no common transmission standard, although DVB satellite transmission schemes are fairly widely adopted.
People can now move almost anywhere in the world reasonably cheaply. Some of their gadgets are useless outside their home country.
Many of these problems are caused by "special interest groups", manufacturer inspired protectionism and plain political stupidity.
People can now move almost anywhere in the world reasonably cheaply. Some of their gadgets are useless outside their home
country.
Many outside electrical gadgets have problems in the USA. They use a different voltage and AC frequency from that used by developed
countries. Happily, that means that their stuff doesn't work outside the "land of the fee".
The Trump administration has started a trade war with China, which has responded in kind. Trade wars eventually come to an
end even if it takes a long time. The "Cold War" with the Soviet Union was carried out as both an arms race, and a trade war and
while that took 45 years to conclude, it did end.
Masking the US/China trade war as a security issue doesn't work very well. Threatening to stop the sale of mobile phones using
a US designed open source operating system because of concerns about security holes in a yet to be rolled out 5g core network
is a weak argument. If there are 5G issues, why not 4G?. Where is the evidence, given that Huawei have set up a joint venture
with GCHQ to examine the core network software.? Is this another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" report where we are asked to believe
without evidence. We all ended up with egg on our collective faces then. Tony Blair's reputation was, and still is, trashed. May's
reputation could similarly ............ (Ok, I concede that would be a stretch!)
The weakest part of the argument is that it denies itself a way out when the trade war ends (or is suspended). Donald and Xi
could come to a truce tomorrow (a beautiful victory?) but that would leave the declared security issues unresolved. If the US
removes the trade ban on Huawei surely they will be letting Chinese spying tools into strategic national networks. What about
the mobile phones?. They are said to be a security risk now because the US (parroted by 5 eyes) says so. That won't magically
disappear because the US and China come to an agreement on steel imports. Will the UK and other countries who have followed the
lead of the US similarly change track when the US and China make up. ?
We are following our special relationship partners down a deep rabbit hole based on the assertions of some highly suspect political
operators.
Well said. Much of this problem is due to the deregulation of Corporate financials. I'm not a finance person so am not sure
that's the correct term. What I'm talking about is at the time of globalization/free trade when RRSPs were allowed to participate
in corporate stock outside of national scope. Such was the case in Canada at the time. Since then, these corporations outsource
as much work as possible to developing economies to reduce cost and most no longer have any R&D worth mentioning, all in the name
of increasing profit for the Ponzi/Pyramid scheme that is the deregulated stock market and that is effect of changing the corporate
tax burden. Since the late 1970s corporations have been able to increasingly buy their own taxation system, it seems. The more
regulated, or in authoritarian regimes financially controlled, corporations still seem to have effective R&D.
The above boils down to the populace having been duped by bad faith politicians. As much I don't like Trump and his crazy train
this all started a long time before him.
Actually, the politicians themselves were duped by the bad faith bankers and in general people who got compensated in options.
It can even look like good intentions.
The deregulation that allowed for evil things like CDS (being able to buy fire insurance on your neighbor's house...without
his knowledge, and even get a can of gasoline in the deal) - was sold as a way to make getting loans easier for minorities so
they could buy homes and have a stake in society - a good thing that would result in less crime and violence and more self-policing.
What it actually was is more interesting - in the insurance biz it's illegal to sell insurance to other than the entity directly
involved, and there are also regulations that the insurance company has to keep the buck to pay claims in hand - this was all
missing from the Frank-Clinton removal of Glass Steagall.
The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions, or at least can be sold as such.
In hindsight, we know that some of the financialization tech new instruments invented as a result by Blythe Masters of JP Morgan
and some others developed in the City of London turned out to be "weapons of financial mass destruction".
There was plenty of blame to go around (in this case the left side of the aisle started the ball rolling, but...no one was
at all innocent). From the banks making loans that were obviously never going to be paid off - no need to care as now Goldman
Sachs, AIG, JP Morgan, and of course Deutsche bank were standing there buying the loans to sell tranches at a profit - to the
people taking those loans, to the people buying the tranches of them....
If so I think it is time for China to take Taiwan back.
That wouldn't the US modus operandus. There'd need to be a false flag operation like the USS Liberty (but done without exposing
it's actually a false flag.
USS Liberty a false flag operation - ahh setting up a US intelligence vessel to be shot up by the Israelis. How did rhapsody
work or were they hit by US aircraft in disguise?
Wow. The Americans have certainly let their paranoia show immensely
But this move of what they have done is bassically similar to what the USA were claiming Huawei and China could do shutting
off 5G services because of their kit
America certainty have a paranoid schizophrenia mental illness building
"Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist party" questions of the 1950's. The reds under every bed paranoia of
that age is alive and kicking.
Yeah, I had to answer that one for a security clearance in the '70's myself. One wonders how Brennan, Chief of CIA for the
previous admin, was an avowed communist yet still managed to get that job?
His role in the current thrashing is interesting to say the least.
Brennan is not an "avowed communist". That lie came about based on the fact that he voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party
presidential candidate in 1976. There is no evidence that Brennan himself was ever a member of the Communist Party or even that
his political viewpoint is communist generally.
But that his political enemies consider calling him a communist to be an effective attack says a lot about American paranoia.
Ok: Trump is a nasty, corrupt, ignorant child and his motivations in this are probably as petty and wrong as is ever the case.
And you can't ignore the fact that this is happening in the context of a wider trade war, which, while it may have some logical
underpinnings (China does steal and cheat on a an epic scale) is also contaminated by the Orange Idiot's floundeing incompetence
and wayward spite.
So I am no apologist for Trump or his toxically incompetent administration: it may actually be almost as vile as the Chinese
regime at this point in time.
But the fact that the attack on Huawei is being mounted by people who are stupid, ignorant and explicitly odious doesn't mean
it is the wrong thing to do.
I've said before that it is irrelevant whether Huawei has been caught producing dodgy hard- or software and I have framed my
point in terms of capabilities and intentions: emphasising that capabilities are what count here.
It's simply this: China has an authoritarian, undemocratic, repressive, ofttimes murderous regime; it ruthlessly oppresses
minorities among its citizens; practises draconian censorship; has shown every sign of territorial aggressiveness and growing
military adventurism; is building up its armed forces at a worrying rate; is becoming ever wealthier and more powerful; and has
the ability both in technological know-how and in industrial capacity to supply a sizeable fraction of the free world's communications
and computing infrastructure. With no checks or balances or transparency, the Chinese state could compel any of its companies
to do whatever it wishes ("Make this happen for us, and keep your mouths shut about it, or next month you will be executed for
corruption"), and every aspect of its behaviour in the last 20 years proves that it will use technology -- a wonderful equaliser
in the world of asymmetric warfare -- for its own ends, lying, stealing and cheating at every turn. I don't see how this is even
a controversial statement by this point.
So the question is not what China intends, but what it can do, and this ought to worry us very badly. Given everything
we know of China's government, it would be suicidally stupid to gift it with power, influence or any kind of entry into
our just-about-free societies.
As the west wakes up to the threat of China, actual conflict becomes ever more likely (I would personally suggest, inevitable,
unless regime change occurs, which seems most improbable). China will become ever more strongly motivated to resort to technological
sabotage and espionage. Right now we don't want China stealing data on our (for example) nuclear submarine fleet. If it comes
to conflict, we don't want them bricking those boats while they're still dockside.
So Huawei is just the start. China certainly could use its companies for malign ends: so we must act protectively, as if it
is doing so, and will do so in the future.
"So the question is not what China intends, but what it can do"
This goes against pretty much every standard the Western world stands for. China COULD compel Huawei to put in backdoors. But
then again Huawei kit is probably the most closely-studied kit in the world, and it is trivially easy to compare firmware releases
to make sure that the kit you have is running the same version as a trusted reference version. It might be more difficult to check
that the hardware you get isn't a one-off specially modified version instead of the standard one, but the organisations likely
to be targeted in this way are either big enough to have the resources for deep checks or would not be buying Huawei kit anyway.
For the vast majority of commercial customers and 100% of retail customers, having eg GCHQ check out the kit is a perfectly
acceptable safeguard, indeed one which they do not even get from other vendors' kit (eg Cisco) which might be backdoored with
other countries' spying malware.
A, buy kit from china and check it for backdoors, weaknesses, vulnerabilities.
C, buy kit from a company HQ in Finland (but with chips made all over the world) and don't bother checking for any flaws, vulnerabilities
etc but trust it implicitly cos Finns are really nice people.
And therein is the problem. It is not pres Trump, he is only supporting the US 3 letter agencies and they are the ones with
the big problem. Their problem is that they want to put backdoors in Huawei networking equipment but if they do that it
means that the Chinese government will have samples of the US spying software and there is the big problem. The 3 letter agencies
can only see one way out of that and it is banning Huawei equipment, in their eyes that makes the problem go away and leaves their
spying on the population as normal using the so called American equipment.;
"deal with longstanding issues like government favoritism toward local companies"
How is it that that can be a point of contention ? Name me one country in this world that doesn't favor local companies.
These people company representatives who are complaining about local favoritism would be howling like wolves
if Huawei was given favor in the US over any one of them.
I'm not saying that there are no reasons to be unhappy about business with China, but that is not one of them.
Here's the problem. Lets say the sake of argument Huawei is not guilty of
putting spyware in their 5G stuff. How would they prove it? They basically given out there
source code, and apart from such slack security features nothing was found, but that was
apparently no enough.
Apart from proving a negative there is nothing they can do. I'm not saying that China is not
a repressive regime, but to be honest I don't think they have the resources to filter out the
juicy bits of the 5G traffic, and have enough on their hands just monitoring their internal
massive population without having to take on the US as well. And why should they, since the NSA
is already doing such a great job of it already.
The problem is that the great Orange one and is motley collection of right wing hawks are
thinking that is what i would do in China's place and getting themselves lathered up in a right
wing frenzy where they see reds under every bed.
If China was smart (and they are), what they should do is announce that all Apple phones are
banned in China and all Chinese companies are not allowed to do business with Apple, until
Apple can prove they do not provide back doors for the US government in their equipment. I
wonder what effect a 10% drop in apple share price and all those pension funds that depend on
them will have
..and we're all going to be poorer for it. Americans, Chinese and bystanders.
I was recently watching the WW1 channel on youtube (awesome thing, go Indy and team!) - the
delusion, lack of situational understanding and short sightedness underscoring the actions of
the main actors that started the Great War can certainly be paralleled to the situation
here.
The very idea that you can manage to send China 40 years back in time with no harm on your
side is bonkers.
"... The ban might actually provide a bit of a boost to other software developers, if it prompts users to look beyond the Google offerings that came with their phone and seek out some alternatives. In most cases, the alternatives are far better. ..."
Currently everybody else is losing. Forcing other countries (supposedly friends and
allies) to abandon equipment of one manufacturer for that of your own company is not very
nice and for us quite expensive. And that is not even factoring in the known fact that some
of these manufacturers had backdoors in their equipment - for which actual proof exists. So
considering our own national security we should forbid companies to do business with e.g.
Cisco...
Powerful is not the same as lawful, no matter what those in positions of power might claim
or like to imagine.
Is this a distinction worth making? Yes, because otherwise law enforcement officers come
to think that their word is law, and that they are themselves above the law. The result of
that is a police state.
Probably true. Huawei are probably just collateral damage in the inevitable socio-economic
conflict between the US and China. The US is used to running the world (not especially well
if you ask me). China with four times the population and an economy about the same size as
the US that is growing much faster doesn't actually seem to have that much interest in
running the world. But since the US is run by folks with no principles, poor memories, few
useful skills,and no planning ability whatsoever, I have to guess that the Chinese will "win"
in the long run.
Pretty irritating that Huawei is simply leverage while the US and China thrash out a trade
deal.
I have a Mate 10 Pro and the best phone I've had, was planning to go for the Mate 30 Pro
when it comes out.
Reckon I still will, I've already been reducing dependence on Google before this happened
anyway. I'll have to shift my business email over to ProtonMail like I already do with my
personal accounts. I'm trying out OSM instead of gmaps. I've already ditched gplay music.
Just need Proton calendar which is in development and that's another service binned off.
Not sure what's going to happen with apps I've bought through Google and have active subs
though...
The problem isn't the apps you use, there certainly are equivalents of the Google ones.
But they still mostly rely on the Google Play API to interface with your phones devices and
storage mechanisms. OSM is a pretty good replacement for gmaps, but will be of little use
without Google Location Services.
Will the ban actually prevent anyone using a Huawei device from accessing a Google service
(eg. Gmail) or just prevent them from downloading the official Google apps to do so? I
suspect the latter as the first would seem impossible to police. In which case there are
better alternatives out there.
The ban might actually provide a bit of a boost to other software developers, if it
prompts users to look beyond the Google offerings that came with their phone and seek out
some alternatives. In most cases, the alternatives are far better.
For email, try AquaMail. Easily handles my many email addresses split across Gmail, own
domains using Google's mailservers, Yandex and own domains using Yandex's mailservers.
OSMAnd+ provides as good mapping as Google Maps (better in remote and off-road areas), is
much more customiseable and you can download entire country maps to your phone, without
pissing about with Google Maps's silly area selection download. And its navigation is pretty
decent, lthough it lacks the Googley stuff like weather and nearest junk food shop
listings.
Wire is an encrypted messaging/video-calling/VOIP app, offering everything Hangouts (or
whatever Google's offering is called this week) does.
Yandex browser or Kiwi browser are Chrome but with added support for extensions
PulseSMS is text messaging with built in backup and the ability to send and receive SMS
through your phone from your laptop.
You can put backdoor in the router. The problem is that you will never be able to access it.
also for improtant deployment countires inpect the source code of firmware. USA is playing dirty
games here., no matter whether Chinese are right or wrong.
They're not necessarily silos. If you design a network as a flat space with all interactions
peer to peer then you have set yourself the problem of ensuring all nodes on that network are
secure and enforcing traffic rules equally on each node. This is impractical -- its not that if
couldn't be done but its a huge waste of resources. A more practical strategy is to layer the
network, providing choke points where traffic can be monitored and managed. We currently do
this with firewalls and demilitarized zones, the goal being normally to prevent unwanted
traffic coming in (although it can be used to monitor and control traffic going out). This has
nothing to do with incompatible standards.
I'm not sure about the rest of the FUD in this article. Yes, its all very complicated. But
just as we have to know how to layer our networks we also know how to manage our information.
For example, anyone who as a smartphone that they co-mingle sensitive data and public access
on, relying on the integrity of its software to keep everything separate, is just plain asking
for trouble. Quite apart from the risk of data leakage between applications its a portable
device that can get lost, stolen or confiscated (and duplicated.....). Use common sense. Manage
your data.
"... The real issue is the semiconductors - the actual silicon. ..."
"... China has some fabs now, but far too few to handle even just their internal demand - and tech export restrictions have long kept their leading edge capabilities significantly behind the cutting edge. ..."
"... On the flip side: Foxconn, Huawei et al are so ubiquitous in the electronics global supply chain that US retail tech companies - specifically Apple - are going to be severely affected, or at least extremely vulnerable to being pushed forward as a hostage. ..."
Internet, phones, Android aren't the issue - except if the US is able to push China out of
GSM/ITU.
The real issue is the semiconductors - the actual silicon.
The majority of raw silicon wafers as well as the finished chips are created in the US or
its most aligned allies: Japan, Taiwan. The dominant manufacturers of semiconductor equipment
are also largely US with some Japanese and EU suppliers.
If Fabs can't sell to China, regardless of who actually paid to manufacture the chips,
because Applied Materials has been banned from any business related to China, this is pretty
severe for 5-10 years until the Chinese can ramp up their capacity.
China has some fabs now, but far too few to handle even just their internal demand - and
tech export restrictions have long kept their leading edge capabilities significantly behind
the cutting edge.
On the flip side: Foxconn, Huawei et al are so ubiquitous in the electronics global supply
chain that US retail tech companies - specifically Apple - are going to be severely affected,
or at least extremely vulnerable to being pushed forward as a hostage.
"... The British aerospace sector (not to be confused with the company of a similar name but more Capital Letters) developed, amongst other things, the all-flying tailplane, successful jet-powered VTOL flight, noise-and drag-reducing rotor blades and the no-tailrotor systems and were promised all sorts of crunchy goodness if we shared it with our wonderful friends across the Atlantic. ..."
"... We shared and the Americans shafted us. Again. And again. And now *they* are bleating about people not respecting Intellectual Property Rights? ..."
"Without saying so publicly, they're glad there's finally some effort to deal with longstanding issues
like government favoritism toward local companies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology
transfers."
The British aerospace sector (not to be confused with the company of a similar name but more Capital
Letters) developed, amongst other things, the all-flying tailplane, successful jet-powered VTOL flight,
noise-and drag-reducing rotor blades and the no-tailrotor systems and were promised all sorts of crunchy
goodness if we shared it with our wonderful friends across the Atlantic.
We shared and the Americans shafted us. Again. And again. And now *they* are bleating about people not
respecting Intellectual Property Rights?
And as for moaning about backdoors in Chinese kit, who do Cisco et al report to again? Oh yeah, those
nice Three Letter Acronym people loitering in Washington and Langley...
A claimed deliberate spying "backdoor" in Huawei routers used in the core of Vodafone
Italy's 3G network was, in fact, a Telnet -based remote debug interface.
The Bloomberg financial newswire reported this morning that Vodafone had found
"vulnerabilities going back years with equipment supplied by Shenzhen-based Huawei for the
carrier's Italian business".
"Europe's biggest phone company identified hidden backdoors in the software that could have
given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy,"
wailed the newswire.
Unfortunately for Bloomberg, Vodafone had a far less alarming explanation for the deliberate
secret "backdoor" – a run-of-the-mill LAN-facing diagnostic service, albeit a hardcoded
undocumented one.
"The 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly
used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions. It would not have
been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register ,
adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized
access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'.
"This was nothing more than a failure to remove a diagnostic function after
development."
It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that
secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by
Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei."
Huawei itself told us: "We were made aware of historical vulnerabilities in 2011 and 2012
and they were addressed at the time. Software vulnerabilities are an industry-wide challenge.
Like every ICT vendor we have a well-established public notification and patching process, and
when a vulnerability is identified we work closely with our partners to take the appropriate
corrective action."
Prior to removing the Telnet server, Huawei was said to have insisted in 2011 on using the
diagnostic service to configure and test the network devices. Bloomberg reported, citing a
leaked internal memo from then-Vodafone CISO Bryan Littlefair, that the Chinese manufacturer
thus refused to completely disable the service at first:
Vodafone said Huawei then refused
to fully remove the backdoor, citing a manufacturing requirement. Huawei said it needed the
Telnet service to configure device information and conduct tests including on Wi-Fi, and
offered to disable the service after taking those steps, according to the document.
El Reg understands that while Huawei indeed resisted removing the Telnet
functionality from the affected items – broadband network gateways in the core of
Vodafone Italy's 3G network – this was done to the satisfaction of all involved parties
by the end of 2011, with another network-level product de-Telnet-ised in 2012.
Broadband network gateways in 3G UMTS mobile networks are described in technical detail in
this Cisco (sorry)
PDF . The devices are also known as Broadband Remote Access Servers and sit at the edge of
a network operator's core.
Plenty of other things (cough, cough, Cisco) to panic about
Characterising this sort of Telnet service as a covert backdoor for government spies is a
bit like describing your catflap as an access portal that allows multiple species to pass
unhindered through a critical home security layer. In other words, massively over-egging the
pudding.
Many Reg readers won't need it explaining, but Telnet is a routinely used method of
connecting to remote devices for management purposes. When deployed with appropriate security
and authentication controls in place, it can be very useful. In Huawei's case, the Telnet
service wasn't facing the public internet, and was used to set up and test devices.
Look, it's not great that this was hardcoded into the equipment and undocumented – it
was, after all, declared a security risk – and had to be removed after some pressure.
However, it's not quite the hidden deliberate espionage backdoor for Beijing that some
fear.
Twitter-enabled infoseccer Kevin Beaumont also shared his thoughts on the story,
highlighting the number of vulns in equipment from Huawei competitor Cisco, a US firm:
For example, a pretty bad remote access hole was discovered in some Cisco
gear , which the mainstream press didn't seem too fussed about. Ditto hardcoded root
logins in Cisco video surveillance boxes. Lots of things unfortunately ship with insecure
remote access that ought to be removed; it's not evidence of a secret backdoor for state
spies.
Given Bloomberg's previous history of trying to break tech news, when it claimed that tiny
spy chips were being secretly planted on
Supermicro server motherboards – something that left the rest of the tech world
scratching its collective head once the initial dust had settled – it may be best to take
this latest revelation with a pinch of salt. Telnet wasn't even mentioned in
the latest report from the UK's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, which savaged
Huawei's pisspoor software development practices.
While there is ample evidence in the public domain that Huawei is doing badly on the
basics of secure software development, so far there has been little that tends to show it
deliberately implements hidden espionage backdoors. Rhetoric from the US alleging Huawei is a
threat to national security seems to be having the opposite effect around the world.
With Bloomberg, an American company, characterising Vodafone's use of Huawei equipment as
"defiance" showing "that countries across Europe are willing to risk rankling the US in the
name of 5G preparedness," it appears that the US-Euro-China divide on 5G technology suppliers
isn't closing up any time soon. ®
Bootnote
This isn't shaping up to be a good week for Bloomberg. Only yesterday High Court judge Mr
Justice Nicklin
ordered the company to pay up £25k for the way it reported a live and ongoing
criminal investigation.
"... The US Department of Commerce said it would put Huawei on its so-called Entity List, meaning that the American companies will have to obtain a licence from the US government to sell technology to Huawei. At the same time, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring the US telecoms sector faced a "national emergency" -- giving the commerce department the power to "prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk" to national security . ..."
"... "The US has basically openly declared it is willing to engage in a full-fledged technology war with China," he said. ..."
"... Huawei has few alternatives for critical semiconductors to Qualcomm, which would likely be denied an export license if the US follows through on its threat of putting Huawei on the "Entity List" (the second most stringent category, but still sufficient for the US to bar licensing). One is Murata, but Japan has joined the US ban on Huawei 5G products, and would presumably fall in line if the US were to ask Japan to tell Murata not to sell semiconductors to Huawei. ..."
"... On top of that, Ethiopian Air's forceful criticism of the 737 Max gives China air cover. Unlike Lion Air, which is widely seen as a questionable operator, readers who fly emerging economy carriers give Ethiopian Air high marks for competence and safety. One even wrote, "I have flown Ethiopian Air. It's certainly far better than Irish-owned and operated Ryan Airlines (even though the latter has white pilots with nice Irish accents)." ..."
"... Chinese interests have made large investments many countries in Africa, so it's conceivable it could get other countries on the continent to follow its lead. Admittedly, China plus those countries collectively may not be large enough to do considerable damage to Boeing. But this action would break the hegemony of the FAA as certifier for US manufacturers, and that could prove crippling in the long run. ..."
The White House and US Department of Commerce took steps on Wednesday night that would in effect ban Huawei from selling technology
into the American market, and could also prevent it from buying semiconductors from suppliers including Qualcomm in the US that are
crucial for its production .
The US Department of Commerce said it would put Huawei on its so-called Entity List, meaning that the American companies will
have to obtain a licence from the US government to sell technology to Huawei. At the same time, US president Donald Trump signed
an executive order declaring the US telecoms sector faced a "national emergency" -- giving the commerce department the power to "prohibit
transactions posing an unacceptable risk" to national security .
Paul Triolo, a technology policy expert at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, said it was a "huge development" that would not
only hurt the Chinese company but also have an impact on global supply chains involving US companies such as Intel, Microsoft and
Oracle.
"The US has basically openly declared it is willing to engage in a full-fledged technology war with China," he said.
Huawei has few alternatives for critical semiconductors to Qualcomm, which would likely be denied an export license if the
US follows through on its threat of putting Huawei on the "Entity List" (the second most stringent category, but still sufficient
for the US to bar licensing). One is Murata, but Japan has joined the US ban on Huawei 5G products, and would presumably fall in
line if the US were to ask Japan to tell Murata not to sell semiconductors to Huawei.
The advantages of China going after Boeing, as opposed to making life miserable for US technology companies, would be considerable.
Targeting, say, Microsoft would be an obvious tit for tat. By contrast, China was the first country to ground the 737 Max, and its
judgment was confirmed by other airline regulators and eventually the FAA. China does not have a credible competitor to Boeing, so
it could wrap continued denial of certification of the 737 Max in the mantle of being pro-safety, even if independent parties suspected
this was a secondary motive.
On top of that, Ethiopian Air's forceful criticism of the 737 Max gives China air cover. Unlike Lion Air, which is widely
seen as a questionable operator, readers who fly emerging economy carriers give Ethiopian Air high marks for competence and safety.
One even wrote, "I have flown Ethiopian Air. It's certainly far better than Irish-owned and operated Ryan Airlines (even though the
latter has white pilots with nice Irish accents)."
Chinese interests have made large investments many countries in Africa, so it's conceivable it could get other countries on
the continent to follow its lead. Admittedly, China plus those countries collectively may not be large enough to do considerable
damage to Boeing. But this action would break the hegemony of the FAA as certifier for US manufacturers, and that could prove crippling
in the long run.
Another issue that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants is that Boeing appears to lack the stringent software development protocols
necessary for "fly by wire" operations. Boeing historically has relied on pilots being able to reassert control over automated functions';
Airbus has "fly by wire" systems as far more prominent and accordingly the expectation and ability of pilots to override these systems
is lower.
However, many articles noted that MCAS took the 737 further into a fly-by-wire philosophy than it had been before. Yet Boeing
was astonishingly lax, having only two angle of attack sensors, of which only one would be providing input to MCAS, and then on an
arbitrary-seeming basis.
By contrast, the Airbus philosophy stresses redundancy, not only in hardware -- they use not three but four angle of attack sensors
-- but in software, and even software development. "Two or more independent flight control computing systems are installed using
different types of microprocessors and software written in different languages by different development teams" and verified using
formal methods (" Approaches
to Assure Safety in Fly-By-Wire Systems: Airbus Vs. Boeing ").
Microsoft will reportedly become the latest tech giant to 'suspend' its relationship with
Huawei, according to
the South China Morning Post .
One week after Washington first imposed strict limits on Huawei and its affiliates that will
make it almost impossible for American firms buy Huawei products or sell American-made
components to the company, a handful of chipmakers, telecoms companies and tech firms
(Alphabet) have reportedly scaled back or severed their relationship with Huawe.
Though Microsoft said yesterday that it hadn't made a decision, the SCMP reported Friday
morning that Microsoft had decided to stop accepting new orders from Huawei for operating
systems and other content-related services: Windows operating systems for laptops and other
content-related services. The US software giant has already removed Huawei laptops from its
online stores.
Just one more prime example why no companies should use Microsoft software.
The issue is clear as a bell. Become dependent on a US supplier and the Gov of the USSA
could cut off your contracts with impunity. That risk is too high for any manufacturing
entity.
I am not a fan of Linux. I do not like the way it manages memory. Also while it has gotten
better, it remains something of an unmade bed in that much of the software doesn't work
particularly well. But the same cold be said for Microsoft. How many times does Windows
OFFICE have to lock up before you comprehend the nightmarish patch system which has become
Windows?
GNU meaning not Unix never developed into a GUI. Ghost BSD looks interesting, BSD PC has
limited compatibility but UNIX is flatly superior in how it handles memory. Unix is
brilliant. I also love Open Office, it is better than Microsoft Office and you can save all
your files to the Microsoft format if you want. Open Office is perfect transitional software
and FREE! Why are school districts paying microsoft instead of using Open Office.
Win 10 is invasive garbage. I don't want anything managing my computer
"automatically".
Huawei is a real wakeup call for the world... the US is an unreliable trader. They can
never be trusted. This is not just about that lunatic Turmp. If AOC ever got to the White
House she could do the same under the New Green Deal NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCY.
The Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power over Commerce but over time, the
Congress delegated more and more power to the Exec with this kind of dreadful outcome.
Founding Fathers wanted checks and balances. But here you have one person, interrupting
commerce and contracts with the stroke of a pen that has never been approved by Congress.
That is simply too much risk.
The Chinese like anyone else make mistakes. BUT CHINA does not repeat the same mistake
twice unlike the USSA that seems to be caught in the revolving door of mistakes.
Better that this happens early in the life of Huawei than much later. China could actually
lead the world into the adaptation of open source destroying both Microsoft, Google and Apple
at the same time. Remember Apple took BSD and then made proprietary changes. That is the
APPLE OS which is much more stable than anything Windows ever made.
While people knock apple Iphone for cost, the Apple laptops are very stable and
essentially virus and worm immune. For a novice users that's why Apples are great.
I have had Unix based machines run for years with never being turned off, always rock
stable. It is head and shoulders above everything. FreeBSD
Here is a UNIX GUI. I know nothing about these guys but will check it out. A non power
user only needs a solid browser, and a good word processor, Open Office works with BSD.
Personally I don't think Apple should be grouped with Google and microsoft. I don't see as
Apple has done anything wrong other than selling their products at a premium to the novices.
That's not a crime and novices benefit. So quit packaging Apple in with Google and
Microsoft.
BTW, Blackberry OS is Unix based. It is a canadian company so likely a US poodle.
Huawei were attacked because they are a threat to Apple, not to "our national
security." The only thing Trump cares about are the profits of big companies.
Yes, but the real question is did you cut ties with the NBA, Nike, grape Kool-Aid,
McDonald's, Popeye's, your parole officer, KFC, crotch-grabbing, your six illegitimate
children and the local welfare office?
I knew Nokia was doomed when it partnered with Microsoft. They should have instead
partnered with and help fund the Open Source Software community. By now, we'd have
spectacular phones, free of logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads.
Now you have Windoze PC's with logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads. Well, unless you
hack it to make it a Workable PC. It's weird having to Hack your own PC to make it sane.
Why shouldn't Corning glass or Micron flash memory be sold to Huawei for use in phones
bound for Europe? Huawei sells 30 times more phone in Europe than USA. I bought Huawei phone
in Norway and I think is my best phone ever, I use Samsung Galaxy Note 9 in USA, but I carry
the Huawei for photos and for WiFi calls from Norway. Try to do wifi calls from the Galaxy
using Starbucks wifi and then using the same wifi try Huawei, you would see the difference
right away.
The US is going to sanction itself into economic irrelevance as the rest of the world says
F you. We only have two friends now, Israel and KSA. Nice work, Donnie.
Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump,
British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka
Russiagate).
Notable quotes:
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will
abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through
the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal
agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second
confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her
top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers,
effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed
MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed
May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the
contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to
Maidenhead.
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver
Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May
said.
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel
to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of
D-Day.
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her
resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended
up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed
nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their
majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been
telegraphed well in advance.
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her
husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards
new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to
placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are
plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss
words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And
the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
"... However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.) ..."
"... These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared. ..."
"... South China Morning Post ..."
"... This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan. ..."
"... Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning. ..."
"... Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue.. ..."
"... What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets. ..."
"... The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary. ..."
"... Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what? ..."
"... The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes. ..."
However, nothing in
the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries
and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)
The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation
with Huawei:
The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating
the United States or China .
Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.
An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject
to U.S. export controls ."
Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:
BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would
no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from
its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software
from future Huawei phones.
These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual
piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.
That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei
equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency
and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.
After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with
Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish
their utility for many users.
The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones
on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.
The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a
two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles)
directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning
Post only have shortexcerpts
of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:
I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide
to disrespect the IP if this was the case.
Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with
Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.
The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed
they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.
It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies
can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......
@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.
That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be
isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.
Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development
"from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo"
niche.
Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with
the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.
As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion
of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software
and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and
made it happen.
It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.
Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference
makers.
The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer
in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia,
and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.
Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain
hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.
In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's
tech sector.
This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American
market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.
Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.
And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from
different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people
must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar
as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists,
by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.
Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.
Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever
so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the
USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West
created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation
that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.
One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA
that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).
PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.
Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her
in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty
person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).
Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number
one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.
The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History
teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading
with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's
resolve.
Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor
because it is winning.
The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days)
is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything
these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.
Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.
The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist
and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.
A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view
No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international
support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already
has support from Japan.
USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen
countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President
is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.
Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him
in what we call "free and fair elections".
What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router
and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite
happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other
markets.
So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.
China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve
that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must
build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.
Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental
capture by the uber wealthy...
The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership
with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.
Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and
Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.
Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite
for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.
sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see
Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional,
accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random
pot-shots, lead to what?
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already
cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's
Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery
from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning
of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.
The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic
strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and
most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that
will destroy his 2020 hopes.
Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based
phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean
1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.
At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google
services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would
uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).
"... there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering. ..."
"... the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general ..."
"... It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. ..."
"... I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. ..."
So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have
happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes)
would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No.
10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments
Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone
long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that
couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.
Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office,
particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to
find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her
idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.
It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of
manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary.
Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head
against the wall for many months.
I imagine May's one hope for near term solace is if Boris is indeed the next prime minister. Even she
will benefit from being compared to him.
That's immaterial. Boris is exactly like Trump, he lies and lies and lies, and even when caught out
lying, he simply does not care and carries on lying.
As for Leadsom saying a second referendum would be 'dangerously divisive', what planet is she on? The
first referendum has proved incredibly dangerously divisive. To the extent, I doubt there can ever be
any general acceptance of either leave or stay, whichever happens.
If turnout is high, and Farage polls > than LD+SNP+GREEN+TIG, it could be seen as a strong signal
for no deal. Low turnout means little.
High turnout + result can mean something. But what exactly depends on the result. Even then, high
turnout with Farage winning (even getting less votes than remain) could easily generate some pro
no-deal headlines.
Best pro-remain result (but IMO extremely highly unlikely) would be high turnout (>50%), Farage +/-
same as LD (say even with LD second but only by a few points), but significantly less than
LD+G+SNP+TIG.
Thank you vlade! We will have to wait until Sunday. The results will be interesting anyway. This
are not routine post-dem elections anymore. It migth mark the end of the end of history
hahahahahah!
I know this is anecdotal, but many of my European friends would like the Brits to stay in the
EU. However, as vlade mentions, the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on
Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general. If the populist gains are weak in the EU
elections and the Farage clique receives a mandate for hard Brexit, it is possible that the EU will
severely punish the UK. Many European citizens want the Brits to stay, but are tired of their
whinging and the anti-european propaganda being vomited forth by the UK tabloid press. Assaults on
EU citizens speaking European languages are becoming all too common. If Farage is elected with a
big turnout, EU citizens will demand punishment.
There is no mandate granted by the EU elections, because there is no method a small EU
splinter faction (Farage's Faction, large only in his imagination) can achieve anything against
the "we are in the EU to stay" majority in the European Parliament.
The Farage Faction in the EU parliament, will be less effective that the Lone Libertarian
Senator in the US Senate, who is only there to demonstrate that the Republican Party are no
completely crazy, and do have one of two realistic policies.
1. No GE, May for Ever, Brext limbo, EU Membership continues until the UK stops paying the EU, or
the people over 50 die and the young eliminate this circus.
2. The Labor, Green, Scot's Nat's, and LibDems form a collision (intended) Government, and continue
(1).
Parliament has clearly demonstrated the wishes of the British people: No to the EU, No to the EU EU
dictated withdrawal agreement (aka the MAY (Make Everybody Yell in pain) agreement, and No Crash out
(No British 2 fingered salute, equivalent to the US 1 fingered salute)*
What remains is Limbo, without flexibility – Remain but with Denial, and a change from a Badly
Managed County, to a Badly Managed Country by a different set of Clowns.
As Maggie Thatched remarked: There Is No Alternative.
* The UK uses a two fingered salute, because British Men can consider two things at the same time,
Beer and Women, unlike the French (Hereditary Enemies) who can only consider one thing at a time.
**Just to clarify – British men can CONSIDER two things at the same time. Actually performing two
things at the same time runs into the standard limitations of the Male Brain.
And to think that it was only yesterday that yet another Brexit date went by. That was the one agreed to
in March where the EU agreed to delay Brexit until May 22nd if British MPs back Prime Minister Theresa May's
deal. The idea was that any later and a resentful UK would be taking part in the EU elections. Well, that
didn't work out for anybody.
It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the
bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. The UK has cut those
bonds and the results are so bad that the United Nations has come out with a report (
https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1
)
saying that they have created a "harsh and uncaring" environment for people, that '14 million UK residents
live in poverty, and that some 1.5 million of them were unable to afford basic essentials in 2017.' No
wonder people feel little connection between themselves and those running the country
I was just listening to the news and it sounds like May was making all sorts of concessions in the deal that
she was working on without consulting anybody else in government. There are so many people leaving her side
now, that she may be the last person left standing in government. She is still clinging onto power but her
own party members are busy stomping on her fingertips as a tipping point has been reached. Labour does not
seem to be gaining by this either as they are bleeding votes to other parties due to their own Brexit
position. This is going to get ugly when it comes time to choose a new leader. Prime Minister Nigel Farage
anybody?
Yaargh for the "No Sex Please" reference!
Plus, "skidmarks" is a common reference of an insulting nature here Down South. Kudos!
The infamous joke ends with; " and the dude had skidmarks on the front of his drawers!"
So, 'skidmarks' is all too likely a result from the upcoming EU elections.
I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to
resign. There is nothing they can offer to trade with her in return for her resigning because she won't
listen, ever, to anyone so she simply won't hear the offer being made over the din of her own droning.
Maybe The Queen can legally send some heavy-booted people over to physically drag her out of parliament?
AFAIK, the 1922 Committee
can
change the rules to allow her to be challenged. The issue –
just as with Trump – is that dealing with someone who breaks the informal consensus by breaking the
formal consensus (changing the rules, even if it is just "for a special case") is not necessarily easy or
sure to lead to the desired outcome (what if the special vote fails to oust May? Will the next leader be
challenged early, too?).
After all, if the 12-month grace period has been set aside once, it can surely be done again, and no
presumptive Tory PM is interested in being more restrained by the committee (for both noble and ignoble
reasons, I'm sure, though I suspect the ratio to be tilted in the latter direction).
But she's the Queen's prime minister. Doesn't matter if she's not leader of her party. Or does it?
There have been mixed rumours on HM's views on the EU, which I suppose shows her subtlety. But if she
is subtle, HM will find a way not to get involved.
I hadn't considered that! What if May is summoned by the chief whip and suspended, just like
Heseltine when he declared he was going to vote for the Lib Dems? Can she dismiss the chief whip
with a click of her fingers? L'etat, c'est moi.
I've no idea about the formal route for expulsion from the party, but it seems Widdecombe was
subjected to the rules when she declared for Whatever Nigel's Having.
Now I have a mental image of a barricaded Theresa May taking to the airwaves and calling upon
the military to come to her aid by suppressing her own party in the name of the Queen.
It's important to remember (and too easily forgotten) that the challenge to May's position is as leader
of the Conservative party, not as Prime Minister. Of course historically the two have been coterminous, but
they don't absolutely have to be. Normally, what happens is that a PM's political missteps result in forced
resignation or a leadership challenge, and the winner of the ensuing competition becomes PM. Eden resigned
after Suez, Heath was forced out after losing the 1974 election etc. But both of these cases (and indeed
Thatcher in 1990) were rather like sacking the managing director of an unsuccessful company. The Tory Party
wanted to get back in power, or make sure it stayed there, and internal political and personal divisions
didn't matter that much. (The Tory Party was more Thatcherite in 1990 than it was in 1975 when she took
over: it was simply that the party didn't think it could win another election with her in charge.)
What we have now is different. Not only has May made a disastrous mess of Brexit, she has also had to manage
a bitterly divided party, full of people who hate each other and have completely irreconcilable political
views and agendas. Whilst there have been Cabinets before with warring cliques, and PMs struggling to manage
divided parties, I don't think there has ever been a situation like this, where the two are lethally
combined, and the incumbent PM is not capable of dealing with either. It's possible to imagine another
leader having done a better job in managing the politics and diplomacy of Brexit: it's hard to imagine
anyone doing it worse. But it is also hard to imagine anyone else having done a less bad job of keeping a
violently fractious party together.
Paradoxically, May's actual performance under both headings has had little impact on the strength of her
position. It seems to be acknowledged that she has been as a disaster as PM, but the problem is that getting
rid of her is not a solution. Indeed, it would probably make the situation worse, and destroy the Tory Party
completely, which is why she is still where she is. I don't think even those who want to get rid of her most
fervently believe that doing so would unite the party or make it more electable. It's all about personal and
political agendas. Far from resolving the crisis, her departure, which can't now long be delayed, will only
exacerbate it: the first time this has happened, I think, in modern British history.
Under all the normal rules of politics, May would have been gone months, if not years, ago. That's not in
dispute. But in the past there were heavyweight challengers already waiting to take over from the PM of the
day, and parties (especially the Tories) would rally round a new leader to stay in power or have a better
chance of taking it. It's an index of how completely the Tory Party has been destroyed by Thatcher and her
successors, that it's a talent-free zone made up of people who would happily destroy a party, a government
and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. The situation now resembles the last days of a weak and
discredited monarch, with no apparent successor and courtiers manoeuvring for advantage. Historically, that
usually led to a civil war of some kind, and I expect that,
mutatis mutandis
, that's what we're in
for now.
I think your last two lines are highly significant. I've been trying to get my head around how it is
that Johnson has suddenly become the favourite to become PM, when he is supposedly almost universally
loathed within the party hierarchy and seemed to have blown what little chance he had last year. But it
is, as you say, more like the lethal jostling when a monarch is dying without a successor – half the
people around are trying to manoeuvre for the crown, the other half are trying to make sure they don't
lose their head if the 'wrong' person gets selected. It has nothing to do with regular democratic
politics anymore.
Whatever else, it will make the next Tory party conference rather entertaining viewing now that GoT is
over.
For forty years now the economic and political philosophy of Milton Friedman has dominated and guided
politics in the UK and the US. Reading some of his most famous quotes makes clear why it has all ended so
badly, failed so spectacularly. As long as enough of the old system held on to keep things working the
con continued. That's over now, even if the current crop of "talent-free people who would happily
destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. " don't realize it's
over.
I'm afraid I have absolutely zero sympathy for May, Yves. Apart from the Windrush scandal, she has always
been absolutely horrific on civil liberties. And let's not forget she has approved the sales of arms to the
Saudis for their genocide in Yemen. As a believer in Scottish independence, however, if she enables a second
referendum in Scotland, that would be one accomplishment, though not an intended one for her!
As someone who shares her physical clumsiness, I used to feel quite sorry for her when she was on the
receiving end of so much abuse, she seemed to me to be admirable in the way she had made her way through
such a pit of vipers to get to the top. But I think the cumulative evidence now is that, quite simply,
she is a genuinely hateful person – she's been responsible for too many genuinely horrible policies, many
of which were promoted solely for her personal ambition. There are many, many more people deserving of
sympathy.
Suggestion: watch carefully what happens to May when she finally leaves office (as the surgeons say, all
bleeding stops eventually). Will May sink into a shabby retirement? Or will she be quietly feted by the big
banks, put on the boards of directors of various companies, end up a multi-millionaire etc., like Tony Blair
was?
In other words: was May merely stupid, or was she a useful agent of chaos? Follow the money, and
eventually, we will know.
Now I'm all for changing one's mind when the facts change/emerge – as I did – from a BrExiter ( aka a
kick up the arse to the EU ( for Greece ) and the UK establishment ) to 2nd referendum/remain as the
complexities, particularly the N.I. / Eire border aspect, came into focus – but this continual changes in
positions by ALL sort of main-party politicians amazes me – when you compromise and STILL fail to deliver,
its truly hapless, inept.
As the Belfast Telegraph put it ( back in March at that ! ):
The repeated failure to make Brexit less of a shambles suggests that politicians on all sides share
that lack of conviction in their own judgment.
What's more terrifying still is that it increasingly looks as if they are right to think so little of
their own abilities.
The terrifying thing is this is only the first stage.
Paradoxically, as the mess unfolds, my regular conversations and emails with Brit family and friends, all
always politically engaged, this is mygen, nextgen, + nextgen+1 are less and less about it. They are all
just getting on with their daily lives. I'm perhaps more animated about this than they are ! Just yesterday,
all we talked about was our booking for a 4 day narrow-boat/canal boat trip and how excited the nextgen+1
are. So there is that, I suppose.
I completely agree and fervently hope that Brexit is the end of Thatcherism in the UK. We want to return
to government of the people, by the people, etc., and not this constant flow of concessions to merchants
that the moneymen in parliament enact to profit from. It has never yet been the case that electors in UK
vote for companies – that's just the Tories working their insidious evil through the Chambers of Commerce –
off with their heads. Back to Keynes and caring government.
"... Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years ago and is now substantially larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless. ..."
"... Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites: ..."
"... Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously engaged in a heated "kitchen debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"? ..."
"... But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival. ..."
"... Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy
research articles rather than chasing the headlines of current events. But there are
exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with China is
one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest
telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing
planes in the Vancouver International Airport when she was suddenly detained by the Canadian
government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still
faces extradition to a New York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in
federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate America's unilateral
economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story,
including front page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal
, I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of this
international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one
scholar noted, no event since America's deliberate 1999
bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so
outraged both the Chinese government and its population. Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs
correctly described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business
community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as
the world's largest and most advanced telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as
China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is not only a
longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei,
whose enormous entrepreneurial success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a
Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping. One journalist asked how Americans would
react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially if
Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of
Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage.
Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi subjects,
extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing
them. Then he may have finally over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a bone-saw at the Saudi
embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would
clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely
tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional,
regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun
enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading
corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps
such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most
objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years
ago and is now substantially larger ,
while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media
regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and
imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of
a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current
political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the
rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than
one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous
system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to
bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its
plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and
poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also
behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed
their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously
engaged in a heated "kitchen
debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and
Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested
and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international
hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported that top American executives have decided to
forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells more
cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our
iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra, and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to
visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of Google, Facebook,
Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite
imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported
that a former
Canadian diplomat had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small
bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much doubt such measures will
have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the
Jungle, it becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and
Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet in this matter. Would threatening the
puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile
to the Trump Administration, and even if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly
be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true about
the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals
who call the shots in the current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very
dangerous affair? World peace and American national security interests are being sacrificed
in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign against Iran,
and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of
America's most extreme pro-Israel zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports
that Trump himself remained entirely unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the
same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have
even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron,
multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within
Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and
hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal
role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the
political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as
the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political
puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very
literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the
Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th
wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely
lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's
arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much
doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved in all sorts of political
bribery scandals , and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find
reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at least on a temporary basis, with
such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the
Chinese population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese
government shutting down some of their own local gambling casinos with a long public record
of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino magnates
would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos,
hardly a desperate threat to President Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise
impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the resulting drop in the stock price of Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce
Adelson's personal net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his
immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent shutdown, perhaps extending
to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's
personal fortune, and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all
the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires, who dominate the remainder of
gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a
complex and murky one. But the Chinese government already possesses the absolute power of
financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top of that chain.
If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will
immediately be put on a plane back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political
apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology companies would
not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only
question is whether they will recognize the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake
of America and the entire world.
"... Launching a tech war or a trade war against any country is not appropriate, nor is it the best way to defend national security, Macron said. ..."
"... Out of the total of 70 billion U.S. dollars Huawei spent on buying components in 2018, some 11 billion dollars went to U.S. companies, the Reuters reported Friday. ..."
"... The spirit of openness is what helped the United States develop. However, Washington's restrictions on Huawei, based on unfounded allegations and political speculations, fall foul of the golden rules it once embraced ..."
WASHINGTON, May 22 (Xinhua) --
Washington last week declared a national emergency over what it claimed are technological
threats, and announced restrictions on sale and transfer of American technologies to China's
Huawei.
The telecom company has long been accused by the United States of being able to use its
network equipment to spy on foreign nations for the Chinese government. However, "no
intelligence service has published clear evidence that Huawei inserted 'backdoors' for Chinese
authorities to access the data that passes through its networks," according to a December 2018
article by U.S. media Politico.
Given the lack of proof that Huawei threatens U.S. security, last week's twin moves by
Washington -- the use of state apparatus to oppress a company -- are a reflection of nothing
but bullying.
The smearing campaign against Huawei aside, the United States has also been trying to rally
Europe to abandon Huawei products, citing security threats. It was not welcome.
"Europe must not be dragged into the trade dispute between China and the United States,"
Germany's powerful BDI industrial lobby group was quoted by media reports as saying in a
statement on Thursday.
France too refused to take orders from the United States. "Our perspective is not to block
Huawei or any company," President Emmanuel Macron told the VivaTech conference in Paris on
Thursday.
Launching a tech war or a trade war against any country is not appropriate,
nor is it the best way to defend national security, Macron said.
The ban on the supply of U.S.-made chips to Huawei is a lose-lose in any sense, as it poses
a threat to Huawei's viability and U.S. companies also pay the price.
Out of the total
of 70 billion U.S. dollars Huawei spent on buying components in 2018, some 11 billion dollars
went to U.S. companies, the Reuters reported Friday.
"The ban will financially harm the thousands of Americans employed by the U.S. companies
that do business with Huawei," said Catherine Chen, a Director of the Board at Huawei, in a The
New York Times article on Friday. "A total ban on Huawei equipment could eliminate tens of
thousands of American jobs."
Although Huawei does not do much business in the United States, the company is the sole
provider of networking equipment to many rural American internet providers, according to a CNN
article on Tuesday.
"Those companies have said it will take time -- or may be impossible -- to replace their
Huawei technology with a rival's," it added.
As a move to ease the repercussion of the ban, the U.S. Department of Commerce on Monday
issued a 90-day temporary license loosening restrictions on business deals with Huawei.
Huawei doesn't intend to isolate itself from others, but wants to make as many friends as
possible, its founder Ren Zhengfei told Chinese media on Tuesday when asked why Huawei didn't
use substitutes before the United States took the latest aggressive measures.
"We don't want to do harm to friends," he said. "We want to help them achieve good balance
sheets. Even if we make adjustments, we still ought to render help."
The spirit of
openness is what helped the United States develop. However, Washington's restrictions on
Huawei, based on unfounded allegations and political speculations, fall foul of the golden
rules it once embraced
.
For Washington to win in an era of cooperation and inter-dependence, it would be better to
revive the spirit of openness.
"... In a company-wide memo, ARM told employees that their designs contain "US origin technology," which would be affected by the Trump administration's May 15 Executive Order to "protect our country against critical national security threats." ..."
"... Also cunning thing would be to change brand name a bit like change/remove 1 letter. ..."
"... Yet, they find out they are buying from another vendor that complies with China's demands and poof there goes another company ..."
"... Xi should have listen to Deng Xiaoping. Keep your head down, go about your business and shut the **** up. But Xi the chest pounding panda declared Made in China 2025 and spooked everyone. China should de-robe him then hang him high! ..."
"... There has been a suspiciously sudden rise in China hawkishness among American citizens (e.g., commentators on these boards) coincident with what to outside observers has been a very obvious post-Russia tsunami of political and MSM anti-China propaganda (it's often easier to see propaganda from the outside than from the inside). ..."
"... Yes, but not all of China is restricted from using ARM. Only Huawei. Other phone manufacturers will be unaffected. ..."
Japanese-owned chip designer
ARM Holdings
has notified its staff to halt "
all active contracts,
support entitlements, and any pending engagements
" with Huawei and its subsidiaries in order to comply with the
recent US clampdown, according to the
BBC
. Based in the
UK and owned by Japan's Softbank, ARM designs and licenses processors used in all types of electronic devices, including
smart phones, tablets, laptops, televisions, automotive systems and more.
"
ARM is the foundation of Huawei's smartphone chip designs, so this is an insurmountable obstacle for Huawei
,"
said Geoff Blaber of CCS Insight, adding: "That said, with an abundance of companies in Huawei's supply chain already
having taken action to comply with the US order,
Huawei's ability to operate was already severely affected
."
In a company-wide memo, ARM told employees that their designs contain "US origin technology," which
would be affected by the Trump administration's May 15
Executive Order
to "protect our country against critical national security threats."
The US has argued that the Chinese government could force companies such as Huawei to install backdoors on their devices
to allow for spying on US networks - an accusation Huawei has repeatedly denied.
Softbank - which is also one of Japan's largest mobile carriers - has joined with
Japan's largest carriers
DoCoMo and KDDI in announcing that they will stop taking orders for Huawei handsets.
Nope, cross licensing is strictly forbidden under the licensing
ARM uses. If uou want to use ARM based designs, you have two
choices. Buy the chips already made, or license a core and fab the
package yourself.
If you fab it yourself, you have to market the cores and chips
as being nased on theirs.
That's it. I learned this when looking to have some Asics made
up for compute decices and decided to review all of my options. I
decided two things looking into that.
1 I wouldn't have anything made until I could have them made
here in the US. Still waiting for a FAB with older equipment to
for such things to pop up. I simply don't trust China.
2 I would start from scratch using a RISC design with MIT
license to avoid the decades of no development by actually having
a real open licensing scheme. The GPL crap sucks.
Licenses to independent third parties do not matter yet.
"ARM Holdings
has notified its staff to halt "
all
active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending
engagements
" with Huawei and its subsidiaries"
KASHGAR, China -- A God's-eye view of Kashgar, an ancient city in
western China, flashed onto a wall-size screen, with colorful icons
marking police stations, checkpoints and the locations of recent
security incidents. At the click of a mouse, a technician explained,
the police can pull up live video from any surveillance camera or
take a closer look at anyone passing through one of the thousands of
checkpoints in the city...
There's no such things a national security. This is U.S. corporate
security protecting the corporate interests of the other telecom
corporations that license to operate through the U.S. corporation.
Comprendo?
The way this gloal fraud operates really is a laughable
pathetic joke with what's hidden because is criminal. That includes
everything globally that alleged to be classified or some level of so
called top secret but none of it is. The sedtion and treason of the
government saw to those eliminations along with the cancellation of
all NDA's, or other similar docments to attempt to use threat,
coercion, murder as a consequence.
When is there going to be a fully functional so called smart phone
that is not hackable, trackable, fully compliant with all unalienable
rights, usable globally, with a degree of voice and data encryption
to ensure no possibility of interception or monitoring? Oh and free
phone w/ $25 unlimited voice and data monthly.
Xi should have listen to Deng Xiaoping. Keep your head down, go about
your business and shut the **** up. But Xi the chest pounding panda
declared Made in China 2025 and spooked everyone. China should
de-robe him then hang him high!
Simple! Send the Chinese navy to Venezuela at the time when the
U.S. is sending its naval forces to Iran. That should rattle
Washington greatly. That should up the ante greatly too. Then see
who blinks first.
There has been a suspiciously sudden rise in China hawkishness among
American citizens (e.g., commentators on these boards) coincident
with what to outside observers has been a very obvious post-Russia
tsunami of political and MSM anti-China propaganda (it's often easier
to see propaganda from the outside than from the inside).
A good
discussion of the opposing point of view has just aired on RT, among
the host, an American living in Russia, Fred Teng, President of the
America China Public Affairs Institute, and James Bradley (American),
author of The China Mirage. You may think this is just propaganda
from the opposite direction, but if so you will at least have two
poles to position yourself between rather than just one side of the
story. If you have an open mind.........it is well worth watching.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6C1kYnrm1cA
All you ignorant fuckers need to
take a one month vacation to China. Come back and lets talk then.
Your world outlook will have been greatly humbled and you would be
more willing to be of the cooperative model of world politics rather
than this senseless belligerence I see here.
I remember being photographed at every highway underpass. I
remember not being able to view You Tube or any video on Facebook
because it was blocked...
This is an major O'sh2t because all of China's cell phones use ARM!
China is now like African no internet village because they don't have
smart phones... LOL
"... And once trade talks had broken down, there was a 'scramble' to implement the measures against Huawei. ..."
"... this report effectively confirms that the administration wasn't being entirely truthful when it said there was 'no link' between Huawei and the trade talks. Trump said back in December that he would go so far as to intervene in efforts to extradite Meng Wanzhou if it would help with the trade talks. And although that would be extreme, we should rule it out just yet. ..."
If there was any lingering doubt that President Trump has treated Huawei like a 'bargaining
chip' during trade talks with the Chinese,
Bloomberg just put the issue to rest.
In a report sourced to administration insiders,
BBG reported that the Trump administration waited to blacklist Huawei until talks with the
Chinese had hit an impasse, because they were concerned that targeting Huawei would disrupt the
talks. Plans to punish Huawei - including possible economic sanctions - had been kicking around
for months. And prosecutors took their first tentative steps toward holding Huawei
'accountable' by convincing Canada to arrest Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.
And once trade talks had broken down, there was a 'scramble' to implement the measures
against Huawei.
Though BBG doesn't offer a definitive answer on this, it reports that some are suspicious
that Trump is pressuring Huawei to 'gain a negotiating edge' with Beijing (meanwhile, the
Chinese leadership are furious about the decision).
Timing of the U.S. action raised questions about whether President Donald Trump is
punishing the company in part to gain a negotiating edge with Beijing in a deepening clash
over trade. Talks between Beijing and Washington deadlocked this month as Trump accused China
of backing out of a deal that was taking shape with U.S. officials, saying China reneged on
an agreement to enshrine a wide range of reforms in law.
Another take on what happened suggested that the decision to hold back on Huawei actually
came from the bureaucracy, as administration officials were worried President Trump would just
scrap the measures as a favor to Xi, like he did last year with ZTE Corp. Those concerns
haven't entirely abated.
Washington has offered Huawei some wiggle room by suspending the new restrictions for 90
days. The company has been stockpiling chips, and reportedly already has enough to keep its
business running for three months.
But this report effectively confirms that the administration wasn't being entirely
truthful when it said there was 'no link' between Huawei and the trade talks. Trump said back
in December that he would go so far as to intervene in efforts to extradite Meng Wanzhou if it
would help with the trade talks. And although that would be extreme, we should rule it out just
yet.
EU and China struggle over key concerns ahead of summit😲
Yet the summit might not produce a joint statement - as previous Chinese pledges on
speeding-up talks on an investment agreement, plus opening up its markets more to European
companies, havefailed to materialise.
"We can certainly agree on a joint statement, the question is how substantive this will
be," a senior EU official said. The EU wants to see concrete steps from China.
Failing to agree on a joint statement, however, is a sign of the EU's unsuccessful bid
to commit China to give greater access of its markets to European companies, and engage
seriously in reforming global trade rules within the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The EU hoped to make China address longstanding European complaints, and to commit to
concluding an investment agreement that aims to secure better market access and fair
treatment for European companies in China by 2020.
The EU also hopes to achieve an agreement on indications of geographical origins to
protect European brands in China by the end of the year.
An EU official said that the recent foreign investment law adopted in China, does not
address all the issues of concern for Europeans,for instance on prohibited sectors,
dual regime for foreign and domestic operations, and on forced technological
transfer.
"We agree there has been a lot of promises, it is time for action, not only words.
[…] We want to make sure we have a modern framework for investment protection in a
binding agreement with mechanism to solve disputes," the EU official added.
“While the [European] Commission is getting tougher on China, at least for
now it does not seem to be aiming for a confrontation with China,” he said.
But even if the EU doesn’t fully align itself with the increasingly
hawkish Trump administration , a shift in China-EU relations seems inevitable.
“The EU has no interest in cooling its China relationship, but if it does not act
now to protect its economy from unfair state-owned enterprise competition in the EU market,
then the citizens of Europe might ask for more protection,” Wuttke said.
“[There is] growing realism in Europe and the end of naivety when it comes to
China.”
Exclusive: In China, the Party’s push for influence inside foreign firms stirs
fears😲
BEIJING (Reuters) - Late last month, executives from more than a dozen top European
companies in China met in Beijing to discuss their concerns about the growing role of the
ruling Communist Party in the local operations of foreign firms, according to three people
with knowledge of the discussions.
China got fucked the minute they agreed to invest trillions into US debt securities in
exchange for being given unlimited access to sell into the US market. This terrible
arrangement set them up to be crushed economically if the US were to close its doors to
Chinese exports, and to lose much of what they made from their trade surplus with the US if
they ever tried to unload their holdings.
Their main stock market now is down over 30% since the tariffs went into force last June,
and they are closing factories so fast that the price of oil to heat and power those
factories has fallen by the same 30+% as the Chinese stock market. And now, were the Chinese
to start off loading their US Treasury holdings, they would drive the bond market down about
10-20%, which would be another several hundreds of billions of dollars lost. A clean sweep
mop up operation would be done by the Fed and Anointed Banks in a afternoon. Answer this, why
is a good soldier to the PLA, HSBC advertising like crazy for deposit's in $ when they have
unlimited access to the Yuan? BOOM !!!
China's future access to U.S. dollars via their exports is the sword hanging above their
Chicom heads.
The Chinese were advised for a long time that they were going to have to make changes in
their trade policies if they were to avoid their present troubles. They were told not to hold
the US Treasury securities they were forced to buy, and instead sell them off slowly and
re-invest the capital into domestic infrastructure projects that would expand the size of the
Chinese middle class. And they were told to diversify their export markets, so that they
would not be so dependent on the US consumer to buy Chinese products, The Chinese did little
on the first initiative, and little on the second as well, although the second is difficult
to accomplish since there are not many consumer markets that can buy anywhere near what the
US can buy.
Not a pretty picture. But many saw this day coming. Unfortunately for China, not nearly
enough of the decision makers in the Forbidden City did. Xi Jinping played the card to walk
away from agreed upon section of the trade deal, he played his hand. Confusis say, you made
your bed now sleep in it...............
China would go from having the largest overall trade surplus in the world to having a
trade surplus smaller than Ireland if you take away the U.S. Trade Surplus China
Steals……….
Xi Jinping has now lost Face and the Entire Globe now knows it.
Well that should end the extradition case of Ms Weng. Clearly politically motivated. Her
attorney's Steptoe in DC are top drawer. This also means that Huawei may sue Trump for
damages.
That's because Steptoe never loses to the DOJ. There are three top firms in DC that are
DOJ killers. Steptoe is one of them. Williams & Connolly another. The Ted Stevens Case
was the greatest legal slaughter of the DOJ in history. 6 Gov attorney's sanctioned and
threatened by the Judge for disbarment. That's the way to kick the Gov ***. All six counts
dropped!
Meng is still in Canada so that is a Canadian Jurisdiction but the Canadian law is express
that political motivation is insufficient grounds for extradition. This is evidence of
precisely that.
All this over a charge of fraud... LOL. It doesn't get any weaker than that!
China will never do that. They are about business and they are not going to harm a
customer over politics. Trump does this routinely. He puts sanctions on Venezuela to harm the
women and children to soften up the Gov. He has done it with Russia. It is always indirect
attacks to get something unrelated. The cowardly conduct of a bully. Hitler did the same sort
of things. The siege of Stalingrad for example.
The damage Trump is doing to Google is incomprehensible. Huawei is one of Google's largest
customers. Can you even imaging the implications?
If you were a manufacturer of smartphones and were licensing an OS from Google and Trump
then blocks the license.... How many makers of smartphone do you think will want to be
dependent on this kind of lunatic gov? No country should want to deal with the US for
anything. Look at Russia, they were buying jet engines for their MC 21 and Trump Gov cuts
them off. Now they are making their own engines not buying US made engines. How does that
help the US manufacturer? Russia will make their engines and compete with the US makers.
"... China will only redouble its efforts to produce advanced technologies domestically. ..."
"... As a negotiating strategy, the decision makes even less sense. U.S. officials claim it had nothing to do with stalled trade talks, but it certainly looks like Trump wants to use Huawei as leverage, just as he did last year with ZTE Corp ..."
"... Worse, the decision undermines the implicit point of any U.S.-China trade deal: not just to increase commerce but to stabilize relations between the world's two most powerful nations. ..."
"... targeting Huawei so nakedly will only further marginalize the few moderates in the Chinese leadership and embolden hawks who see conflict as unavoidable ..."
"... Crushing Huawei, by contrast, simply looks like a strategic miscalculation -- and one with potentially disastrous consequences. ..."
Banning one of China's most high-profile companies from US networks makes sense. Putting it out of business does
not.
In its struggle with China over trade and national security, the US has many legitimate grievances, and a
variety of weapons for seeking redress. That doesn't mean it should use all of them.
The nuclear missile the U.S. just launched at Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is a case in point. Last week, the
Commerce Department placed Huawei and nearly 70 of its affiliates on an "
Entity
List
," which means that U.S. suppliers may now need a license to do business with them. Both Huawei's mobile
phones and its network equipment rely on American components, including advanced semiconductors. If the ban is
applied stringently, it
could drive
one of China's most high-profile companies -- employing more than 180,000 people -- out of business.
That would be a serious mistake. The U.S. has long argued that Huawei poses a national-security threat. And
there certainly are legitimate
reasons to worry
that incorporating Huawei gear into America's networks will leave them vulnerable both to
spying and, in the event of a conflict, sabotage. But the U.S. is already taking other prudent steps to prevent
Huawei equipment from being used domestically. Seeking to put the company out of business as well is both
disproportionate and deeply unwise.
For one thing, it will impose collateral damage. Blameless companies around the world -- including Huawei's
American suppliers
-- could lose business, face disruptions and incur significant new costs. Allies that have
resisted
U.S. pressure to shun Huawei's equipment will resent being backed into a corner: Even if President
Donald Trump loosens the noose a bit, they can hardly take the chance that restrictions won't be re-imposed later.
China will only redouble its efforts to produce advanced technologies domestically.
As a negotiating strategy, the decision makes even less sense. U.S. officials claim it had nothing to do with
stalled trade talks, but it certainly looks like Trump wants to use Huawei as leverage,
just as he did last year
with ZTE Corp. Trump has already
invoked
national security far too often in pursuing his scattered trade battles. Doing so here would set
another terrible precedent while almost certainly backfiring: It will aggravate the current impasse and give
Beijing little incentive to abide by any eventual agreement.
Worse, the decision undermines the implicit point of any U.S.-China trade deal: not just to increase commerce
but to stabilize relations between the world's two most powerful nations. While tensions are inevitable, a healthy
trading relationship should in theory restore ballance, reminding both sides of the benefits of cooperation and
strengthening constituencies that have reason to prefer peace to war. By contrast, targeting Huawei so nakedly
will only further marginalize the
few moderates
in the Chinese leadership and embolden hawks who see conflict as unavoidable. For ordinary
Chinese, it will be hard to avoid the impression that the U.S. is simply trying to limit their economic
possibilities.
Even on its own terms, finally, this gambit is likely to fail. To be effective, an assault on Huawei would need
to be embedded in a larger strategy with a clearer endgame in mind. That's nowhere in evidence: Is the aim to
cripple China's tech industry? Teach the country its place? Give a boost to non-Chinese suppliers? Provoke a
conflict? End one? Without a more focused goal, Trump risks simply alienating U.S. allies, infuriating average
Chinese and raising the chances of confrontation, all to no obvious end.
What the U.S. needs is a larger plan that seeks a healthier coexistence with China. That means building up
America's defenses, leveraging its competitive strengths, working with allies to pressure China to conform to
global norms, and taking the lead in writing new rules that can constrain its more disruptive behavior. Crushing
Huawei, by contrast, simply looks like a strategic miscalculation -- and one with potentially disastrous
consequences.
With $105 billion in global sales last year, Huawei has a vast web of customers and suppliers on
nearly every continent. The company is the world's largest provider of equipment used in 5G telecom networks, and the
second largest seller of cellphones. Last week, Huawei said that it spends more than $1 out of every $7 of its annual
$70 billion procurement budget buying equipment from U.S. companies.
Google said it would restrict Huawei's access to future updates of its Android operating
software, which powers many of Huawei's phones. Other U.S. manufacturers also began suspending business dealings with
the Chinese firm.
The markets punished many of those suppliers Monday, including Intel, Broadcom and Qualcomm, as
well as Micron and semiconductor manufacturer Cypress. Chip makers Qualcomm and Broadcom fell 6 percent. Intel
declined nearly 3 percent, and Lumentum Holdings shares fell more than 4 percent after the company said it would stop
selling to Huawei.
The United States said last week it was adding Huawei to a
trade blacklist
because the company "is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or
foreign policy interest." That punishment means U.S. firms aren't allowed to sell to Huawei unless they get special
approval from the government.
On Monday evening, the Commerce Department
slightly eased
the timing of the restrictions, saying it would allow some transactions to continue for 90 days,
to facilitate "certain activities necessary to the continued operations of existing networks and to support existing
mobile services." The temporary reprieve will allow Huawei to receive U.S. equipment to service existing Huawei
mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.
Kevin Wolf, a former senior Commerce Department and current partner at Akin Gump, called the
reprieve "very narrow." "It's not relief for exporters. It really is to prevent unintended operational problems with
existing networks," Wolf said.
The United States views Huawei as a security risk because it believes the company has close ties
to the Chinese government, which Huawei has denied. U.S. officials have said Huawei could potentially tap into and
monitor sensitive U.S. communications through its network technology.
Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, said that the U.S had underestimated his company as he
sought to dismiss the impact of the ban.
"The current practice of U.S. politicians underestimates our strength," Ren said in a group
interview with Chinese media Tuesday morning. Huawei had a stockpile of chips and "can't be isolated" from the world,
he said.
The 90-day extension "doesn't mean much" and Huawei is fully prepared for the American actions,
Ren said, even appearing to brag about luring workers away from U.S. companies.
"We are very grateful to the U.S. companies. They have made a lot of contributions to us," he
said in the comments, which were shared in real time by state media. "Many of our consultants are from American
companies like IBM."
Earlier, Huawei reacted to Google's decision to stop allowing updates by saying the Chinese
company had "made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around theworld."
"As one of Android's key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform
to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry," said spokesman Joe Kelly, adding that
Huawei would continue to provide security updates and after-sales services to its existingsmartphone and tablet
products.
Google's announcement came at an awkward time for Huawei, which on Tuesday is expected to unveil
its Honor 20 series of smartphones in London, and security experts were divided on how quickly and severely the ban
could hurt Huawei.
Some said Huawei is bigger and better prepared for the blockade than its Chinese competitor ZTE
was last year when the Trump administration restricted ZTE from doing business with U.S. firms. The U.S.
later eased
ZTE's punishment.
Washington announced last week that it would impose new prohibitions on Huawei, including a
ban on US companies selling components or services to the telecoms giant. The seriousness of
these actions is difficult to understate, as Rosenblatt Securities analyst Ryan Koontz
explained. If Huawei is pushed to the brink of collapse, Beijing might label this 'an act of
war'.
"The extreme scenario of Huawei's telecom network unit failing would set China back many
years and might even be viewed as an act of war by China," Koontz wrote. "Such a failure
would have massive global telecom market implications."
But bringing a massive global Chinese firm to its knees is one way to demonstrate to
Beijing, and the rest of the world, which ignored Washington's warnings about Huawei, the true
reach of American economic power. And it's one way to put a timer on talks with Beijing,
ensuring that the trade skirmish won't drag on until the height of campaign season.
American firms weren't the only ones to act. In Europe, German chipmaker Infineon
Technologies said it would suspend deliveries to Huawei, at least until it has had a chance to
determine the significance of Washington's executive order (though company sources later denied
these reports and said shipments to Huawei would continue).
Since hostilities with the US began, Huawei has been stockpiling components. It now has
enough of a buffer supply to keep its business running without interruption for at least three
months.
Nikkei reported late last week that Huawei had reportedly asked suppliers to help it build
up enough stockpiles to last it a year, but it's unlikely that Huawei has accumulated enough
buffer stock to last it anywhere near as long.
If Washington refuses to back down, this three-month window might become the next critical
deadline for the trade talks.
If it wasn't clear before, we now know that President Trump wasn't kidding when he said late
last year that Huawei could become 'a bargaining chip' in the trade skirmish. Whether the
prosecution of Meng Wanzhou factors into it remains to be seen, but President Trump did tell
Fox News over the weekend that he wouldn't allow China to surpass the US on his watch.
Huawei's odds of finding replacement suppliers are slim, as Koontz explained. Huawei "is
heavily dependent on U.S. semiconductor products and would be seriously crippled without supply
of key U.S. components."
It's clear where Beijing stands on this. We wouldn't be surprised to see a 'consumer
movement' emerge in China where middle-class consumers ditch foreign phones and proudly
proclaim their support for Huawei.
On Sunday afternoon, President Trump threatened Iran with military intervention via tweet.
Yet, analysts blamed the growing pressure on Huawei for the risk-averse trading atmosphere.
US stocks were on track to open lower. Meanwhile, Huawei's dollar-denominated corporate
bonds tumbled again on Monday after one of their biggest declines in recent memory on Friday.
The selloff comes as fears of a Huawei bankruptcy are beginning to intensify.
Beijing has maintained its aggressive posture, with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs warning
in response to news of the Google ban that China would do what it needed to do to protect its
companies' "legitimate rights", and also hinted at legal actions it might take. Over the
weekend, Beijing compared the trade skirmish with its actions in the Korean War, about as clear
a sign as any that we're in for a protracted conflict.
Whatever happens, it looks like the showdown over Huawei has eclipsed the broader trade-war
narrative. So much for the Huawei crackdown being a 'separate issue' from the trade talks, like
Trump officials had previously insisted.
Bottom line: If we don't get a deal by the end of June, this trade war is going to really
heat up.
So, Huawei is dependent upon Western semiconductor manufacturers. But I thought the
Chinese were the leaders in innovation? That's all I hear on here and elsewhere. Seems to me
that they should have invented and created their own semiconductor industry back in the
1800's when Westerners began to mess with them. One would think that the great and powerful
and super duper intelligent Chinese would have discovered and invented it first in the first
place. Certainly the Chinese or their pals in the USSR could have done so sometime in the
'50s, '60s, '70s, '80s or '90s? No?
The US might win this battle but it has already lost the war. It is in a position similar
to Ukraine which was the richest and most developed Sovjet republic after the breakup - but
which is now one of the biggest shitholes in the entire Galaxy, feasted upon by a bunch of
Zionazi oligarchs. Think of the US as an Ukraine on steroids.
Trump and his diverse actions will hurt Huawei. Maybe even badly. Long term, maybe even
short term, the US won't gain anything from it. It is in a position where it can only lose.
Not because the potential of the US isn't "terrific" (actually it coud be the most promising
country) - but because the US is designed to fail as it is basically a failed state
already.
Im confused, how would not choosing to do business with Huawei possibly be considered an
act of war?
Especially when China largely keeps their markets closed to the west?
After speaking to some Chinese immigrrants... according to them, they'll never come to any
kind of fair agreement with the west. They're not interested in a level playing field at all.
All they care about is making sure the Chinese state gets all the benefits in order to
further Chinas power and influence.
Great news. Huawei already has completed development of its own OS, no doubt an Android
clone. This finally gives us a path off of the Goolag/ Android OS. In 19 months Rabbi Trump
will be gone, which is good, but his destroying the Android monopoly may be his biggest
achievement.
An android clone? No way that would be stealing again. No they will make their own special
sauce OS that will electrocute the citizen if they don't adhere to the state directives.
There are so many other better ways to run a phone interface , I wonder if these two
systems have been kept as monopolies so that the Spooks at the NSA and CIA are able to find
their way around easily
The take away quote
"
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by
the United States.
"
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is
dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy.
The
spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
Rapid DNA testing has revealed that almost 1/3 of illegal migrants apprehended at the southern US
border
were not biologically related to the children they were traveling with,
nor were they
cases of step-fathers or adoptive parents, according to the
Washington
Examiner
.
The findings were a result of a pilot program conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) in El Paso and McAllen, Texas.
The number of migrants tested and how they flagged people for testing is unknown,
while
the official added that some migrants refused the cheek-swab test and admitted that they aren't
related to the children they were with
after learning that their claim would be subject to
DNA proof.
After analyzing the results of the pilot, the Department of Homeland Security will consider
rolling out the rapid DNA tests on a broad-scale, according to ICE.
"This is certainly not the panacea. It's one measure," said the official.
One upside, the source said, was that in addition to verifying bogus relationships, it also
verified many when Homeland Security personnel were unsure.
The
Examiner
reported in March the Department of Homeland Security and ICE were
looking
at adopting the test, made by a company called ANDE
. On May 1, DHS announced it would launch
a pilot of the program in instances where ICE Homeland Security Investigations agents could not
verify a family unit's relationships. -
Washington
Examiner
In March, former DHS chief Kristjen Nielsen announced that
border crossers have been using "
child
recycling rings
" to trick US authorities
.
"We've broken up child recycling rings -- if you can believe it -- in the last couple of months,
which is where smugglers pick up a child, they give it to adults to present themselves as a family
once they get over -- because, as you know, we can only hold families for 20 days -- they send the
child back and bring the child back with another family. Another fake family," Nielsen told
Fox
News
's Tucker Carlson.
Indeed, the biggest cost may be imposed on investors, who for years have inflated the
economic potential of communist China's state-directed economy. Major public companies in the
United States, including Apple, Caterpillar, and Boeing, are among some of the leading
exporters to China. Yet exports to China accounted for just 7.2 percent of overall American
exports in 2018. According to the U.S. Trade
Representative , the top export categories that year were: aircraft ($18 billion),
machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments
($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).
Hmmm. This sounds suspiciously like the arguments Brexiters have dragged out about the EU.
Remember the "German car manufacturers will help us get everything we want because we're such
a large market and they can't afford to lose us"?
People of a country can decide to put up with a heck of a lot of economic pain if they
decide they're defending their country.
Base issue seems clear. Two large economies with very different models of governing. One a
Totalitarian state run economy, and our economy based on greed and consumption, to support
GDP. The theory that the world need be interconnected by trade, has run its course. We really
don't even need a Nafta re done treaty. All 3 economies have exhausted what works for them,
and can simply abandon what doesn't. If a cuntry has something to sell and the buyer country
sees a price advantage the deal will go down.
Tariffs do not get passed along into higher consumer prices unless the product has a very
high inelasticity in demand.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose I sell an imported product for $10. The government
imposes a 25% tariff, so I decide to up the price to $12.50. Here's your issue: if I could
charge $12.50 for the product, why wouldn't I just have charged that in the first place?
Charity? No, I didn't charge that because every time I tried, sales collapsed.
And if you understand retail, especially imports, gross margins are enormous. Sales prices
can be 10 times cost of goods. So that $10 product probably just cost $1. And a 25% tariff on
$1 is only 25 cents. Top of the line iPhones cost about $180 to make but retail for close to
$1000.
Tariff expenses come out of some combination of negotiated lower prices with vendors, lost
jobs as importers seek to cut costs, and lower profits. Consumer prices are the last thing to
consider.
Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a
trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we
buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a
financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over
the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life.
Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?
China has been running much the same economic model as Japan in the 1970's and 1980's, an
export-led autarchy heavily dependent on debt financing. When Japan started to open its
financial markets in the later 1980's, things started grinding to halt and by the early
1990's stagnation started.
China is on much the same track, though Xi has been careful not to liberalize the
financial markets too much, and has otherwise done a good job of keep growth on track. But it
can't last, and if a trade war does not tip China into stagnation, something else will in the
not-too-distant future.
Any downturn will bring the legitimacy of the CCP into question, and the traditional
response of dictatorships in that situation is to find a foreign conflict to distract the
population. With mutual distrust, and even dislike, growing on both sides, things could get
very messy.
In the 2017/2018 trade year, the US exported $12 billion of soy to China. That's.
particularly important for two reasons:
* China accounts for the majority of US soy exports, so the trade war affects that sector
more that the others you mention.
* The people affected are one of the cores of Trump's base.
The latter point is particularly significant, because the success or failure of the war
will be determined by political stamina, not by economics directly. Who can hold out longer,
Xi or Trump, as his political position erodes. One of the "weaknesses" of a democracy is the
greater sensitivity to the broader political environment (ie, not just the Politburo). Are
you so sure that the US will win this war of attrition?
@Kent – Thank you! Finally someone with actual understanding about retail and the
ridiculous profit margins of imported goods, especially from Asia. As someone who worked
first-hand at a shoe factory in China, managing the account, I was aghast at how low U.S.
companies like Nike or even Wal-Mart drove down the production costs ($6-18 dollars landed),
while selling the shoes for $30 – $120 dollars.
Theoretically all that juiced-up profits from outsourcing should have been reinvested to
create new jobs for U.S. workers over the past 20 years. That's what economists and corporate
lobbyists will argue. Empirically, however, those profits were reinvested to the stock market
for fat quarterly bonuses.
The underlying issue with China is their long standing demand to disclose all development
info about any product doing trade in China. Take Apple, they butted heads with the FBI and
refused to unlock an Iphone that belonged to a killer. Then they enter China and the
government there demands all the tec info for phone development and Apple simply hands over
their deepest secrets. Its the same for Ford, Cat or any others wanting to do business in
China. I for one, can live without any China trade if these have to be the requirements.
There is a long list of other cheap labor countries that would welcome our trade without
being forced to provide trade secrets.
"So what happens in the next T-bill auction when China doesn't show up and instead sits on
the sidelines–does the Treasury end up paying higher interest rates to sell the
instruments necessary to finance our federal spending? And, if so, what does an increase in
those interest rates do to our economy?"
Interest rates for treasuries are always set by the Federal Reserve. The secret sauce is
the Primary Dealer banks. They are required, by law, to make the market for treasuries.
Meaning they have to buy any treasuries that aren't sold. And they do so at the interest rate
set by the Fed. And they always, always have all the money they need to do so. The Fed just
prints it and adds it to their balances.
It's the beauty of a fiat currency. The USA cannot be held hostage to foreign financial
agents.
This trade war is about regime in change in China, as Bannon has said on many occasions. The
Chinese are finally waking up to our true intentions. America can't allow a more successful
economic model to exist anymore than they allow socialism in Venezuela.
The only surprising outcome of the clash will be that American corporations will
experience massive collateral damage due to supply chain disruption and being shut out of the
largest consumer market in the world in China.
The U.S. Empire has decided if U.S. corporation can't run ruff shod over the Chinese
government like they do here and everywhere else, they cannot be allowed to submit to Chinese
government rule in exchange for the benefits of the Chinese market place.
It's probably the only time in recent history that the defense of market forces resulted
in a direct hit on the "free" market itself. Like all front line troops, U.S. corporations
will suffer many casualties in the battle ahead. They didn't volunteer for this trade war and
they had no idea that this would be a hill that many would die on.
The paradox of this situation is not lost on them and most are paralyzed by what lies
ahead.
You are conveniently forgetting that much of the Chinese goods subject to the increased
tariffs are goods manufactured by American corporations utilizing Chinese labour due to its
much reduced costs. Those American companies are going to lose market share and profits
because of these new tariffs. They will not be happy!
I wonder if they could by commodities? Buy surplus oil would be a logical choice. They could
sell their treasuries, use dollars for oil, thereby drive up the price of oil for everyone,
including the US.
Granted that could eventually help the US, but in the short term could be a pain.
Slugger , I don't think your question is ignorant at all. I think it's very wise. If
only we asked the "Why?" and "What does a win look like?" of all these literal and figurative
wars, we might get somewhere.
I do not, ultimately, believe Trump's trade war with China is going to make the US into a
manufacturing powerhouse again. Those days have come and gone. It will definitely increase
the cost of a lot of junk we buy from China.
The hope, however, is that it will force China into a position wherein we could demand
more fairness in terms of patents and technology theft.
The time when it was beneficial for China to trade real goods for numbers in a computer was
long since past. They keep doing it out of habit. Trump is doing both countries a big favor.
Historically, it has not been wise to discount China's capacity to overcome disruptions that
would vivisect virtually any other civilisational hegemon on this planet. China survived the
Mongols, the English, and the Japanese. And itself many many times over.
We're barely a blink in the eye of China's history. I would not be as sanguine about who
"needs" whom more over the long term.
(Just to be clear: I have more than my share of criticisms of American trade policy of the
past couple of generations, including our posture vis-a-vis China.)
"Slugger
May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am
Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a
trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we
buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a
financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over
the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life.
Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?"
You. Definately you.
Youngsters need to be able find a job that pays for their basic needs and a path to be
able to keep growing or stabilize that lifestyle.
This war bumps prices higher, but won't bring those jobs back. High skill jobs are already
in high demand with few takers so more of those won't help the majority. The rest will either
be automated, moved from China to other countries (which is already happening as China wants
to move from sweatshops to a consumer middle class economy and places like India and Vietnam
are taking up the slack), or abandoned due to a lack of profit margins.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do this with China. They haven't exactly been
treating us or our companies well after all. But this is NOT going to benefit the regular
American. Low skill, sustainable, reliable work is just Not going to be a thing.
What will help is encouraging the ability to gain high skills and mobility for those high
skill jobs that are in desperate need of workers, aiding low skill workers so that they can
afford the things they need and not be 100% exploited, and figure out what to do with the
many many middle age and up folks who were trained to be middle class to transition them into
one or the other and not hate life while doing so.
We can go fix or break our trading systems with other countries as we see fit, but we
really need to stop thinking it's going to fix things. Same goes for immigration for that
matter.
The author shows his ignorance. The Bank of China is a commercial bank. Foreign reserves are
held by the People's Bank of China. Different entities. I assume the rest of the article is
full of inaccuracies.
It is hard to know if China has already lost. Their published economic numbers are not very
accurate. A key point is that the standard economic models of International Trade are wrong.
"Free Trade" can have benefits, but does mandate optimal outcomes. For example, lower cost
players can transfer economic production to their soil. There are many equilibrium points
(vs. the one of standard economics) in international trade when productivity changes or there
are economies of scale. With many of these points it would be better a nation not Trade. The
US Trade with China fits this bill. This non-standrd was demonstrated by Baumol and See:
https://www.amazon.com/Conflicting to
-National-Interests-Robbins-Lectures/dp/0262072092/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473299717&sr=1-5&keywords=Baumol+Trade
We need to follow the actual Terrain of economic results vs. the incorrect map of standard
economics.
Organizational and Technological stage drives over 80% of economic growth (see Solow). The
Chinese have latched on to US creativity to drive their economy (plus an investment rate of
45% vs. 20% for the US). In parallel the US went Crony Capitalist and its TFP went from 3% to
.4%/year. Can a Crony capitalist US recover its productivity growth and can a State
Capitalismt Chinese dictatorship be innovative without the West. The US under Trump is
attempting to displace its currrent ruling elites. This will not happen in China. My guess is
China has lost at trade and will lose at Economic productivity growth.
Sounds more like a pointless Pyrrhic victory. Tit-for-tat trade wars have many unintended
consequences, can easily expand into other sectors, and ultimately consumers and employees
will bear the burden.
Americans' fear and hatred of China is so great that we are yearning for China's lost
regardless of how it may harm Americans.
Take the latest "emergency order" to put Huawei in the "entity list" to ban it from
purchasing American products. If implemented, it will cost American companies $11 billions of
sales from Huawei, and lost of thousands of high tech and good quality jobs. If Huawei is
destroyed, the 5G market will probably be picked up by Swedish and Finland companies, and the
smart phones market by South Korean Samsung, not any US company. But who cares, as long as
Huawei is destroyed, right?
Take a look of all opinion pages in the media and comments in the Internet, if the supply
chain is moved from China to Vietnam, then it is a win for Americans, right? Who care whether
Vietnamese can produce it as efficiently as Chinese or not, or whether Vietnam is also a
communist country?
This *jihadic* style pursuit to destroy China is also blinding ordinary intelligent
Americans of common sense about the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides. This
author, for example, ignores all the possible ways Chinese can hit back if they also decide
to go the self-destructive ways or even "nuclear" (figuratively or literally) options. And
yes, the options are not restricted to financial tool like US bonds only, e.g.
1. Stop selling rare earth to American companies – which means we can't even make
F-35 fighters. The last congressional study finds that it will take at least 10 years for US
to re-open our rare earth mine.
2. Start making the life of all American companies difficult in China – GM and Ford
are selling more cars in China than in US, Apple has its 2nd largest market in China. The
growth rate of China for these companies are higher than US.
3. Stop cooperating with US on geopolitical front, e.g. start helping North Korea to
perfect their ICBM, or buying lots of oil from Iran, etc.
These are just random thoughts I come out from 2 minutes of brainstorming. I am very sure
1.4 billions people can think of many things much more deeply and creative than me. Have the
author or any of the people in DC think through all the possibilities before shouting for
war? Good luck if you think they do.
And rest assured when the dusk settles, ordinary Americans will NOT be any penny richer or
our life any better.
This country has a long history of insecurity toward and racism against Asians. Sadly, the
current fight proves that this ugly chapter has not close.
Right now Trump administration clearly wants to slow down China development and Chinese
leadership understand that. The game is probably similar to the game the USA played with the USSR
-- create economic difficulties to the point when disintegration, or the social upheaval is possible.
China level of internal debt denominated in dollars probably dwarf their Treasury holdings (this also is true for Russia).
This situation is considered by many commenters a huge weak point and that might be
Trump team calculation: in their current situation Chinese's can't afford to lose such a large export market as the USA: many
enterprises will simply be bankrupt.
The US consumers might still feel the pinch, but ultimately Beijing needs the trade surplus more than the USA needs their
trade.
If this is wrong, Trump administration might make already bad situation worse, as if China
can switch goods flows and survive more of less intact that might undermine dollar as the
reserve currency. They also now will probably completely ignore sanctions against Iran, making
them non-essential: a kick in the chin to the Trump and neocons who surround him in WH.
Looks like we are on the wedge of creation of two hostile to each other neoliberal systems instead of one: one with the center in
Washington and the
second with the center in Peking.
It is bad strategy to attack several countries simultaneously (the war on two forints) and
that's what Trump is doing: Iran, Russia and China are three major battlefields now. There are
also some tensions with EU too.
The concept of face while somewhat interesting is probably exaggerated and is redundant here.
This comments really gats to the bottom of it: " It has always seemed to me that "Face" is the
distant inferior cousin of Honor and a much closer sibling to Pride or even Hubris. That is, the
Asian concept of Face has everything to do with how you are perceived and almost none with how
you "are". Honor, meanwhile, demands a rigorous adherence to a code of conduct and force of will
that places less emphasis on perception and more on "being". Westerners (myself included) tend to
get those two confused. "
Notable quotes:
"... 6: It goes a pretty long way to be aware of some more imaginative things that especially state aligned business can do if you are in China. Things like precision weighing any electronic equipment you take there before and after are just best practice. ..."
I
don't think the Washington decision makers, as opposed to perhaps career Sinologists in the
State Department, quite understand the dynamics of the Trump Administrations relationship with
China and the risks America appears to be running. The bit that seems to be missing is a
realistic appreciation of "Face".
A quick search of the internet reveals scholarly definitions of "Face" together with the
description of it in socio - cultural terms that in my opinion do not do it justice. Couple
that with Western insensitivity, NeoCon hubris and Trumps preference for believing everything
is a negotiable transaction and we are set up for a monumental falling out with China that has
lethal consequences for America.
I will give a few examples of Face, you can find plenty more on your own. Did you know it is
an insult to request a Chinese to sign a written contract? If he has agreed to the terms and
said as much in front of other Chinese then that is enough. "Face" does the rest. Did you know
that in certain circumstances "Face" requires you to lie to, or ignore, authorities in support
of family and friends? This last, in my opinion, is the reason for the current Chinese attempt
at omnipresent surveillance; "we tremble at the power of the Emperor in Peking, but the
mountains are high".
Col. Lang makes the point that the Japanese went to war to dispel the threatened perception
that "they weren't the men they thought they were". Well with "Face' in China its more than
that, you are your "Face". To damage someones "Face" is to create a lifelong mortal, implacable
enemy. There is no way, short of death, to recover once you have given offense. Against that
standard Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are playing with fire. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it.
It may surprise some of you to know that the West was trading with China right through the
cold war - in US dollars only. Nixon didn't discover China either. It also may surprise some
that China is perfectly capable of making very high quality reasonably priced sophisticated
goods, and always has been. The reason that Walmart sells cheap Chinese schlock is because
that's what they asked China to supply. As for "stealing intellectual property", don't make me
laugh. We all do it and China has plenty of very smart people that create first rate IP of
their own. I make the case that China is a sophisticated and capable economy, with its own
amour propre, not some third world hole populated by leaders that can be bought or
threatened, and Trump risks forgetting this at our peril.
To this end I note that the trade war is not going to Americas advantage, China has vast
holdings of American debt, China buys Iranian oil, judging by reports of Sochi discussions,
Russia AND China are likely to support Iran and both Korea and Taiwan are vulnerable. In my
opinion President Trump has a very small window left in which to fire Bolton and perhaps Pompeo
and embark on a more conciliatory line, before China becomes an irreversible, implacable
enemy.
So unless we economically surrender to them expect war?
See, that's the attitude Trump and the Trade Representative display. It is
impossible we could find a compromise that would be better for both sides. It is a purely
binary zero-sum game. If we do not "win," then we "lose," which means surrendering to an
implacable enemy who will destroy us. It's no wonder the majority of the world's people think
America is the greatest danger to world peace. This is why Bolton is able to find support
throughout the nomenklatura. Most Chinese still hold to Confucian concepts of honor,
something the American elites abandoned decades ago as unprofitable.
My son, Jason, is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese was headquarered in Hong Kong for
years but now works out of Tokyo but spends a great deal of time in China conducting
business. He would probably argue that, if anything, Walrus is understating the importance of
Face in China. There are numerous rituals associated with interacting with Chinese that must
be observed in order for communication and agreement to flow properly.
I think many in America, maybe even Trump, have an image of China as a backward country
full of uneducated dumb people. Nothing could be further from the truth as a large segment of
the population is not only eductated but intellectually the equal of Americans.
As far as handling the trade war between China and the U.S., I think in some ways China
has an advantage in it's government directed relationship with business. It allows China to
react quickly to adverse conditions, faster and with more cohesiveness than our capitalist
system. Watch for China to move it's manufactured products through numerous other countries
to avoid some of the impact of tariffs.
China is also not as responsive to consumer complaints as the U.S. democracy. As soon as
Trump's base starts complaining about the higher prices at Walmart etc. Congress and Trump's
re-election campaign officials will start to make China tariffs seem intolerable.
I would think the Chinese see Trump as something to be persevered for a few years regardless
of who he surrounds himself with at this point. I wonder if they have a term for "face
incapable" as a parallel concept to the Russian "agreement incapable"? As such they probably
see his administration as a no more sophisticated than a hornets nest, to be avoided if
possible and swatted if necessary.
It has always seemed to me that "Face" is the distant inferior cousin of Honor and a much
closer sibling to Pride or even Hubris. That is, the Asian concept of Face has everything to
do with how you are perceived and almost none with how you "are". Honor, meanwhile, demands a
rigorous adherence to a code of conduct and force of will that places less emphasis on
perception and more on "being". Westerners (myself included) tend to get those two
confused.
If the Chinese were bound by the authors concept of Face, China must be a paradise without
corruption. Instead of polluted water land and air, wizened elders concerned over their
stewardship and the lose of face from an environmental catastrophe, would provide a
harmonious balance between man and nature. Instead, its a paradise and a ghetto where
passerby's walk nonchalantly around the dieing. Where companies reluctantly provide netting
to slow the steady suicide of their workers. They do tend to plan for the long term, and they
can certainly hold a grudge I would agree. How far are you willing to bend-knee for someone
else's concept of pride though? Tariffs, which have been around since antiquity, seem like a
small infraction for all this talk of life-long mortal, implacable enemies. Yesterday I saw a
Chinese TV program that roughly translated said Donald Trump was literally in the White House
crying over soybean prices. POTUS literally crying over the Chinese governments response to
our rising tariffs after decades of unfair trade practices that benefited the Chinese (elites
anyway). So you shouldn't think that saving Face is a two way street or will result in a
mutually beneficial deal.
IMO, China has been "an irreversible, implacable enemy" for decades now. It just so
happens that our own fifth column in the Party of Davos have aided and abetted this
implacable enemy while making sure that we voluntarily disarmed and did not fight back a war
that they are fully engaged in. The consequence has been that we are paying for our own
destruction. China is more authoritarian & militaristic today than it was three decades
ago and there are several people who believe they currently pose an existential threat to the
US & the West in general.
While tariffs may not be the best strategy, we have to admire Trump's courage and
determination to finally fight back in the face of massive internal opposition from our fifth
column. When you look at the sheer scale at which the Chinese are buying think-tanks,
academics, media, K-Street lobbyists & political influence it is staggering and only the
Israeli influence operation is bigger in depth & breadth. Ever since Bill Clinton gave
China Most Favored Nation status and the Party of Davos furthering their own narrow
short-term financial interests, we have directly financed and transferred technology to China
and dismantled our industrial base. China joined the WTO but has thumbed their noses at every
adverse WTO ruling that showed they play not by the rules but are predatory.
You dismiss the scale of IP theft, forced technology transfer, product dumping, state
subsidies and industrial espionage as everyone does it. That's typical of the China
apologists in the West.
I think you over-estimate China's financial strength. There are several macro analysts
with excellent long-term analytical track records who believe that China is desperately short
USD. This theme that you note that China can crash the UST market is already proven to be
false. China in fact sold hundreds of billions of UST in 2014-2016 with no perturbation in
the UST market.
On the contrary the financial pressure on China is increasing as their debt-fueled
malinvestments grow. I'm willing to bet you that we'll see this pressure manifest in a
devaluation of the RMB.
Sure, they've kicked our ass these past couple decades. Now they've got cocky and think they
own us. Supply chains can re-orient.
As a red-blooded American I'd like my home team to seriously up their game and of course
beat the Chinese at their own mercantilist game. A good start would be to put the squeeze on
their massive USD short position. Eurodollar market is a perfect spot to begin. The Chinese
have US$1.3 trillion debt maturing in 12 months. They've either got to redeem or rollover.
Devalue & bleed reserves. Or else sell USD assets & lose collateral. Margin call
time! Wake-up call time for BRI - if Trump chooses to squeeze at this immediate
vulnerability. Trump can also take the next critical step - restrict their access to our
capital markets. The SEC can also come down hard on all their fraudulent listings.
Maybe Australia is losing its best & brightest moving to China. Not here. In fact it
is the opposite. Young Chinese techies whoever can get a visa are immigrating here. Wealthy
Chinese including top CCP officials are using every mechanism that they can avail to get
their capital out. Chinese capital controls are tightening. If they had an open capital
account their trillion dollar reserve would vanish overnight as capital flees. You must know
that China's domestic security budget is larger than their defense budget. The CCP fear their
own people more than anyone else. Why do you think they're amping up their domestic
surveillance expenditure?
I can also give you an anecdotal experience. Newly minted billionaire and founder of Zoom,
Eric Yuan spoke to our tech analyst team a year ago. I happened to be in that meeting. He was
categorical that if he had been in China and had half the success, CCP would effectively
control his company. He said every Chinese techie dreams of moving to America.
Jack Ma, was banded out here in the west as the new breed Chinese tech entrepreneur. A
billionaire on the Davos circuit. Did he really own Alibaba or was it the CCP? How come his
shareholding was suddenly zeroed out?
Do you think any smart Chinese really trusts the CCP? Why would they? You talk about
"face" & culture and the 3,000 year history of the Han people. What about the history
& culture of the Tibetans? Or the culture & traditions of the Uyghurs with over 2
million of them currently undergoing brutal "re-education" in concentration camps in
Xinjiang?
The authoritarian CCP have had a free ride on us for over two decades. It is time to suit
up and give them a little taste of their own medicine. I hope Trump retains his resolve.
I don't care one iota about their "Face". Not at the expense of deindustrializing large
sections of the American Heartland. Which has already happened. Our trade relationship with
China has been a disaster. The only people to benefit are large shareholders.
As for them holding our debt it's threat is non-existent. Let them sell all of the bonds.
China currently owns $1.13 trillion in Treasurys, a fraction of the total $22 trillion in
U.S. debt. The Federal Reserve if need be can buy them all up but even that won't be
necessary due to insatiable demand for the bonds even at these ridiculous low interest
rates.
In fact their obsession with "Face" indicates a psychopath. Defines as no sense of right
and wrong and is generally bolder, more manipulative, and more self-centered than a
sociopath. That sums up their dealings with us the last 25 years.
Only a fool continues to play this game of theirs. Stealing our technology at will, forced
50/50 partnerships, currency manipulation, dumping into our country to destroy industries,
etc. etc. etc.
Plus they are expanding geographically now due to us making them rich. They are 1.3
million homogeneous Han for the most part. Especially compared to our country. I have to say
their government has definitely improved the lives of their citizens as a whole and I respect
that. But enough of our weak kneed leaders giving away the store.
I personally am being hurt by the tariffs due to many LVP flooring products I sell are
sourced from China. I have no problem taking a hit for the greater good and have been working
on sourcing from different locations.
Thanks for pointing the finger at China -looking out for their own interests - the bloody
bas-ards.
I guess you believe that had China had remained insular, the US would not have
de-industrialized to a different country? As if NAFTA wasn't a great sucking sound. Hmm. Me
things the problem lies closer to home - but no finger pointing there.
Totally impressed with the TrumpTareef - Totally on top of everything.
Oh wait, the tax advantages that encourage de-industrialization remain. But I guess Trump
doesn't understand taxes and how wealthy corporations and people use them to move production
overseas and not pay taxes ....
Meanwhile, global de-dolarization accelerates. At some % the US loses its special status
and there will be a reckoning.
I see a lot of hot air - not new policy: Manufacturing did not come back, US
infrastructure is a joke and continues to crumble, workforce participation continues
dropping, and hourly median wage remain stagnant. Why? Because it requires actual policies
that lessen the profitability of some (very wealthy friends in the circle Trump wants to
run).
Here's my prediction - Trump will fold by summer or sooner.
Apologies for butting-in in an otherwise fascinating conversation... but....
There is considerable but misplaced talk of "capitalism" being thrown about in some
threads, whilst Harlan worries about the deindustrialization of the West, ostensibly, due to
China. China has little to do with deindustrialization. A centralized monetary system coupled
with electoral politics, can only be sustained through the use of perpetual fiscal
deficits.
In order for the political construct to be able to run perpetual fiscal deficits, national
debt must necessarily expand. As debt conforms to the law of diminishing marginal utility
however, this is a compounding strategy.
Thus, in order to compensate for the loss of purchasing power, government borrowing must
progressively increase till eventually it goes parabolic. Hence the reason debt in the USA
doubled between 2008 and 2016. This is the parabolic phase.
In order to sustain this strategy, fiscal revenue must ideally expand. In order to
increase fiscal revenue however, legislation must be brought to bear. As legislation and
fiscality become progressively more restrictive in one country, economic actors migrate to
countries where they can achieve an economic advantage.
As a corollary, as legislation and fiscality become progressively more restrictive,
barriers are raised in business and industry. As barriers rise, so does unemployment and/or
under employment whilst business dynamism is proportionally stifled.
In this context therefore, artificially lowering interest rates to ostensibly kick start
the economy, actually reinforces the offshoring dynamic to the detriment of SMEs and the
benefit of large corporations.
If China can be blamed for anything therefore, it can only be blamed to have opened the
doors wide open to Western corporations to allow them to shift their production technology
out of Europe and the USA.
All the while, the finance industry is laughing all the way to the bank.... their own
bank that is.. ..
Chas Freeman was president Richard Nixon's senior interpreter for Nixon's visit to China.
Here is an interesting description by Freeman of some of that trip--
Something to which not enough consideration is given is that China has a considerable
volume of foreign loans, those are increasing, they are denominated in dollars (particularly
since the yuan is not convertible), and must be serviced in dollars. That means that China
needs a lot of dollars which it obtains via selling goods to the United States.
Said another way, China cannot reduce the amount it sells to the U. S. or buy more from
the U. S. without a convertible currency or reducing its level of foreign debt.
Your commentary exudes the naivety that the Chinese have preyed on for the past 50 years.
Their meekish and subservient mannerisms hide a ruthless and immoral inner nature. They would
still be a backward country if not for our elite's insatiable greed. What have they produced
organically that wasn't ripped off from developed countries? What do they offer cultural
other than a social credit system with improved state surveillance techniques? They treat
their own people like dogs and they still have dog eating festivals. China offers a way of
life that is an antithesis of the West, so it is inevitable that there will be a clash. The
question isn't if but when. The longer we delude ourselves into thinking that economics will
change China, the more blood will be shed when the reckoning occurs.
Chinese chauvinism puts American exceptionalism to shame. They've been the Celestial Empire
thousands of years longer than the upstart Anglo-American Empire. In last 30 years the
Western Elite dumped "noblesse oblige" for "get it while you can". China's entry into the WTO
directly hallowed out manufacturing in the Mid-West ultimately resulting to Donald Trump's
trade war.
This was a result of CEOs and Wall Street Raiders moving manufacturing to low wage, no
environmental regulation, nations to make a quick buck. China was a willing partner in the
con in order to modernize.
China's retail sales are now greater than America's. Since the US declared an economic
war, GM will have to drop Buick and Cadillac brands and market their cars in China as
Chinese. But "Face" likely will make that ploy unsuccessful.
GM sold over 4 million vehicles in China last year, even more than it sold in the North
American market. The U.S. only exported 267,000 passenger vehicles to China. Apple sales
declined 30% in China. In an economic war Chinese will avoid buying American branded
products. They have alternatives. Americans don't have a choice at Walmart except to pay the
higher prices due to the tariffs.
Those GM vehicles were built in China by a JV with majority Chinese ownership. The product
line sold at Wal-Mart has plenty of things made in countries other than China. We have a
twenty trillion dollar economy with Chinese imports making up 500 billion. We've got plenty
of options.
China has been emboldened as the west moved their manufacturing base there and transferred
their technology. They've been taking the next steps directly influencing our politics.
Huawei while it claims it is an employee owned company is controlled by the CCP as many
"private" companies in China. The west would be foolish to not put an end to Chinese
subterfuge that undermines their economy and national security.
I don't buy it at all. As others have pointed out China requires access to American markets
to 1) make their dollar denominated loan payments and 2) keep foreign manufacturing located
in the country. The cost of tariffs to the United States is finding alternative sources in
supply chains and higher end cost to consumers. We're insanely rich, we can afford that
without issue. The cost of tariffs to China, in the ultimate analysis, is foreign companies
moving their manufacturing out of the country, which would utterly devastate them.
So far as I understand the Trump administration is demanding nothing more than China play
by the rules of the game as written. If they're not willing to do so, **** 'em.
A well written contract contains enforceable penalties for non-performance with the money
often held in escrow. That's the way I write them. Trump is using the balance of US/China
trade to penalize the Chinese for reneging on the verbal and draft agreements they made with
us.
True. I am not familiar with the agreements so can't discuss it intelligently.
Just saying it seems hardly anyone lives up to agreements any more regardless of in writing
or not.
And dealing with countries is dealing with the people who represent it ..I do believe you
catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You can always swat them later if honey doesn't do
the trick.
This is a traditional problem deeply embedded in Chinese culture. Westerners in the 1800s
concluded that it was impossible to write a binding contract in classical Chinese. There were
hopes for Mandarin, but... I was reading about this as a college student studying Chinese
in the 1970s and have never ceased running across complaints about it. Chinese contracts are
only as good as the will of the contractors and the influence you can bring to bear. When you
are dealing with government, a contract is good until the officials get replaced with new
faces. Even big players like McDonald's are not exempt.
"...what was meant as the flagship of McDonald's planned expansion into the People's
Republic of China (it already had outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan) was destined for
controversy. In 1994 -- only two years after opening -- a legal battle pitted the
transnational corporation against Beijing's government in a land dispute symptomatic of
China's no holds barred modernization.
"In question was McDonald's 20-year lease on the strategically located property at
Wangfujing -- a busy central shopping district -- and the city's attempts to shutter the
restaurant to make way for a new super sized shopping mall. McDonald's balked at the eminent
domain order, which flattened the surrounding neighborhood. In the end the burger joint was
the lone building standing amid acres of rubble. The dispute raised serious concerns among
foreign investors over the efficacy of business contracts in China at a time when the
Communist state was seen as the future of global markets.
"But in late 1996 McDonald's China president Marvin Whaley announced a reconciliation. "In
a spirit of teamwork and partnership, we've developed a plan that will allow our strong
expansion in the city to continue."
Note that it took two years for the "spirit of teamwork and cooperation' to kick in for a
multi-billion dollar cooperation who could presumably have just been given another good spot
for a hamburger stand. If the officials involved had been willing. Your mileage may vary, but
you are unlikely to do better.
Chinese will respect a verbal contract - the difficulty is getting them to say the terms in
front of other Chinese. Lieing to you is permissible.
Our business solved the problem by using irrevocable letters of credit. That way we could
both blame the banks and not accuse each other of skulduggery. Hence Face was always kept
intact.
For the record and to preclude pointless ad hominem attacks, the Chinese are intelligent
hard working people for whom sophisticated business and finance was a way of life while we
were still living in mud huts. They revere education. They do not subscribe to Modern Judeo
Christian ethics but a much older Confucian creed. For that reason pleas for China to 'play
by the rules" just do not compute.
China is not some modern, fly by night, Westphalian creation. You are dealing with the
Middle Kingdom - 3000 years old and the Chinese, after centuries of oppression now demand
respect. The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and,
considering their economy, downright delusional.
China has its problems. Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate
friends, so the concept of higher loyalty to a Chinese nation (ie patriotism) is not strong.
Neither is respect for national law, nor respect for institutions or companies. This is the
source of all commercial crime (eg: fraud, adulterated products pollution).
The governments reaction to the tendencies of its population include draconian punishments
and now attempts at nationwide surveillance.
The problem Trump fails to recognise is that the CCP and its leaders have Face. Threaten
that and China will become an implacable and unbeatable enemy.
The underlaying philosophies are in some ways diametrically opposed. We in the West are
object and goal oriented, with an ideals based culture, while the East has more of a feedback
oriented view, ie. Yin and Yang.
Even the concept of time is different, as we think of ourselves as individuals, thus
moving through our context, the future is in front and the past behind, traveling the events
of our lives. While the Eastern view is the past is in front and the future behind, as they
see themselves as part of their context and necessarily witness events after they occur, then
the situation continues.
Both are valid in their own context. Though our presumption of moving toward some ideal is
flawed. When some is good, more is not always better. Consider efficiency, which is to do
more with less. Then the ideal of efficiency would be to do everything with nothing. Those
most committed to this view see Armageddon as the door to their ideal state.
What should be kept in mind about the East is that with Communism and the Party system,
then becoming China Inc, to global capitalism, they have adopted essentially Western ideas
and tried framing them through their own lens. The reason would be that such an ideals, goal
oriented paradigm is very effective in the short and medium term, but creates that much more
blowback, in the long term. While China might seem a threat to the current American status
quo, the real danger is our own social and economic breakdown. We have been living on the
equivalent of a national home loan since Reagan, if not Roosevelt and if the holders of that
debt try calling it due, say trading it for remaining public assets, we will be revisiting
feudalism.
The Russian and the Chinese, as well as the Iranians, etc. are really just boogie men,
being thrown up to distract us. This Iranian situation seems to have be a total disconnect
with reality. Something is brewing, whether planned, or just the wheels really coming off the
train.
Both we and the Chinese seem to be headed to our own versions of Brexit. The Russians went
through it with the fall of the Soviet Union.
"...the concept of higher loyalty..." Sounds like the Chinese exclusion act might have
been a good idea afterall. How many generations in the US will it take for a Chinese national
to actually assimiate and become "American"?
"...unbeatable enemy." The PRC is not the Middle Kingdom. President Xi is not the subject
of Master Po's "Everlasting Wrong" and he is well aware that China is certainly not
"unbeatable". These are trade negotiations and right now they need us one hell of a lot more
than we need them. Convincing his fellows in the CCP of that is probably going to be harder
for him than for Trump to do the same with Congress.
Walrus, I find the most illuminating thing about your informative post is the reaction you
elicited. Comment after comment, in my opinion, illustrates some degree of unwillingness or
inability to acknowledge and tolerate a culture clearly different from ours. I am reminded of
a South Park episode called "Toleration" in which the whole town wrongly assumes toleration
of the other requires wholehearted celebration of the other. Nothing could be further from
the truth. There's plenty many of us don't like about today's Chinese culture and society,
but it's their culture and society. They don't have to conform to our ways anymore than we
have to conform to theirs, but we should acknowledge the difference and deal with it.
In the name of tolerance of another culture are we going to surrender to their predatory
behavior? Are we going to allow the Chinese to continue to "beat us at our own game" as
Walrus alludes? Sure the Party of Davos have benefited from the current relationship but why
should the US in it's national interest continue to allow an authoritarian state to steal our
IP, subsidize their companies to dump products in our market and prevent our companies to
sell into their market unless they transfer technology, only to have it stolen?
That type of predatory behavior is not about cultural difference but taking advantage of a
situation that we allowed. Tariffs may not be the best strategy but at least Trump is saying
the current arrangement no longer works. It makes no sense to say in order to protect Chinese
"face" we should continue this arrangement where we have the short end of the deal. I hope
that Trump doesn't back down in the face of Chinese influence operations in the US and his
perception of what's best for his reelection. IMO, the Chinese threat is significantly larger
than any threat from Russia or Iran, and saying we should walk on eggshells to not offend
their cultural sensibilities is frankly ridiculous.
I believe Walrus over-estimates their strengths. There is a reason why their "best and
brightest" continue to immigrate to Silicon Valley in droves. I know some of them personally
as I have backed their entrepreneurial ventures. They will be the first to tell you that they
have given up a lot in terms of familial connection to immigrate to the US as they don't
share nor do they want their kid's futures to be subject to the capriciousness of Xi
Jinping's authoritarian vision.
Jack, why surrender to their predatory behavior? Just stop dealing with them. Stop allowing
American nationalists to buy Chinese made goods and stop selling China our goods. Why not
make the stuff ourselves or learn to do without? Why are those American farmers growing
soybeans for the Chinese. Let them grow stuff for Americans. Sure this approach is even more
extreme that the current tariff war, but it will make us immune to Chinese predatory
practices, won't it? The isolation of Sakoku as the purest form of American nationalism. As
an added benefit of implementing a policy of Sakoku, there would be no more American foreign
adventurism.
I say this tongue in cheek realizing it will never be implemented. But wouldn't this a
better implementation of American nationalism than demanding that all other countries simply
bend to our demands in all matters?
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should end our overseas interventionism. I've
opposed it for a long time from Vietnam to Iraq & Syria. The costs in the trillions of
dollars, the destabilization of fragile societies to the unnecessary sacrifices of our
soldiers and their families have not provided any meaningful benefit to us.
As far as China is concerned I believe the situation is more complex. One thing I've
noticed in general and exemplified by the comments on this thread is the conflation of the
heritage and Confucian values of the Chinese people on the CCP. Let's not be under any
illusion. The CCP is unabashedly totalitarian. I've no quarrel with the Chinese people. On
the contrary they have my deepest sympathies for having to endure under the boot of the
CCP.
Of course any change in their form of government is for them to effect just as our
forefathers did here. The important point that I believe needs to be made is that we provided
the finance, the technology and the markets to enable the economic development of an
authoritarian regime. An argument can be made that those early decisions to bring in China
into the global economic framework was in the belief it would enable them to reform. I was
persuaded then by Sir James Goldsmith & Ross Perot and others that the GATT trade deal
driven by Wall St would be a disaster for our working class. Neither Bill Clinton nor the
Republicans asked the question then what if the CCP doesn't reform and instead intensifies
their authoritarianism?
Of course the big transfer of our industrial base was completely our own doing as our
political system is fully captured by the Party of Davos. In retrospect it should be clear
that the CCP never intended to relinquish their monopoly on power and would become even more
repressive to maintain it. The CCP is not our friend. They are an implacable enemy who are
now using their growing economic and military strength to directly interfere and subvert our
societies. The scale of their influence operations and the direct use of cash to purchase
influence and espionage is something much larger than at the depth of the Cold War with the
Soviet Union. It is high time we understand this threat and act. At least Trump in his own
limited way gets that something needs to change even if in his mind it is purely
transactional. I'd like to highlight a current example where the Trump administration is
moving to ban Huawei from our market. Opeds are being furiously written and published in our
national media in defense of Huawei, while the company hires the top cybersecurity official
in the Obama administration with top secret clearance as their lobbyist. There are no Opeds
here or in China that Google, Facebook, and other US companies are banned in China. Why is
that? IMO, it's because we accept the authoritarianism of the CCP. The neocons made a lot of
noise demonizing Sadam & Assad as brutal dictators, yet they're silent as Xi Jinping has
millions of Uighurs in concentration camps. If we don't act to check the CCP now our
grandchildren will regret it as they'll have to fight a war.
Quote -"The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and,
considering their economy, downright delusional."
I believe this is the underlying driver to the individual Chinese acceptance of the cost to
any conflict, it also links directly to what they see as a Century of Humiliation where China
wasn't powerful. The very use of the word Humiliation in any translation directly links into
their concept of Face.
Quote- "China has its problems, Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate
friends"
I believe to extend and change this cultural concept of what constitutes Face is behind
the national introduction of Social Credit scores for all citizens and available on line to
all citizens. It is in fact intended as a national reputation system whereby an unrelated
Chinese can lose Face when interacting with other citizens. China is the elephant in the room
in any Western political, defence and economic policy debate.
IMHO, the USA holds most of the cards in this negotiation:
1. The USA trade deficit with China is huge and China needs to sell to the USA, as it will
not find other countries to make up for the lost market.
2. It is not uncommon for supply chains to change. Goods that today are manufactured in
China will likely be made in other asian countries which have even lower wages if the trade
war really goes for a significant amount of time.
3. The inflationary and GDP contraction risk of a trade war is not that high, as the
imported chinese goods make up only 2,3% of the USA GDP.
4. The fact that China has lots of USA sovereign debt is not something that can not be
solved by the FED. A few economists have already pointed that in the past 5 or 10 years.
5. China already is an enemy of the USA. Worst case, it will be more active in the
hotspots in the World, instead of only spying and hacking the hell out of the USA.
So, do not panic. The ones that should be panicking are the chinese.
China gets our middle class and the west gets cheap socks in return.As our middle class
disappears overseas our cheap socks become unaffordable because there are no jobs for our
young workers.The only way to get our middle class back is to stop buying cheap socks.or to
put the price up on our middle class.any idiot can make cheap socks but middle class is
priceless.the backbone of a stable society.Secondly any society that lives beyond its means
through over population is doomed and under no circumstances must it be allowed to
expand.China's growing affluence will increase competition for resources as it's middle class
expands and this will lead to conflict.Cheap socks might end up causing WWIII
Just as a reminder - having run International businesses, I just want to clarify that U.S.
Businesses are not saints. There is a certain amount of cheating, browbeating and stealing as
long as we don't get caught and profits are increasing.
We might not like the Chinese using our methods but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
At this point about two-thirds of Prudential's profits come from overseas subsidiaries and
one of the reasons for that success is our ability to mimic what works in their domestic
companies and to do it somewhat better and cheaper.
Since the profits were repatriated to the U.S., I had to deal with a lot of government
flack about hurting their domestic companies and their employees.
1: Highly sophisticated Culture. They tend to react pretty well if one can show a more
then basic degree of understanding of their history.
2: They greatly prefer nuance. Simple answers imply simple minds.
3: I have not been in the position to actually have to get formal contracts with them. I
can certainly echo however that making a Chinese promise something in front of other Chinese
about whose perception he cares is usually sufficient to have a pretty honorable commitment
to something, it is often easier said then done.
4: I initially had some disdain for the Chinese way of not directly letting you know how
annoyed they are at any given point (Russians are fairly straightforward in this), but
essentially, their point of view is also that if you are incapable of assessing how annoyed
they are you are not a valid negotiation partner.
5: Also, keeping annoyance beneath the radar does not create scenes, and if a scene is
created reactions may have to be forced. Vengeance is a thing with the Chinese . My
impression is that they can be mollified though, and generally regard vengeance as an
expensive luxury item, I also got the impression that you need to go out of your way to
seriously become a target of vengeance, just professional disagreements are not a cause for
vengeance, especially not if you are a foreigner. They also have a pathway of not having to
take vengeance to save their faces by asserting that the offender is
insane/feebleminded/crazy and thus beneath vengeance. Its not a position you want to be in
though.
6: It goes a pretty long way to be aware of some more imaginative things that especially
state aligned business can do if you are in China. Things like precision weighing any
electronic equipment you take there before and after are just best practice.
Via ChasFreeman.net,
Remarks to the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies China Program
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Stanford, California, 3 May 2019
President Trump's trade war with China has quickly metastasized into every other domain
of Sino-American relations.
Washington is now trying to dismantle China's
interdependence with the American economy, curb its role in global governance, counter its foreign
investments, cripple its companies, block its technological advance, punish its many deviations
from liberal ideology, contest its borders, map its defenses, and sustain the ability to penetrate
those defenses at will.
The message of hostility to China these efforts send is consistent and apparently
comprehensive. Most Chinese believe it reflects an integrated U.S. view or strategy. It does not.
There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or
control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively
declared open season on China.
This permits everyone in his administration to go after
China as they wish. Every internationally engaged department and agency – the U.S. Special Trade
Representative, the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland
Security – is doing its own thing about China. The president has unleashed an undisciplined
onslaught. Evidently, he calculates that this will increase pressure on China to capitulate to his
protectionist and mercantilist demands. That would give him something to boast about as he seeks
reelection in 2020.
Trump's presidency has been built on lower middle-class fears of displacement by immigrants and
outsourcing of jobs to foreigners. His campaign found a footing in the anger of ordinary Americans
– especially religious Americans – at the apparent contempt for them and indifference to their
welfare of the country's managerial and political elites. For many, the trade imbalance with China
and Chinese rip-offs of U.S. technology became the explanations of choice for increasingly unfair
income distribution, declining equality of opportunity, the deindustrialization of the job market,
and the erosion of optimism in the United States.
In their views of China, many Americans now appear subconsciously to have combined
images of the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu, Japan's unnerving 1980s challenge to U.S. industrial and
financial primacy, and a sense of existential threat analogous to the Sinophobia that inspired the
Anti-Coolie and Chinese Exclusion Acts.
Meanwhile, the ineptitude of the American elite revealed by the 2008 financial crisis, the
regular eruptions of racial violence and gun massacres in the United States, the persistence of
paralyzing political constipation in Washington, and the arrogant unilateralism of "America First"
have greatly diminished the appeal of America to the Chinese elite.
As a result, Sino-American interaction is now long on mutual indignation and very short
on empirically validated information to substantiate the passions it evokes.
On each
side, the other is presumed guilty of a litany of iniquities. There is no process by which either
side can achieve exoneration from the other's accusations. Guesstimates, conjectures,
a priori
reasoning
from dubious assumptions, and media-generated hallucinations are reiterated so often that they are
taken as facts. The demagoguery of contemporary American populism ensures that in this country
clamor about China needs no evidence at all to fuel it. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalism answers
American rhetorical kicks in the teeth by swallowing the figurative blood in its mouth and
refraining from responding in kind, while sullenly plotting revenge.
We are now entering not just a post-American but
post-Western
era.
In
many ways the contours of the emerging world order are unclear. But one aspect of them is certain:
China will play a larger and the U.S. a lesser role than before in global and regional governance.
The Trump administration's response to China's increasing wealth and power does not bode well for
this future. The pattern of mutual resentment and hostility the two countries are now establishing
may turn out to be indelible. If so, the consequences for both and for world prosperity and peace
could be deeply unsettling.
For now, America's relationship with China appears to have become a vector compounded of many
contradictory forces and factors, each with its own advocates and constituencies. The resentments
of some counter the enthusiasms of others. No one now in government seems to be assessing the
overall impact on American interests or wellbeing of an uncoordinated approach to relations with
the world's greatest rising power. And few in the United States seem to be considering the
possibility that antagonism to China's rise might end up harming the United States and its Asian
security partners more than it does China. Or that, in extreme circumstances, it could even lead
to a devastating trans-Pacific nuclear exchange.
Some of the complaints against China from the squirming mass of Sinophobes who have attached
themselves to President Trump are entirely justified. The Chinese have been slow to accept the
capitalist idea that knowledge is property that can be owned on an exclusive basis. This is, after
all, contrary to a millennial Chinese tradition that regards copying as flattery, not a violation
of genius. Chinese businessfolk have engaged in the theft of intellectual property rights not just
from each other but from foreigners. Others may have done the same in the past, but they were
nowhere near as big as China. China's mere size makes its offenses intolerable. Neither the
market economy in China nor China's international trade and investment relationships can realize
their potential until its disrespect for private property is corrected. The United States and the
European Union (EU) are right to insist that the Chinese government fix this problem.
Many Chinese agree. Not a few quietly welcome foreign pressure to strengthen the enforcement of
patents and trademarks, of which they are now large creators, in the Chinese domestic market. Even
more hope the trade war will force their government to reinvigorate "reform and opening." Fairer
treatment of foreign-invested Chinese companies is not just a reasonable demand but one that serves
the interests of the economically dominant but politically disadvantaged private sector in China.
Chinese protectionism is an unlatched door against which the United States and others should
continue to push.
But other complaints against China range from the partially warranted to the patently bogus.
Some recall Hermann Göring's cynical observation at Nuremberg that:
"The people can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
There is a lot of this sort of manipulative
reasoning at play in the deteriorating U.S. security relationship with the Chinese. Social and
niche media, which make everything plausible and leave no truth unrefuted, facilitate this. In the
Internet miasma of conspiracy theories, false narratives, fabricated reports, fictive "facts," and
outright lies, baseless hypotheses about China rapidly become firm convictions and long-discredited
myths and rumors find easy resurrection.
Consider the speed with which a snappy phrase invented by an Indian polemicist –
"debt-trap diplomacy" – has become universally accepted as encapsulating an alleged Chinese policy
of international politico-economic predation. Yet the only instance of a so-called a "debt trap"
ever cited is the port of Hambantota, commissioned by the since-ousted autocratic president of Sri
Lanka to glorify his hometown.
His successor correctly judged that the port was a white
elephant and decided to offload it on the Chinese company that had built it by demanding that the
company exchange the debt to it for equity. To recover any portion of its investment, the Chinese
company now has to build some sort of economic hinterland for the port. Hambantota is less an
example of a "debt trap" than of a stranded asset.
Then too, China is now routinely accused of iniquities that better describe the present-day
United States than the People's Middle Kingdom. Among the most ironic of such accusations is the
charge that it is China, not a sociopathic "America First" assault on the international
status
quo
, that is undermining both U.S. global leadership and the multilateral order remarkably
wise American statesmen put in place some seven decades ago. But it is the United States, not
China, that is ignoring the U.N. Charter, withdrawing from treaties and agreements, attempting to
paralyze the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution mechanisms, and substituting bilateral
protectionist schemes for multilateral facilitation of international trade based on comparative
advantage.
The WTO was intended as an antidote to mercantilism, also known as "government-managed trade."
China has come strongly to support globalization and free trade. These are the primary sources of
its rise to prosperity. It is hardly surprising that China has become a strong defender of the
trade and investment regime Americans designed and put in place.
By contrast, the Trump administration is all about mercantilism – boosting national power by
minimizing imports and maximizing exports as part of a government effort to manage trade with
unilateral tariffs and quotas, while exempting the United States from the rules it insists that
others obey.
I will not go on except to note the absurdity of the thesis that "engagement" failed to
transform China's political system and should therefore be abandoned. Those who most vociferously
advance this canard are the very people who used to complain that changing China's political order
was
not
the objective of engagement but that it
should
be. They now condemn
engagement because it did not accomplish objectives that they
wanted
it to have but used to
know that it
didn't
. It is telling that American engagement with other illiberal societies
(like Egypt, the Israeli occupation in Palestine, or the Philippines under President Duterte) is
not condemned for having failed to change them.
That said, we should not slight the tremendous impact of America's forty-year opening to China
on its socioeconomic development.
American engagement with China helped it develop
policies that rapidly lifted at least 500 million people out of poverty.
It transformed
China from an angry, impoverished, and isolated power intent on overthrowing the capitalist world
order to an active, increasingly wealthy, and very successful participant in that order. It
midwifed the birth of a modernized economy that is now the largest single driver of the world's
economic growth and that, until the trade war intervened, was America's fastest growing overseas
market. American engagement with China helped reform its educational system to create a
scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical ("STEM") workforce that already accounts
for one-fourth of such workers in the global economy. For a while, China was a drag on human
progress. It is now an engine accelerating it. That transformation owes a great deal to the
breadth and depth of American engagement with it.
Nor should we underestimate the potential impact of the economic decoupling, political
animosity, and military antagonism that U.S. policy is now institutionalizing.
Even if
the two sides conclude the current trade war, Washington now seems determined to do everything it
can to hold China down. It seems appropriate to ask: can the United States succeed in doing this?
What are the probable costs and consequences of attempting to do it? If America disengages from
China, what influence, if any, will the United States have on its future evolution? What is that
evolution likely to look like under conditions of hostile coexistence between the two countries?
Some likely answers, issue by issue.
First
: the consequences of
cutting back Sino-American economic
interdependence.
The supply chains now tying the two economies together were forged by market-regulated
comparative advantage. The U.S. attempt to impose government-dictated targets for Chinese
purchases of agricultural commodities, semiconductors, and the like represents a political
preemption of market forces. By simultaneously walking away from the Paris climate accords, TPP,
the Iran nuclear deal, and other treaties and agreements, Washington has shown that it can no
longer be trusted to respect the sanctity of contracts. The U.S. government has also demonstrated
that it can ignore the economic interests of its farmers and manufacturers and impose politically
motivated embargoes on them. The basic lesson Chinese have taken from recent U.S. diplomacy is
that no one should rely on either America's word or its industrial and agricultural exports.
For these reasons, the impending trade "deal" between China and the United States – if there is
one – will be at most a truce that invites further struggle. It will be a short-term expedient,
not a long-term reinvigoration of the Sino-American trade and investment relationship to American
advantage. No future Chinese government will allow China to become substantially dependent on
imports or supply chains involving a country as fickle and hostile as Trump's America has proven to
be. China will instead develop non-American sources of foodstuffs, natural resources, and
manufactures, while pursuing a greater degree of self-reliance. More limited access to the China
market for U.S. factories and farmers will depress U.S. growth rates. By trying to reduce U.S.
interdependence with China, the Trump administration has inadvertently made the United States the
supplier of last resort to what is fast becoming the world's largest consumer market.
The consequences for American manufacturers of "losing" the China market are worsened by the
issue of scale. China's non-service economy already dwarfs that of the United States. Size
matters. Chinese companies, based in a domestic market of unparalleled size, have economies of
scale that give them major advantages in international competition. American companies producing
goods – for example, construction equipment or digital switching gear – have just been put at a
serious tariff disadvantage in the China market as China retaliates against U.S. protectionism by
reciprocating it. One side effect of the new handicaps U.S. companies now face in the China market
is more effective competition from Chinese companies, not just in China but in third country
markets too.
Second
: the U.S. effort to
block an expanded Chinese role in global
governance
.
This is no more likely to succeed than the earlier American campaign to persuade allies and
trading partners to boycott the Chinese-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
That has isolated the United States, not China. Carping at the Belt and Road initiative and
related programs from outside them does nothing to shape them to American advantage. It just
deprives American companies of the profits they might gain from participating in them.
The United States seems to be acting out of nostalgia for the simplicities of a bipolar world
order, in which countries could be pressured to stand with either the United States or its then
rival. But China is not hampered by a dysfunctional ideology and economic system, as America's
Soviet adversary was. What's more, today's China is an integral member of international society,
not a Soviet-style outcast. There is now, quite literally, no country willing to accept being
forced to make a choice between Beijing and Washington. Instead, all seek to extract whatever
benefits they can from relations with both and with other capitals as well, if they have something
to offer. The binary choices, diplomatic group-think, and trench warfare of the Cold War have been
succeeded by national identity politics and the opportunistic pursuit of political, economic, and
military interests wherever they can be served. Past allegiances do not anywhere determine current
behavior.
The sad reality is that the United States, which led the creation of the Bretton Woods
institutions that have been at the core of the post-World War II rule-bound international system,
now offers these institutions and their members neither funding nor reform. Both are necessary to
promote development as balances of supply, demand, wealth, and power shift. The new
organizations, like the AIIB and the New Development Bank, that China and others are creating are
not predatory intrusions into the domain of American-dominated international finance. They are
necessary responses to unmet financial and economic demand. Denouncing them does not alter that
reality.
Other countries do not see these organizations as supplanting pre-existing lending institutions
long led by the United States. The new institutions supplement the World Bank Group and regional
development banks. They operate under slightly improved versions of the lending rules pioneered by
the Bretton Woods legacy establishments. China is a major contributor to the new development
banks, but it does not exercise a veto in them as the U.S. does in the IMF and World Bank. The
AIIB's staff is multinational (and includes Americans in key positions). The New Development
Bank's first president is Indian and its principal lending activity to date has been in South
Africa.
Washington has chosen to boycott anything and everything sponsored by China. So far, the sad
but entirely predictable result of this attempt to ostracize and reduce Chinese influence has not
curbed China's international clout but magnified it. By absenting itself from the new
institutions, the United States is making itself increasingly irrelevant to the overall governance
of multilateral development finance.
Third
: the U.S. campaign to
block China's international investments,
cripple its technology companies, and impede its scientific and technological advance.
The actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to prevent
Chinese investment in American industry and agriculture are well publicized and are becoming ever
more frequent. So are official American denunciations of Chinese telecommunications companies like
Huawei and ZTE amidst intermittent efforts to shut them down. In an ominous echo of World War I's
anti-German, World War II's anti-Japanese, and the Cold War's anti-communist xenophobia, the FBI
has begun issuing loud warnings about the menace posed by the large Chinese student presence on
American campuses. Washington is adjusting visa policies to discourage such dangerous people from
matriculating here. It has also mounted a strident campaign to persuade other countries to reject
Chinese investments under the "Belt and Road" initiative.
In the aggregate, these policies represent a decision by the U.S. political elite to try to
hamstring China, rather than to invest in strengthening America's ability to compete with it.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe this approach can succeed. China's foreign direct
investments have more than doubled over the past three years. Third countries are openly declining
to go along with U.S. opposition to intensified economic relations with China. They want the
capital, technology, and market openings that Chinese investment provides. U.S. denunciations of
their interest in doing business with China are seldom accompanied by credible offers by American
companies to match what their Chinese competitors offer. You can't beat something with nothing.
It's also not clear which country is most likely to be hurt by U.S. government obstruction of
collaboration between Chinese and American STEM workers. There is a good chance the greatest
damage will be to the United States. A fair number of native-born Americans seem more interested
in religious myths, magic, and superheroes than in science. U.S. achievements in STEM owe much to
immigration and to the presence of Chinese and other foreign researchers in America's graduate
schools. The Trump administration is trying to curtail both.
China already possesses one-fourth of the world's STEM workforce. It is currently graduating
three times as many STEM students annually as the United States. (Ironically, a significant
percentage of STEM graduates in the United States are Chinese or other Asian nationals. Around
half of those studying computer sciences in the United States are such foreigners.) American loss
of contact with scientists in China and a reduced Chinese presence in U.S. research institutions
can only retard the further advance of science in the United States.
China is rapidly increasing its investments in education, basic science, research, and
development even as the United States reduces funding for these activities, which are the
foundation of technological advance. The pace of innovation in China is visibly accelerating.
Cutting Americans off from interaction with their Chinese counterparts while other countries
continue risks causing the United States to fall behind not just China but other foreign
competitors.
Finally
: the
U.S. military
is in China's face
.
The U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol China's coasts and test its defenses on a daily basis. U.S.
strategy in the event of war with China – for example, over Taiwan – depends on overcoming those
defenses so as to be able to strike deep into the Chinese homeland. The United States has just
withdrawn from the treaty on intermediate nuclear forces in part to be able to deploy nuclear
weapons to the Chinese periphery. In the short term, there is increasing danger of a war by
accident, triggered by a mishap in the South China Sea, the Senkaku Archipelago, or by efforts by
Taiwanese politicians to push the envelope of mainland tolerance of their island's unsettled
political
status quo
. These threats are driving growth in China's defense budget and its
development of capabilities to deny the United States continued military primacy in its adjacent
seas.
In the long term, U.S. efforts to dominate China's periphery invite a Chinese military response
on America's periphery like that formerly mounted by the Soviet Union. Moscow actively patrolled
both U.S. coasts, stationed missile-launching submarines just off them, supported anti-American
regimes in the Western Hemisphere, and relied on its ability to devastate the American homeland
with nuclear weapons to deter war with the United States. On what basis does Washington imagine
that Beijing cannot and will not eventually reciprocate the threat the U.S. forces surrounding
China appear to pose to it?
Throughout the forty-two years of the Cold War, Americans maintained substantive
military-to-military dialogue with their Soviet enemies. Both sides explicitly recognized the need
for strategic balance and developed mechanisms for crisis management that could limit the risk of a
war and a nuclear exchange between them. But no such dialogue, understandings, or mechanisms to
control escalation now exist between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA. In their absence Americans
attribute to the PLA all sorts of intentions and plans that are based on mirror-imaging rather than
evidence.
The possibility that mutual misunderstanding will intensify military confrontation and increase
the dangers it presents is growing. The chances of this are all the greater because the internal
security and counterintelligence apparatuses in China and the United States appear to be engaged in
a contest to see which can most thoroughly alienate the citizens of the other country. China is a
police state. For Chinese in America, the United States sometimes seems to be on the way to
becoming one.
It's hard to avoid the
conclusion
that, if Washington stays on its current
course, the United States will gain little, while ceding substantial ground to China and
significantly increasing risks to its wellbeing, global leadership, and security.
Economically
, China will become less welcoming to American exports. It will
pursue import substitution or alternative sourcing for goods and services it has previously sourced
in the United States. With impaired access to the world's largest middle class and consumer
economy, the United States will be pushed down the value chain. China's ties to other major
economies will grow faster than those with America, adversely affecting U.S. growth rates. Any
reductions in the U.S. trade deficit with China will be offset by increases in trade deficits with
the countries to which current production in China is relocated.
China's role in
global governance
will expand as it adds new institutions and
funds to the existing array of international organizations and takes a larger part in their
management. The Belt and Road initiative will expand China's economic reach to every corner of the
Eurasian landmass and adjacent areas. The U.S. role in global rule-making and implementation will
continue to recede. China will gradually displace the United States in setting global standards
for trade, investment, transport, and the regulation of new technologies.
Chinese
technological innovation
will accelerate, but it will no longer advance
in collaboration with American researchers and institutions. Instead it will do so indigenously
and in cooperation with scientists outside the United States. U.S. universities will no longer
attract the most brilliant students and researchers from China. The benefits of new technologies
developed without American inputs may be withheld rather than shared with America, even as the
leads the United States has long enjoyed in science and technology one-by-one erode and are
eclipsed. As cordiality and connections between China and the United States wither, reasons for
Chinese to respect the intellectual property of Americans will diminish rather than increase.
Given the forward deployment of U.S. forces, the Chinese
military
has the great
advantage of a defensive posture and short lines of communication. The PLA is currently focused on
countering U.S. power projection in the last tenth or so of the 6,000-mile span of the Pacific
Ocean. In time, however, it is likely to seek to match American pressure on its borders with its
own direct military pressure on the United States along the lines of what the Soviet armed forces
once did.
The adversarial relationship that now exists between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA already
fuels an arms race between them. This will likely expand and accelerate. The PLA is rapidly
shrinking the gap between its capabilities and those of the U.S. armed forces. It is developing a
nuclear triad to match that of the United States. The good news is that mutual deterrence seems
possible. The bad news is that politicians in Taiwan and their fellow travelers in Washington are
determinedly testing the policy frameworks and understandings that have, over the past forty years,
tempered military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait with dialogue and rapprochement. Some in
Taiwan seem to believe that they can count on the United States to intervene if they get themselves
in trouble with Chinese across the Strait. The Chinese civil war, suspended but not ended by U.S.
unilateral intervention in 1950, seems closer to a resumption than it has been for decades.
As a final note on politico-military aspects of Sino-American relations, in the United States,
security clearances are now routinely withheld from anyone who has spent time in China. This
guarantees that few intelligence analysts have the Fingerspitzengefühl – the feeling derived from
direct experience – necessary to really understand China or the Chinese. Not to worry. The
administration disbelieves the intelligence community. Policy is now made on the basis of
ignorance overlaid with media-manufactured fantasies. In these circumstances, some enterprising
Americans have taken to combing the dragon dung for nuggets of undigested Chinese malevolence, so
they can preen before those in power now eager for such stuff. There is a Chinese expression that
nicely describes such pretense: 屎壳螂戴花儿 -- 又臭又美 – "a dung beetle with flowers in its hair still
stinks."
All said, this does not add up to a fruitful approach to dealing with the multiple challenges
that arise from China's growing wealth and power. So,
what is to be done?
该怎么办？
Here are a few
suggestions
.
First
, accept the reality that China is both too big and too embedded in the
international system to be dealt with bilaterally. The international system needs to adjust to
and accommodate the seismic shifts in the regional and global balances of wealth and power that
China's rise is causing. To have any hope of success at adapting to the changes now underway,
the United States needs to be backed by a coalition of the reasonable and farsighted. This
can't happen if the United States continues to act in contempt of alliances and partnerships.
Washington needs to rediscover statecraft based on diplomacy and comity.
Second
, forget government-managed trade and other forms of mercantilism. No
one can hope to beat China at such a statist game. The world shouldn't try. Nor should it
empower the Chinese government to manage trade at the expense of market forces or China's
private sector. Governments can and – in my opinion – should set economic policy objectives,
but everyone is better off when markets, not politicians, allocate capital and labor to achieve
these.
Third
, instead of pretending that China can be excluded from significant
roles in regional and global governance, yield gracefully to its inclusion in both. Instead of
attempting to ostracize China, leverage its wealth and power in support of the rule-bound order
in which it rose to prosperity, including the WTO.
Fourth
, accept that the United States has as much or more to gain than to
lose by remaining open to science, technology, and educational exchanges with China. Be
vigilant but moderate. Err on the side of openness and transnational collaboration in
progress. Work on China to convince it that the costs of technology theft are ultimately too
high for it to be worthwhile.
Fifth
and finally, back away from provocative military actions on the China
coast. Trade frequent "freedom of navigation operations" to protest Chinese interpretations of
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea for dialogue aimed at reaching common understandings
of relevant interests and principles. Ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and make use
of its dispute resolution mechanisms. As much as possible, call off military confrontation and
look for activities, like the protection of commercial shipping, that are common interests.
Seek common ground without prejudice to persisting differences.
In
conclusion
:
both China and the United States need a peaceful
international environment to be able to address long-neglected domestic problems.
Doing
more of what we're now doing threatens to preclude either of us from sustaining the levels of
peace, prosperity, and domestic tranquility that a more cooperative relationship would afford.
Hostile coexistence between two such great nations injures both and benefits neither. It
carries unacceptable risks. Americans and Chinese need to turn from the path we are now on.
We can – we must – find a route forward that is better for both of us.
The article presents itself as being forward thinking, yet no
mention of the robot revolution and how destabilizing it will be
for both sides. As it stands today, it seems the economic conflict
is between the US and China-perhaps. But when these robots come on
line the economic war is going to be between the laborer and the
employee world wide.
The demise of the US economy and
manufacturing base in the US is a direct result of cheap labor, so
one has a clear picture of what cheap labor will do. Outside of
stuff falling from the sky for free, there isn't anything that
will be more devastating to the world labor market than a robot
enhanced with AI. Sure, products may become cheaper due to
reduced labor cost, but if people do not have a job to raise
enough income, then how are they going to buy stuff? Clearly, the
whole capitalistic system will collapse and then what? What will
be our choices? Will we have to shun progress in order to save the
current system that has brought us all this wonderful labor saving
innovation? Will people choose the hard road over the easy road?
It seems to me that things always take the path of least
resistance.
The only advantage China has is cheap labor.The robot revolution
will upset the apple cart for both sides. It will be interesting,
to say the least, when both sides realize that innovation is both
a blessing and a curse.
This is a pretty good article, I agree with a lot of it. The part
I don't like is the author's extreme worship of property rights.
He ignores the commons, things held in common by the people,
things like science and culture. For example, Disney's copyright
on its films will never expire if Disney can help it. Even an
American's personal data is now someone else's private property,
probably including their genetic data since even genes can be
patented.
"... More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the money keeps flowing. ..."
Former Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration,
warns in a new The Real News interview with host Sharmini Peries that the United States government is driving down a "highway to
war" with China -- a war for which Wilkerson sees no sound justification.
The drive toward war is not undertaken in response to a real threat posed by China to the people of America. Instead, argues Wilkerson,
the US government is moving toward war for reasons related to money for both the military and the broader military-industrial complex,
as well to advance President Donald Trump's domestic political goals.
Wilkerson, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's Academic Board, elaborates on the US military's
money-seeking motivation to advance the new China scare, stating:
All of this right now, first and foremost, is a budget ploy. They want more money.
And that's largely because their personnel costs are just eating their lunch. And, second, it's an attempt to develop - and
this has something to do with money too of course - another threat, another cold war, another feeding system .
The military just hooks up like it is hooking up to an intravenous, you know, an IV system and the money just pours out-slush
fund money, appropriated money, everything else.
More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex
alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace
dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the
money keeps flowing.
Google has reportedly suspended its licences and product-sharing agreements with Chinese
communications giant Huawei, as Washington accuses the company of spying for Beijing. The
Silicon Valley tech giant has cut its business deals with Huawei that involve the transfer of
hardware and software, Reuters and The Verge report. Following the move, Huawei will lose
access to Android operating system updates, and its forthcoming smartphones will be shut out of
some Google apps, including the Google Play Store and Gmail apps. The Chinese firm however will
still have access to the open source version of the Android operating system.
We have confirmed this is genuine.
Huawei will only be able to use the public version of Android, and won't get access to
proprietary apps and services from Google
Huawei will have to create their own update mechanism for security patches https://t.co/7eTi4JvWsE
Washington repeatedly accused Huawei of installing so-called 'backdoors' into its products
on behalf of the Chinese government. The heads of six US intelligence agencies warned
American citizens against using Huawei products last year, and the Chinese company's phones
were banned from US military bases shortly afterwards.
cle"> "Without Walmart there is no middle class or lower class..." What a load of
tripe. Walmart pays middle class wages for probably 4 people at each store, the rest get
poverty level wages and many are on public assistance while working at Walmart. I've always
thought Laffer was a loon but, that comment just proves it. He is talking like there is no
economy outside of Walmart, and that is not the case at all. Walmart took on the job of being
China's distributor for China - and helped to get factories moved from the US to China.
Walmart is most certainly no hero in the story of American economics.
"Thinking that tariffs are the magical tool that is bringing the entire supply chain, the
entire ecosystem, to the United States is a task that's larger than even Apple could
accomplish," Wiens told VICE News. WATCH NEXT: The Hidden Homelessness Crisis In California -
http://bit.ly/2E1fnUK
"... All last week, anti-American propaganda flourished across the country, with the slogan "Wanna talk? Let's talk. Wanna fight? Let's do it. Wanna bully us? Dream on!" going viral on Chinese social media platforms. ..."
With the trade war between the US and China suddenly erupting after a 5-month ceasefire,
CCTV 6, the movie channel of China's leading state television broadcaster, aired three
anti-American movies last week,
reported What's On Weibo .
The three movies are Korean war films: Heroic Sons and Daughters (1964), Battle on
Shangganling Mountain (1954), and Surprise Attack (1960), which aired about one week after
President Trump raised an existing 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to
25%.
All last week, anti-American propaganda flourished across the country, with the slogan
"Wanna talk? Let's talk. Wanna fight? Let's do it. Wanna bully us? Dream on!" going viral on
Chinese social media platforms.
... ... ...
China's government broadcasting anti-American movies to hundreds of millions of its people
shows how officials are starting up the propaganda machines ahead of a potential armed conflict
with the US...
Chinese spokesperson Hu Xijin writes: "there's no equal negotiation without fighting." No
need for negotiation (or fighting). Assuming Trump imposes the rest of the tariffs, US trade
with China will recede to nothing. Inciting anti-American feelings in mainland China just
makes the break in relations easier. Goodbye China!
China has no intention of going to actual war over trade with the U.S. - they have plenty
of other potential markets, as is repeatedly alluded to here and elsewhere. This televised
propaganda is about manipulating the attitudes of their own disillusioned, controlled
populace.
So they're broadcasting regular American television? Those shows do a great job demeaning
and shitting on average American men while holding up minorities and freaks as capable
people. They didn't need to invent any propaganda; just use the same **** *** producers have
been feeding us dumb goyim for decades.
Isage master of the The famous paper tiger threat of turning something into glass, empty
fuckin threat from a country whose professional army has managed to lose every major conflict
in the last 50 years to poorly equipped sometimes barefoot soldiers armed with nothing more
that AK -47s.
please see Korean villagers, Vietnamese villagers, iraqi villagers, afghan villagers and
Syrian Villagers.
and the vaunted Israelis who who only win against ancient armies with ancient gear, but
faced with dedicated Hezbollah Lebanese villagers again .....lose.
Give it up, you are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... not much
else.
"... Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump. ..."
"... Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud, independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco. ..."
"... Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. ..."
by: Shareholders Unite
Shareholders
Unite Small-cap, macro, value, momentum Shareholdersunite
(11,300 followers) Summary It is difficult to see the Chinese caving to the demands of the Trump government, which seem to involve
a wholesale change of China's economic model.
Either some middle ground is found or we risk a serious escalation with multiple risks to the state of the world economy, with
many known and unknown facilities.
The end state could be a wholesale decoupling of the American and Chinese economies, and while some would applaud such an outcome,
it's unlikely to be better than what we've got.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US
demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front, we don't know.
Trade tensions have been taken way too far when the government slapped tariffs on Canadian steel exports because of national security
concerns, but in the case of China, there are some legitimate concerns. Mind you, these concerns don't involve:
China's mercantilism - its trade surplus has all but vanished (see below).
The bilateral trade deficit the US has with China that's way overstated (much of the value added comes from other countries,
most notably the US), meaningless and not amenable to change from deliberate policy measures (the US trade deficit is caused by
a lack of savings with respect to investments; in so far as policy manages to reduce the bilateral trade deficit with China, the
deficit will simply reappear elsewhere as long as the saving/investment balance isn't changed).
While China has "manipulated" its currency in the past in order to keep it low, in recent years they've done exactly the opposite,
trying to keep their currency from falling.
China isn't paying for the tariffs, US importers and consumers are.
Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially
clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump.
Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud,
independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco.
Just as there is one thing worse than a severe economic recession, which is caving to US pressure for the Iranian ayatollas, the
same holds for Chinese politicians in charge of policy.
It's true that the pain from the escalation in the trade war is probably significantly larger in China compared to the US, but
that doesn't make them more likely to be the first to cave, especially considering that what the US administration seems to demand
is a wholesale
change of China's economic model . That's never going to happen. Since there are no free elections, they can endure the pain
for longer, and much fewer people own stocks, so even while the sell-off in China might be worse, it's hitting much fewer people.
In fact, caving to US demands, or even being seen to be caving, might well be a one-way ticket to political oblivion. Which is
why China's leaders called President Trump's bluff. Contrast this with the situation in the US.
Trade experts like Krugman
argue that the short-term economic impact as such on the US economy is fairly moderate, and who are we to disagree? However,
a further escalation isn't likely to go by unnoticed, and there is this ephemeral concept called "confidence", of which the stock
market might be one of the best indicators:
The market is already reeling, and this could become uncomfortable pretty soon for a president who prides himself on the rally
in the markets.
The real danger
The risk is that this becomes a protracted conflict with each party digging in, egged on by heated domestic rhetoric. The longer
this lasts, the greater the following risks:
Sentiment spilling over in the real economy
A large yuan depreciation
Collateral damage
A wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies
Sentiment is turning, and at a certain point, this can very well start to affect consumption, investment, and lending decisions
in the real world. We're not there yet, but look how the sell-off at the end of last year cowered the Fed into one of the more spectacular
retreats in policy. This wasn't because of the market sell-off itself but because of the increasing signs that sentiment could hit
the real economy, even if much of the more immediate risks were abroad.
Moreover, in a highly leveraged financial system, you never know what you're going to find when the investor flows recede. Things
can go very fast here. Look how Argentina was able to sell a 100-year bond in 2016, only to be hit by the receding flows pretty soon
after.
Another real risk is a substantial yuan depreciation . It's the most effective way the Chinese can absorb the direct tariff cost
on their competitiveness, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The markets have already twice succumbed to yuan depreciation scares, in 2015 and at the start of 2016, and the PBoC spent $1
trillion of its $4 trillion reserves plus draconian capital controls to stop the rot.
We're not talking hypotheticals here - guess when that gap-up happened? On the day of the Trump tweets announcing the 25% tariffs:
A substantial yuan depreciation will risk inserting a major deflationary blow to the world economy as it exports the effects of
the US tariffs on China to the rest of the world.
Given the shaky state of the eurozone, we're not relishing this prospect at all. We have long argued that the eurozone is one
downturn away from disintegration, with Italy as its focal point.
Italy is already in a recession and has a dysfunctional government consisting of a left-wing and right-wing populist party which
are constantly bickering. What's more, it has unsustainable debt dynamics and a potential banking doom loop, should the debt dynamics
trigger a market selloff, and has no lender of last resort.
With all the debt and leverage in the world economy, it's a bit like riding a bicycle - you have to keep cycling to stop falling
over.
Decoupling
While the direct monetary impact of the tariffs is fairly moderate (it's a modest, albeit highly regressive, tax increase), another
likely consequence is a further relocation of supply chains and decoupling of the US and Chinese economies.
We have already read numerous company CCs which described rerouting supplies from China, albeit not usually back to the US, and
we're not imagining stuff. From Monday's issue of DigiTimes:
If 10% tariffs can do that, 25% of tariffs will accelerate this and the next round, where the US levies tariffs on all Chinese
imports even more.
Some within the US administration seems to relish this, as it weakens China economically, but a hard Chinese landing won't pass
the US unnoticed, and the end result could very well be two competing economic blocks and a new sort of cold war.
One of the very first economic measures the Trump government took was to get the US out of the TPP, which not only gave up a lot
of leverage over China, but the mostly ASEAN countries who are part of the TPP (without the US) are now firmer in China's orbit as
a result, and they will have unenviable choices to make in terms of their future alignment.
It's also unfortunate that Trump has been waging trade wars on multiple fronts (see
here for an overview ), alienating many partners in the process.
Now might be as good a time as any to remind people of the unpopular thesis that trade isn't a zero-sum game and that both the
US and China have greatly benefited from their economic integration the past couple of decades.
The US got increased exports as well - not as spectacular as the Chinese exports to the US, but this is in part an optical illusion.
Much of China's exports to the US contain value added produced elsewhere, even from the US itself:
You see that less than half of the value added of Chinese electronics export to the US is actually produced in China itself. The
iPhone is a classic example:
In the case of the Apple iPhone, this means that China's
exports balance accounts for the full $500 iPhone value, when China adds only approximately $15 to $30 of the value to the phone.
Most of the iPhone value accretes to Samsung in Korea ($150) and to Apple - the brand owner and engineer. This highlights how
the normal accounting of trade flows is inherently distorted under the current trade-deficit estimates.
Yes, the US has lost manufacturing jobs as a result, but it failed to compensate those who lost from trade like other countries
have (via massive active labor market policies, for instance in the Nordic countries, where there is little in the way of an industrial
waste land as a result).
The US has also gained. It found willing buyers for its Treasuries, keeping interest rates low, cheap consumer goods, keeping
inflation low - which allowed the Fed to keep low interest rates, and which in turn increased economic growth and employment.
It's not perfect, and we're not blind to China's IP theft and the conditions it places on American companies operating in the
country. But China's rise has propelled half a billion people out of poverty and turned them into eager consumers of US agricultural,
cultural and high-tech products.
Conclusion
While a number of American grievances are right, the Trump administration seems to want a wholesale sellout of China, abandoning
its economic model. That's not going to happen, and even less so because they also antagonized potential allies, like ASEAN countries,
the EU and Canada.
There are two choices here: either some middle ground is found or this could spiral out of control, with major economic risks
involved and a wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies. Economics 101 argues quite clearly that that world is
unlikely to be better than the one we have, despite all the imperfections of the latter.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72
hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from
Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
33 out 90 suppliers of Huawei are US companies. If Huawei do not buy from them who will buy
them? It's two way street.
Trump is breaking neoliberalism createing two camps of neoliberal countries hostile to each
other. Potential partners for China are Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and North
Korea so this would be a weaker, but still formidable in economic and military capacity
block.
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring U.S. firms from
using telecom equipment made by companies accused of being a national security risk; this
includes Chinese tech giant Huawei. The U.S. Commerce Department questioned whether Huawei will
be able to continue purchasing components from its American suppliers. In response, the Chinese
Commerce Ministry said on Thursday
Huawei will survive with supply chain alternatives and reengineering designs, it will make
Huawei stronger with better products. American high tech products and parts suppliers can
wait until American companies come up with design to utilise their products, hopefully not
long enough to cripple all these high tech parts manufacturers.
"... US Tariffs Have Nothing to Do With Competition, These are Steps to Contain China ..."
"... Or do they want to cut off all opportunities for China's future development? In my opinion, the relevant measures that the Americans have been initiating since the very beginning of the trade war to the present day are most likely real steps to contain China rather than some form of sanctions. This is a desire to hinder China's development in various spheres, specifically in trade, economic development, industrial development, science and technology, in the financial sphere and even in the area of human resources in China. They want to hamper our development on all sides. ..."
"... You might know that we used to have the popular concept of the so-called "hybrid war" but I would not describe the behaviour of Americans using this term. They just want to cut off all of China's development opportunities. They want to limit our ability to thrive as much as possible. ..."
"... Today I heard you talking about Russia, about the principles of preserving your development and sovereignty, I agree with that. The geopolitical situation is different for everyone, the history is different. There may be differences in how countries approach dealing with issues. ..."
"... The advantage of the United States is its hegemony in the global financial system. The second advantage is the strong alliance system that was formed after the Second World War and the Cold War. And another one is a still high level of weapons development in the world. ..."
"... Over the past decades, Americans have repeatedly initiated hostilities, and acute social inequality has flared up inside the country. Today, hegemony in the ideological system is being lost; and some countries and regions' confidence in the USA is being lost. ..."
Dmitry Kiselyov, the general director of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, discussed the recent
escalation in the Sino-American trade war with Kong Dan, the former chairman of CITIC Group; Zhang Weiwei, a Chinese
professor of international relations at Fudan University and a senior research fellow at the Chunqiu Institute; and Li Shimo,
an investor and billionaire, founder and managing director of Chengwei Capital, owner of many US Silicon Valley companies.
US Tariffs Have Nothing to Do With Competition, These are Steps to Contain China
Dmitry Kiselyov: What resources does China have?
Kong Dan: Without a trade war, our view of the United States would be superficial; now we
know the other side as well. I, as a representative of business circles, do not really
understand the subtleties of what the Americans want. Do they just think that Chinese
development is unacceptable for them?
Or do they want to cut off all opportunities for China's future development? In my opinion,
the relevant measures that the Americans have been initiating since
the very beginning of the trade war to the present day are most likely real steps to
contain China rather than some form of sanctions. This is a desire to hinder China's
development in various spheres, specifically in trade, economic development, industrial
development, science and technology, in the financial sphere and even in the area of human
resources in China. They want to hamper our development on all sides.
Dmitry Kiselyov: But is it hostile?
Kong Dan: I would call this approach competition. But competition can be different: hostile,
non-hostile
Dmitry Kiselyov: Competition without rules is animosity
Kong Dan: You might know that we used to have the popular concept of the so-called "hybrid
war" but I would not describe the behaviour of Americans using this term. They just want to cut
off all of China's development opportunities. They want to limit our ability to thrive as much
as possible.
China May
Regulate Energy Imports from US Amid Trade Row Competition has various forms or different
aspects. I also have a counter-question for you, how do Russians assess the nature of those
sanctions measures that the Americans have implemented against Russia?
The United States considers us its adversaries. They previously included Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea on their blacklist, a list of terrorist forces. And China is first on the
list. Are we hostile to them?
Today I heard you talking about Russia, about the principles of preserving your development
and sovereignty, I agree with that. The geopolitical situation is different for everyone, the
history is different. There may be differences in how countries approach dealing with
issues.
I previously worked as the head of the largest state-owned company in China, so, of course,
I understand what kind of mission one carries on his/her shoulders. I am willing to make
efforts to stimulate the development of the Russian-Chinese partnership as a whole; I think
there is still a lot to do in this direction. The US underestimates the potential of President
Putin and Russia, China and President Xi Jinping. They will pay a heavy price for it.
I would like to name two advantages of the trade war for us.
First of all, we have an advantage in a unique, specific management system in the trade
fight with the United States. I believe that the Americans do not want to minimize the trade
deficit; they just want to eliminate our institutional advantage. Of course, we will not
retreat from such a line. If the Americans want to
cross the red line , then I am sure that President Xi and the Chinese government has a
definite response to win the trade war.
Secondly, we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the
world. Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and
room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives China
a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor, Trump, for
this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the threats on its
own.
Why China is Likely to Emerge Victorious in Trump-Driven Trade War
Dmitry Kiselyov: You said you have confidence that China will emerge victorious in this
trade war, what does this victory mean? When will it come?
Kong Dan: Trump has said many times that he can hit our stock market to destroy it. As for
us, we are doing everything well, we are successfully organising work, and we are looking for
ways for rapid development in recent years. Our goal of a 100-year-old rebirth of the nation
can be achieved -- and that is our victory Of course, we understand that the United States
wants to impede our development. If they want to destroy us then I think they will fail. Only
in their dreams!
Zhang Weiwei: I support Mr Kong's view that the Chinese consumer market is the largest in
the world! Especially, in the field of innovation. And if one leads the battle with such
colossal markets, then the
initiators will surely fail .
'If US Continues to Maintain Hegemony, It Will Suffer Heavy Losses'
Dmitry Kiselyov: What will then become of the defeated United States?
Kong Dan: It is very hard to explain all this only in military terms. China neither wants to
seize the United States nor does it want to take a dominant position like the United States. We
simply do not want the United States to cut off all the opportunities for our country's
development.
Li Shimo: I would like to note that in the course of a trade war, each of the parties has
its own strengths and weaknesses. Our advantage is that we have a strong political system. The
second one is social cohesion. The third one, as has already been stated, China has quite large
domestic markets. The fourth one, China is the world's largest trading country and also the
largest trading nation in the history of mankind.
The advantage of the United States is its hegemony in the global financial system. The
second advantage is the strong alliance system that was formed after the Second World War and
the Cold War. And another one is a still high level of weapons development in the world.
However, the United States and China have different development goals. China is simply
looking for suitable paths to future accelerated development. But the US has a dilemma.
Previously, there was a different situation, there was hegemony -- a very important driving
force, a very important pillar, the so-called "soft power", and particularly they had
ideological dominance. Over the past decades, Americans have repeatedly initiated hostilities,
and acute social inequality has flared up inside the country. Today, hegemony in the
ideological system is being lost; and some countries and regions' confidence in the USA is
being lost.
Therefore, if they now wish to continue to maintain hegemony,
they will suffer heavy losses. But if they back down from it -- for instance, Trump wants to
abandon ideological dominance -- it will turn into a power struggle in its purest form. This
will lead to a loss of ideological advantage in the international arena.
How to assess the outcome of the battle? I would suggest that you read the 19th National
Congress of the Communist Party of China report delivered by President Xi Jinping. In it, he
outlined two challenges: the first one -- 2035, the second one -- 2049. These two goals are
quite clear and realistic If we can complete these tasks, then the victory will be ours.
China's Three Future Milestones: 2021, 2035, 2049
Dmitry Kiselyov: What are these challenges?
Kong Dan: China has two development goals for the current century. The first is that by 2021
when the CPC will celebrate its 100th anniversary, it will fully and comprehensively build a
moderately prosperous society in China. Another goal by 2049, when it will be 100 years since
the founding of the PRC, China should reach the level of the most advanced developed countries.
Moreover, there is another intermediate task between these two goals of the current century --
by 2035 China has to move into the category of moderately developed countries.
Zhang Weiwei: China borrowed its methodology and planning practices from the USSR. However,
over the past decades, we have brought a lot of innovation into this process. Now it is no
longer the old decision-making but strategic and guiding planning. The Americans could see that
over the past 40 years China has been fulfilling all its five-year plans ahead of schedule, and
that frightened them. If we are talking about how the China-US trade war will end, then
personally I would like to quote Americans who say: "if you can't beat them, join them".
China Presents New Model of Development as Western & Soviet Models Failed
Dmitry Kiselyov: How many fingers are needed to describe the Chinese model, and what in fact
is that, if we are talking about the alternative?
Zhang Weiwei: The Chinese Model of Development has several features. First, the leading
ideology must be based on real facts. "Practice is the sole criterion of truth". As a result,
we found that a developing country, such as China, needs to carry out modernisation. Looking at
the rest of the world, it becomes clear that the Western model is not successful. The Soviet
model also did not prevail. Therefore, Deng Xiaoping said that we need to follow our own path.
We did not fall into the trap of "colour revolutions", we were looking for the path we needed
based on reality. That is the key thing.
I would like to add a
little bit. If we talk about reforms in socialist countries, we can name two basic models.
The first is the Gorbachev model, which is characterised by a radical nature. This is
political and economic shock therapy. The cost of such reforms was very high and they were not
quite successful.
The Cuban Castro model implies supportive conservative therapy. They did not build a market
economy; they were not included in the processes of globalisation but resorted only to spot
adjustment and correction.
Reforms according to the Chinese model are characterised by balance, prudence, and
sustainability. We have carried out bold economic reforms, built a market economy, and joined
the process of globalisation. However, we treat political reforms with caution and prudence;
everything should serve economic reforms, and, ultimately, improve people's living
standards.
The American model provides for the concept of political equality "One person, one vote", a
multiparty system for governing a country. Strictly speaking, it only started working in 1965.
The Chinese model began to take shape in 1978. Their starting points are more than ten years
apart. Of course, they can compete with each other but I consider the Chinese model to be more
successful and attractive; and I have already been talking about this for 20 years.
The views and opinions expressed by the speakers and the contributor do not necessarily
reflect those of Sputnik.
China's state media signaled a lack of interest in resuming trade talks with the U.S. under
the current threat of higher tariffs, while the government said stimulus will be stepped up to
buttress the domestic economy.
Without new moves that show the U.S. is sincere, it is meaningless for its officials to come
to China and have trade talks, according to a commentary by the blog Taoran Notes, which was
carried by state-run Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily, the Communist Party's
mouthpiece. The Ministry of Commerce spokesman
said Thursday he had no information about any U.S. officials coming to Beijing for further
talks.
U.S. equities fell on concern that talks between the world's two largest economies have
stalled. The Shanghai Composite Index also declined. "If the U.S. doesn't make concessions in
key issues, there is little point for China to resume talks," said Zhou Xiaoming, a former
commerce ministry official and diplomat. "China's stance has become more hard-line and it's in
no rush for a deal" because the U.S. approach is extremely repellent and China has no illusions
about U.S. sincerity, he said. No Rush for a Deal
According to Zhou, the commerce ministry spokesman on Thursday effectively ruled out talks
in the near term. In comments to the media, ministry spokesman Gao Feng said that China's
three major concerns need to be addressed before any deal can be reached, adding that the
unilateral escalation of tensions in Washington recently had "seriously hurt" talks.
The U.S. has been talking about wanting to continue the negotiations, but in the meantime it
has been playing "little tricks to disrupt the atmosphere," according to the Taoran commentary
on Thursday night, citing Trump's steps this week to curb Chinese telecom giant Huawei
Technologies Co.
"We can't see the U.S. has any substantial sincerity in pushing forward the talks. Rather,
it is expanding extreme pressure," the blog wrote. "If the U.S. ignores the will of the Chinese
people, then it probably won't get an effective response from the Chinese side," it added.
The blog reiterated China's three main concerns for a deal are tariff removal, achievable
purchase plans and a balanced agreement text, as first revealed by Vice Premier Liu He. They
mark the official stance as much as the will of the Chinese public, it wrote.
"If anyone thinks the Chinese side is just bluffing, that will be the most significant
misjudgment" since the Korean War, it said.
Read: China Vows 'People's War' as Trade Fight Takes Nationalist Turn
In addition to putting the Taoran commentary on WeChat, the People's Daily newspaper had
three defiant articles on the trade war in the physical newspaper Friday.
A front page commentary from the Communist Party's propaganda department headlined 'No Power
Can Stop the Chinese People from Achieving Their Dream' said "the trade war will not cripple
China, it will only strengthen us as we endure it," citing the hardships China has overcome
from the Opium War to floods to the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003.
There were two editorials on page three, with one saying "China doesn't intend to change or
replace the U.S., and the U.S. can't dictate to China or hold back our development." The other
said claims from some officials in the U.S. that they have "rebuilt" China over the past 25
years are "outrageous" and shows their vanity, ignorance and distorted mentalities.
US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over Huawei, which he has deemed a
national security threat. His new executive order makes it more difficult for US companies to
do business with the Chinese tech giant. RT America's Manila Chan chats with investigative
journalist Ben Swann, who says no evidence exists for the Trump administration's claim.
#RTAmerica#InQuestionRT#QuestionMore
U.S. cannot spy via Chinese made technology products. That is the problem. When did
competition against American technology get to be a national security threat? It is about
creating a monopoly of only certain products in America. I hope American companies fight
back. Prices in American stores have already started to rise. Monopolies mean high
prices.
In the age of technology...any country
who doesn't SPY on other countries or their own citizens is LYING thru their teeth! USA is NO
DIFFERENT than CHINA.....they both are rogue nations, competing for the same thing,
TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP! The problem is....HUAWEI just got the upper hand in 5G technology
before the US can compete...so as such, the US threatens other countries with scare tactics
until the US can develop and deploy 5G technology to compete with CHINA. It's all about MONEY
and BUSINESS.
USA has dishonestly gathered more data on it's own civilians than it can access or
understand in several lifetimes, they have the gaul to attack others without proof?
UNREAL
Boeing and Hollywood are two week stops that China can hit with impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... China has outspent the US on R&D since 2009 and now invests three times as much each year. ..."
"... The issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei possesses. ..."
"... For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do. ..."
"... The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone manufacturing. ..."
"... Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . . here ..."
"... Chip fab is the only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway. The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do. ..."
"... Within a year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" . ..."
"... What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA thread microscope. ..."
"... By our standards exploitation of workers in China is a grim picture , which compares with the grim blue collar conditions in the US, the equal and opposite result of the globalist equation wrt offshoring factory jobs endemic to capitalist production. ..."
"... MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion. ..."
@William Gruff #75: China is already producing world-class ARM chips. HiSilicon 's latest Kirin
processors are on par with Qualcomm's Snapdragon and Samsung's Exynos processors. Apple's
A-series is ahead of them all, but what does it matter if Apple's rising prices and falling
quality are going to kill Apple anyway?
Per Reuters, Huawei spends $11b on US components, and its ability to withstand this hit will
vary by segment: "Huawei being unable to manufacture network servers, for example, because
they can't get key U.S. components would mean they also stop buying parts from other
countries altogether," said an executive at a Huawei chip supplier.
"They can relatively better manage component sourcing for mobile phones because they have
their own component businesses for smartphones. But server and network, it's a different
story," the executive said.
Are there any articles on how dependent Apple and Boeing are on Chinese components? This
strategy seems incredibly short-sighted.
Remember the "Asian pivot"? Did Huawei and other critical tech companies start making
independent chips back then? Or before? When were the tariffs planned? Speculation, anyone?
The issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips
referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in
cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their
replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei
possesses.
Huawei already has its own arm based soc's it uses in it's high end phones and they can
replace processors in it's low end phones with lesser versions of these.
The Intel processors will be tougher to do for the commercial market because of software
compatibility issues.
For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson
but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and
windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it
wouldn't take that long to do.
The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China
decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely
heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone
manufacturing.
Huawei uses Qualcomm's modems in its high-end smartphones and has been in settlement talks
with the chip supplier over a licensing dispute. Tensions between the United States and
Huawei could delay this licensing settlement, sending Qualcomm's stock down 4.4% on May
16.
Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the
United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's
stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . .
here
"Soon U.S. chip companies will have lost all their sales to the second largest
smartphone producer of the world. That loss will not be just temporarily, it will become
permanent." --b
This is a crucial and important development. So long as China is just developing their
domestic chip designs as an academic exercise they will forever trail behind the market
leaders by at least one technological iteration. Why try so hard with chip designs that will
only ever just be used in college degree theses papers and proof of concept models? Real
innovation comes from scratching an itch; from fulfilling an actual need. Chip fab is the
only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw
engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway.
The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need
to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do.
In the short term the transition will be painful for China. The first few iterations of
their replacement chip designs will be buggy and not have the features of chips they could
have bought for cheaper from the US. They will also have problems ramping up capacity to meet
their needs. Typical growing pains, in other words. In the long term, though, this will be
seen as the point at which the end started for America's chip tech dominance. Within a
year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and
America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel
Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" .
Isnt it clear the US is globalist? Uhhm, well, yes, it's only been clear for the prior 75
years at least. In fact Lenin laid it all out during WWI so one could
say it's been clear for 100 years.
What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as
globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries
are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA
thread microscope.
Why aren't Huawei making making more smartphone chips in production? Because so many
Chinese component manufacturers are still heavily invested in churning out product for Apple.
These companies employ millions in "relatively high paying" factory jobs and account for a
large slice of Chinese export income and stock market capitalization. These corporate
oligarchs supported by the Chinese government retain a vested interest in the status quo.
This is not to minimize Huawei or Chinese growing ability to compete at the design and
innovation level as well as production, it is simply rightsizing the perspective to fit the
reality. Huawei production is growing worldwide but this doesn't mean Apple or Samsung will
evaporate or fall by the wayside and the Chinese need Apple and its markets too . In
fact, Huawei is now willing for the first time to sell microchips to third party cell phone
producers including Apple. Successful capitalist growth for China depends on increasing
production into new products, technologies and markets not replacing current platforms with
new. The product cycle will take care of itself in time anyway.
China is still in the industrial growth phase of its capitalist development, although
beginning to transition to the higher phase for sure. Of course.
MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose
colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful
thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion.
Trump calculation is probably that neoliberalism in China already corrupted Communist Party enough for US being able to
destabilize the country buy depriving it of export revenue. And it is true that influence neoliberal Fifth column in china exists
and can compete with Communist Party for power. If Trump timing is correct China will be crushed. If this in incorrect the
USA might be crushed. This is a very high stake game as Trump burn bridges way too easily (being reckless and arrogant all his
life). Bulling as a negotiating tactics might be OK for New York real estate market is not that good in negotiating with
countries such as China.
Both countries are neoliberal countries but Chinese have more flexibility as remnants of Communist Party control remain in
place. But the same remnants are also a bog danger, as China might find itself in the position of the USSR when the US
crushed oil price and deprived it of much of its export revenue. In this case Communist Party will be blamed for social
disruptions and might lose power due tot he power of Chine Fifth column of
nouveau riche like happened in the USSR (opposition was supported by huge cash injections from the USA). I hope they study the
USSR experience very carefully and will not repeat Gorbachov mistakes (although it is difficult, as it is very difficult to find a
more stupid politician then Gorbachov, unless we assume that he was a traitor). Also the level of nationalism in China is
much higher and that might help. In any case this uncharted territory for both China and the USA.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US
demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front. If Chinese will hold
their position tight despite the pain, Trump might lose the election in 2020 as he will be unable to protect the economy for
more then a year and the first signs of reception nullify his changes, as he will be blames for it.
Notable quotes:
"... This article titled 'Face' by Walrus over at SST is well worth a read alongside b's piece. https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/face-by-walrus.html ..."
"... Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer. ..."
"... The US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic alliance that left China out. Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars. They are part of capitalism. ..."
"... "Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for their profits. As if! ..."
"... What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any responsibility for their murderous acts ..."
"... The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a solution that respects the dignity of each party. ..."
"... I had the sudden realisation that US politics is essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is one symptom of that. ..."
"... In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers, viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period. ..."
"... Idolatry is universal. People always gravitate towards Alpha personalities. ..."
"... In looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them. ..."
"... Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or willingly join the US system. ..."
"... But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town square. ..."
"... We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink. ..."
"... The British court said, no patent, no copyright and no monopoly can last longer than 7 years. that was 1787-89, and it explains the for a short time clause in the USA constitution. ..."
"... I don't think the US sees the world's nations as commanded by their senior politician. Far from it, but to keep the US public locked in a child's mentality, the govt and its MSM present every political event/action/reaction as between personalities. Can't have reason and logic breaking out among the minions can we? ..."
"... China's "competitive advantages" are too big for a confederation of micro-countries in the Pacific to overcome. ..."
"... b said;" the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens." Bingo! Jrabbit @ 52 said;"US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20 years." Maybe the last 100 yrs.? Demonize countries people and rulers, and take their stuff, but why not? We are, don't ya' know, the exceptional nation, doing gods work. Manifest Destiny, isn't it great? ..."
"... Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State. ..."
"... the neocons in the US believes it is now or never to defend the USA unique position as world power. They believe, that if they don't fight now, they will have lost. I say, they already have. ..."
"... Trust the UnitedSnake to blame the Chinese for reneging on an agreement ! Fact is, Trump's team Add in last minute conditions that are totally unacceptable to China. Chinese commentators are fuming at the audacity of the demands. 'WTF, Do they think we'r their gawd damned 51st state ?' ..."
"... Typical UnitedSnake's 'negotiation' tactics, designed to fail ! Thats how Clinton justity his bombing of ex Yugo, by blaming Belgrade for the breakdown of negotiation ,to justify its 78 days of aerial arsons against Yugo. ..."
Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are
up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into
the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer.
@ Peter AU 1 | May 17, 2019 4:33:54 PM |
1 5 Trump
demanded concessions on trade
banned Huwei
made military [plans with Taiwan
saber rattled in the China Sea
Trump wants improved trade conditions for improved economic climate in the U.S.
But there are others in the admin who want something else.
But still: "backup chips it has independently developed"
That's a good one Mr Moon.
The US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to
Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic
alliance that left China out.
Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars.
They are part of capitalism.
"Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner
all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for
their profits.
As if!
What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any
responsibility for their murderous acts.
Rise up people, these are dangerous, stupid leaders and elites.
B says: Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below.
Yes, this is the case when complex governmental systems are functioning properly. In
this case power is distributed throughout the system, based on the role each individual
within the system. People must have a collaborative culture for complex systems to function
properly.
People of an authoritarian nature hate complex systems and distributed power, as such
systems limit the freedom of action of the authoritarian leader. The corollary to this is
that systems must be kept simple to accommodate authoritarian leaders. And simple systems
are much less powerful and effective than complex systems.
My observation is that, in the U.S., authoritarianism is the dominant culture, as
opposed to a collaborative culture of the Chinese that is implied by B's comment.
Indeed we see many signs in these negotiations that the U.S. is operating based on a
culture of authoritarianism, whereas China is operating based on a culture of
collaboration. Among the signs:
The tendency that B. noted of Americans to assign all power to the leader.
(This is not the first time, and in fact it is a common mistake of the U.S. and one of the
reasons that their regime change efforts almost never achieve a result that is favorable
for the U.S.)
The U.S. talks about winning and losing. China talks equity.
The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a
solution that respects the dignity of each party.
The principle behind negotiations for people of a collaborative culture is 'Win-Win or
No-Deal'. For Authoritarians, Win-Win is a compromise, and compromise is the equivalent of a
loss. My conclusion is that there is only a very low probability that the U.S. and China will
successfully negotiate a trade deal. The cultures of the authoritarian Americans and the
collaborative Chinese are too divergent. China will only accept Win-Win and the U.S. cannot
accept Win-Win.
Classic US empire strategy.
Build up a supplier and when they start to be serious a competitor take them down.
Asian Tiger crisis,forcing occupied Japan into the Plaza Accord etc.
They left it too long with China, way too long.
China has not recycled its trade dollars surplus into USTs since 2014.
No replacement suppliers like Vietnam or Indonesia etc will do either, no more vendor
finance
for the US.
It will have to live within its means, no wonder the neocohens are going
insane.
We are watching the death of the $ as GRC first hand.
NO jared, Trump is in charge, fully responsible and yet totally irresponsible. He hires
and fires, he barks the orders, Trump is not captive. You may desperately wish to believe
that but NO, Trump wants it like this and NO dissent.
This is Henry Kissinger's plan implemented by Trump. A war criminal implementing a
sociopath war criminal's plan. Trump is a killer and an oligarchs stooge and he like the
rewards.
See the fabulous Aaron Mate discussion previously linked in the last thread.
I'd be curious to know what other MoA barflies think of the US tendency to personalize
other countries' governments and political systems and reduce them all to monarchies of one
sort or another, and what this says about the American psychology generally. So much of the
US slather and accusations against Russia and China and what those nations are supposedly
doing look like psychological projection of the US' own sins and malevolent behaviour.
I was in hospital nearly 20 years ago for a major operation and some of my recuperation
there was spent watching a few old "Star Trek: Next Generation" episodes. Watching those
shows, I was struck by how much "power" the Star Trek captain Jean-Luc Picard appeared to
wield. Every one of his subordinates deferred to his decisions and very few challenged
him.
I know this is an old TV show with scripts that emphasise individual action over
collective action and delineating a whole culture on board the Starship fleet (this is a
long time before "Game of Thrones") but I had the sudden realisation that US politics is
essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional
structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture
are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is
one symptom of that.
In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women
period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers,
viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period.
@ dh-mtl 21
You provided an excellent analysis of two very different kinds of people, westerners and
Asians (Chinese). Americans who believe that Chinese are pretty much like them, and respond
to people, to pressures and and to situations in the same way, are badly mistaken.
I would add another: Westerners want instant results and quick profits whereas Chinese take
the long view. Heck, they've been around for five thousand years so why not.
I'm glad you raise the issue of increased prices for US consumers, b. I have been looking
in vain for a mention of this even in alternative media. Nobody appears to be talking about
it.
If I can go off track for a moment the events surrounding Boeing are highly significant
and a parallel to what is happening generally in the US. Here is a something I wrote for
naked capitalism but did not send - Yves is too fierce and I don't trust her. A bit like a
feminine Colonel what's his name Laing...
Because of the prestige of Boeing Wall Street left its dimantling until quite late -
1997. GE and Ford had already produced their versions of the 737 Max in the 1960s with the
Corvair and the Pinto respectively as finance people started to take over the running of US
companies. There is something very sad in watching a once magnificent company reduced by
bankers to a shadow of its former self.
There has been a trade imbalance for quite a while but it didn't seem to matter much. The
Chinese raised their standard of living, Americans got cheap stuff, surplus dollars went
into treasuries to fund the deficit.
It all worked pretty well until Trump and MAGA. Somehow he thinks he'll bring the jobs
back but no Americans are going to make sneakers and circuit boards for $2 an hour.
I have just replied to Karlof1 in I think the previous thread and I link into this. In
looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may
be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all
other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those
peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them.
Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as
Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all
they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or
willingly join the US system.
All the economic momentum is in Eurasia, centering on China, India, and Russia.
China is spearheading this drive and re-assuming its historical status as the richest
land in the world. Instead of resisting, Washington should be working with projects like
the BRI that help enrich everyone. (Indeed, why doesn't Washington announce a BRI for North/South America, perhaps a Yellow
Brick Road? But that's an aside...)
And concerns about Chinese spying through their companies should be equaled with
internal reflection about the practice in the United States. Perhaps it would be wise for
both countries to develop and practice international standards that respect human rights in
an Everything's Connected world.
Given how the US and China frequently treat "different" people with disdain, that's a
lot to ask. But no country or people is spotless regarding abusing human rights and some
wisdom with power would be welcome from both governments.
You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and Good
Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want to
demonize another country, and use our entertainment-induced perspective as a shortcut.
They tell us that the leader of the targeted country is a Bad Guy and we must kill the
people in order to save them. And Americans nod and comply. Except for the 5% that prefers
peace, and they argue that the leader is not a Bad Guy, so we shouldn't kill the people to
save them.
No American ever thinks to argue international law or basic morality, we just argue about
the plot lines.
But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a
puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town
square.
We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink.
China has succeeded because it does not honor copyright and patent monopolies. Western
civilization is failing because it imposes the feudal monopoly by rule of law system.. The
state will make sure a few fat cats are lords and the masses are their slaves.
---
It is almost asking the change of China's political system." <= no its not, the struggle
today is freedom, human rights and the right to self determination not socialism vs
capitalism.. it the struggle today is capitalism vs monopolism.. because monopolism aims to
make every single human being alive its slave to a very few monopoly powered corporate
giants.. China is a clear example of what can be if the masses are allowed to compete
without the shackles of copyrights, patents and other thin air monopolies.
Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized.
Why? Because of that "intellectual property" stuff? Japan basically built itself from the
ground up in the post-war through allowed and unallowed intellectual property theft. Canon
and Nikon, for example, essentially fac-similed Leica during that period; after the
transition to digital, they erased their theft past, but it doesn't change the objective
truth both wouldn't exist without stealing technology from a defeated country (Germany). It
did the same with missile reentrance technology it stole from the USSR after the Cold
War.
< Technology is a product of the human mind.. copyright and patents are thefts of the
products of the human mind.. and human mind assets do not belong to anyone, to any
country.. Instead, copyright and patents (intellectual property) are and should be in the
public domain (but the scum that write the laws have created from thin air; rights which do
not exist, and given the rights they fabricated to their feudal lords and the corporations
owned by such lords. So the lawmaking scum have made it possible for a few (feudal lords)
to establish and maintain a monopoly in the good life, over the masses in the world. ..
Just as in the in England, France and Switzerland, where only the rich, corrupt
politicians, and criminal few hung out and traded copyright and patent monopolies in the
coffee houses, (much like stocks and bonds are traded today, monopoly trading was a game
between fat cats (today's the fat cats are wall street barons), ..monopolies allow rich and
wealth to support their royal life styles at the price of enslaving the masses to poverty.
Luckily a court in England, threaten by an angry crowd of the masses, denied the wealthy
their perpetual lifetime patents and copyright demands, no longer could the fat cats
squeeze ownership of an intellectual creation from its creator, convert it to intangible
property, and use the intellectual property to monopolize the world.
The British court
said, no patent, no copyright and no monopoly can last longer than 7 years. that was
1787-89, and it explains the for a short time clause in the USA constitution.
I don't think the US sees the world's nations as commanded by their senior politician. Far
from it, but to keep the US public locked in a child's mentality, the govt and its MSM
present every political event/action/reaction as between personalities. Can't have reason
and logic breaking out among the minions can we?
As for Trump being in charge, I rather doubt it, no US president has been "in charge" of
any thing except possibly what is for lunch since Washington.
Too many policies Trump began, such as negotiations with NK, have been trashed by his
"teams" who I believe are actually his minders put in place by the Deep State.
Is Trump a great guy? A NY developer by their very nature is not a great guy. But I do
think he wants to be seen as a great president. To do that he has to pull off some deals
that will be remembered which is why he wanted the deal with NK, that Pompeo blew up.
I also think that the govt is preparing for the time when the dollar is no longer the
reserve currency. And to do that you need to pull manufacturing back from abroad (from
China), seize critical assets (from Venezuela),break any and all treaties that require you
to spend money you won't have (making NATO (pay as you go).
All things the govt is doing, admittedly with the most horrific management team since
Taft's. But they are moving on all fronts to circle the wagons of US commerce.
They know what is coming, some of them may see war as the way to bilk a few more
trillions out of the treasury, but I don't think the military will let them. For they know
that if they go up against a nation that Russia and China support and botch it, that
R&C will go for the throat and that, more so than the currency crash would be the end
of the US.
These moves we see are very serious because the end game is for the continued existence
(or death)of the US. And many of these tactical moves are very high risk because they
hasten the end of the dollar. I give the dollar five years more, tops. Then it will be just
one in a basket of currencies until the yuan makes its way to the top.
And where that strange UN Agenda 21 fits in this I don't know, its plan for the US is
for drastically reduced population (70% loss, from what?)the remaining population in mega
cities and truly vast areas of no go set aside for the "environment." It reads like a
National Parks program on crack with a side of Hunger Games.
The next five years are going to be really critical and I personally think the US will
only make it by the skin of its teeth.
@ Jen. Another thought. The era in which the current state of America was conceived.
British colonies in a war of separation or independence against the British. Europe and
Britain at that time mostly ruled by hereditary monarchs nobles and lords ect.
Americans which I take it at that time would have been mostly British ancestry had done
away with hereditary monarchs and so forth. It would have been somewhat exceptional at the
time. In the targeting of the leader of a nation as the source of all evil, I wonder if
that relates back to doing away with hereditary leadership especially monarch.
President Trump has declared a national emergency due a threat to the US from "the ability
of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and
communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States," so various actions and prohibitions have been stipulated
here .
I think war reporting rules are in place with China, and Trade war has started.
Every month that passes without a crisis is a success for China right now as it over takes
US in GDP, tech, and trade links.
Key issues are bringing Europe in - the Huawei ban extended to Europe is battlefield #1,
Northstream (gas link to Russia) is #2.
First get Europe on board, the US can up things a lot further.
If Trump gets this right, he can delay outright defeat by China under well beyond his 8
years are up. (Bush or Obama early on could have won, or could have found a peaceful
solution).
A president doesn't have to obey the orders of the powers that be just because they
threaten to kill him otherwise. A brave president would defy them to do their worst. If
they went ahead and killed him, he would still have accomplished something important. By
exposing the nature of the system, he would have robbed it of its legitimacy and brought a
revolution much closer.
You've all been trained very well to ignore the class warfare.
China's "peaceful rise" was convenient when it enriched the Western elite.
But when China makes a play for equal footing, the must be smacked down. In each case (rise, smack-down) ordinary people (like yourselves) get f*cked. Kissinger's NWO? It's for the children.... No, not YOUR children. Welcome to the rabbithole.
Best example of a country stealing foreign inventions and protecting its 'uneconomical'
industries with tariffs is the USA.
It was notorious that in the C19th American publishers pirated authors and musicians from
Europe, particularly of course from Britain where the intellectual properties of Dickens
and his contemporaries laid the basis for many an American publishing fortune.
Among the primary victims were American authors who couldn't compete against stolen
imports.
I am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories
will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not going
to be much higher than China.
Granted, the US may be pissed off that Huawei is placing back doors in their systems but
I suspect that they are only copying what the US has done for years with US companies like
Microsoft.
My daughter managed 5 factories located in China of a clothing manufacture based in the
US some years ago. She said there was constant chaos as the workers were continually on
strike. Bad air, dangerous machines, poor wages. few bathrooms, bad water, childcare is
chaining you child to a fence for the day, and the like. Her boss flew to China and asked
for the cheapest costs possible. They showed him a factory full of little children cranking
out production. He left crying his eyes out. He was a cold hearted bastard but even that
was too much for him to see.
I viewed first hand the destruction trade agreements like NAFTA caused to good union
wages and benefits in the US. Hell, that is what got Trump elected. It is tough to watch
your children go into the same profession and make 50% less in wages and fringes 30 years
later.
Intellectual property and patents? No so sure about that, the views here are new to me.
I always supported them but I guess I need to dig deeper on that one.
In the net I think China is the loser, fewer jobs, higher food costs, their markets are
down 30%, ours are peaking and are seen as a safe haven for money. Export numbers for China
are dropping as is the trade balance.
At this point it is not a trade war but a re balancing of markets IMHO. If it was a real
trade war things would be far worse. Middle supplier countries will be hurt, US farmers,
some markets win some lose. If it was business as usual then it would be business as usual.
Trump is stirring the pot and what the endgame is is anyone's guess. Did anyone really
believe China would just bend over and accept any demands from the US?
All that being said China can easily wait it out and hope Trump loses and the policy is
reversed which I am sure his policies will be reversed if anyone else gets elected.
Your link about Boeing is a good one. Today at Naked Capitalism was a
story about a possible 'payback' link between Huawei and Boeing. China has the option
of causing a great deal of pain to both the US and Boeing in retaliation.
They could declare the recertified 737-MAX to be unsafe, so much so they're cancelling
all orders and forbidding any landings in or overflights of China. If Canada hadn't screwed
up so badly, the local Bombardier airplane might have been substituted for the 737. But
Canada did goof in a major way.
There is no way that the US could subsidize the growth of a larger population base
forever.
China sends vast amounts of manufactured goods to the United States; the US pays for all
this with dollars it can effortlessly print. So who is subsidizing whom?
The National Basketball Association Inc. is hiring its first head of government and
public affairs in China as it seeks to protect its most important international market at
a time of high tension in the U.S.-China relationship.
What I don't like about Chas Freeman's article is his tone-deafness.
He has been around government enough to know better. Smacking down China is a strategic
priority for the Deep State. But Chas says:
There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or
control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has
effectively declared open season on China.
It's a bit disturbing to see people here read Kissinger's 2014 Op-Ed (finally) but say
nothing about Chas Freeman's assertion that it's all made up by a "populist" President.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
If the above hurt your feeling please feel free to retreat to your happy place. We'd all
be better off.
Not happy, just learned to live with it. I think I get your point. The policy really
means little, the underlying issues will never change.
Been in the rabbit hole for a really long time. If more people jump in maybe things will
really start to change.
I am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories
will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not
going to be much higher than China.
First of all, this is not a new phenomenon: low wages, low technology industries are
already being transferred to India and SE-Asia. The Chinese know this and there are
innumerous articles on the internet you can find about it.
But even if this process accelerates, that won't solve the manufacturing problem of the
USA: it will continue to be abroad. Besides, China's "competitive advantages" are too big
for a confederation of micro-countries in the Pacific to overcome. It has a socialist
economy (centrally planified economy, under the hegemony of the working class); it has 1.5
billion people that will only peak in 2030; it is decades ahead in built infrastructure; it
has a huge scale economy advantage (e.g. infrastructure projects that are required to reach
a certain desired productive level, which are profitable in China, may not be profitable in
e.g. Malaysia simply because it is too small); its financial sector is not dominant over
production. But then, I repeat: even if the USA nukes China, manufacturing still won't go
back to American soil.
America's problem is a secular fall of its profit rates, not manufacturing capacity: it
can import whatever and how much products it needs simply because it can print world money
(Dollar system).
b said;" the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its
citizens." Bingo! Jrabbit @ 52 said;"US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20
years." Maybe the last 100 yrs.? Demonize countries people and rulers, and take their stuff, but
why not? We are, don't ya' know, the exceptional nation, doing gods work. Manifest Destiny, isn't it great?
I know next to nothing about the "Huawei" business, so a new
article about it is something to grab at. Pretty cut and dried, huh? Hauwei is pure
evil, and no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it.
But who is this guy. A couple of quick searches turned up some more of his output.
'It's now or never': The untold story of the dramatic, Canadian-led rescue of Syria's
White Helmets
How Israel became a defender of the Syrian people
Just another neocon hack peddling BS, so I'm back to square one.
China will wait it out until Trump is out of office. The Chinese leadership is pretty
smart and had at least three years to prepare for the worst case scenario. Once Chinese
industries as a whole follow Huawei's footsteps (i.e. Plan B), there will be no turning
back. They'll set off Plan B once they see Trump winning 2020.
Are we to asume from "Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized"
that the United States are shining example of trade (and all other) policies,all others to
follow?
For government and other high security uses China has options like the mips based
Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to
x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like amd
markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do.
Chinese-Taiwanese joint venture Zhaoxin has been making x86 processors since
2013, based on VIA Technologies' x86 license. These processors are manufactured by
Taiwanese TSMC, but may switch to Chinese SMIC
once it launches its 14nm process later this year.
"Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below." --b
The truth of this is also why so many in America hate Trump so much. He is too perfect a
reflection of what America truly stands for. Trump accurately represents America, from
America's bloated, over-inflated sense of self-importance and worth to America's
pussy-grabbing foreign policy. Trump-hate is really self-hate.
Delusional American Russiagater Trump Derangement Syndrome victims will protest, but
such people are incapable of taking a good hard look at themselves.
Hmm... "delusional" and "American" are redundant adjectives here. I should
be more careful with my writing style.
Mr. Gruff you have it almost correct, Americans and the USA are not one in the same and
they never have been.
I still don't think you guys get it.. The 7 article constitution of the USA apportions the
power to rule between two branches and separates the masses from their personal political
powers and their human rights. Its result is not a democracy, but a few people rule
republic. 100% of the authority to rule (operate and make decisions) is vested in one
person (Art. II, rule and decide: President w/VP backup), subject only to the powers
distributed to the two bodied legislative structure ( Art. I, pass law and raise money: 450
house+100 senate persons). Critical to understand => one person makes all decisions, and
directs the day to day government. Article III thru VII defines the judiciary and clarifies
various situations. (525 popularly elected + 2 electoral college appointed <=paid
governors) vs. 350,000,000 powerless governed persons entitled only to 3 votes/voter
[Senator(1), House members(2)] and allowed one vote/voter for each President(1) and VP(1)
<=but both Art. II persons are appointed by the electoral college).
The USA is about delivering to the ownership of a very few, all of the assets, all of
the power, and all of the services once possessed by the many. The demand for all of the
possessions of the many, to be delivered to the few, has expanded over time from 13 colony
America to earth and now space. No one but the few are entitled to anything and the USA and
other governments are there to be sure of it. But how is 'total possession vested in the
few' to be maintained? By rule of law!
But what law would transfer everyone's possessions into the ownership of a few? Ah, the
laws of monopoly.. so rule of law, from thin air , generates=> monopoly powers
and rights of ownership.. Examples of laws that bear monopoly powers and that transfer
ownership rights are copyright laws, patent laws, as they convert monopoly powers that once
the many shared (via governments) now belong to the few. The transfer is called
privatization. Oil is controlled for the benefit of the private few by ownership laws and
right to produce contracts. All in all the function of t he USA has been to make a few very
wealthy at the expense of the many.
The trade issues, sanctions, wars, tariffs, race wars, oil wars, religious wars etc. are
about which people are going to be the few. Until the form and function of governments are
determined by the masses from the bottom, instead of by the few from the top, nothing will
ever change. The masses will suffer or prosper according to which government is the
winner.
US factories moved to China because the US economy is based on greed?!! US government greed
for the company's money maybe. US factories moved to China because it was cheaper to
produce products there and then pay the expense to ship them all the way back. The US has
one of the highest federal tax rates on earth, and add in high state taxes for an
unacceptable situation. US fiat paper money is the base problem.
William Gruff @ 72 & snake 71
I was just about to say the very same thing !
Delusions of grandeur ! And now major self-harm systems !
But are these degenerates above the law ? They are after all genocidal mass murder's!
String um up I say or shall we fry um ?
Right now the brain dead American public are like something out of -- - -
'The invasion of the body snatchers ' film
@58, JackRabitt, Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State.
the first time I got some type of glimpse of the average American Mind on China, as it
filtered down from "the deep state" to the more fearfully ill-informed quarters of society
no doubt, was in the post 9/11 universe. The person or persons pushing the meme, may have been a bit confused by all the
conspiracy theories about 9/11 unfolding at the time.
Anyway, Chinese troops he/she/they asserted readers were close to the Mexican border
approaching, advancing swiftly.
In hindsight, maybe accidentally, although I doubt, Trump combines the elements of that
narrative perfectly. And it is not my intention to argue right or wrong here. But
apparently down at the border there is this "invasion" on the other hand there's also the
Yellow Peril.
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , May 18, 2019 9:58:41 AM |
link
Well, the chinese system of power has always been the thoughest to understand for any
outsider. It has been this way, but in the last years it seems the so called age of
information has lead to erode the curtains of this complex mechanism. At least for those
who want to look behind those curtains, and not use them to project their propaganda.. ;)
And it is a good sign that while Xi tired to establish himself in such a unique position
of power like Mao, and openly tried to put himself into the historic succession of the old
emperors (like Mao did too), that the will of the people and party still tips the scale of
power.
It means the chinese confucian tradition and its consequences for a ruler even today still
matter. Even though they are anyway lost on someone who is not of Asian origin.
What to westerners look like a dictator, is of a different nature as one can even
imagine with western eyes. Every ruler has to strive for balance, for harmony, which in
turns makes hearing of the peoples popular will be a necessity.
Even though many Chinese say, they like any other people only strive for what they need
most ;) (like harmony and compromise). Though many also say, that the chinese will always
choose stability and security over freedom. And i guess that is what many from the western
world dont get about China, and also about the Putinists.
I say let them and every one else have their choice. Just like i say let the US do theirs,
and reap what they seeded.
For those able to read German check out the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour on China. The
most telling and authorative books from a journalist who has reported first had for over 60
years, and has always defended and honored his own perspective;
While the western so called reporters were trapt in their professional delusion of pro-NATO
propaganda, and while the SDS praised the culture revolution as a democratic means, when
whole china was terrorized and millions slaugtherd.
Hard to walk that middle ground, while being attacked from ideological drones from both
sides i guess..
Anyway, the neocons in the US believes it is now or never to defend the USA unique
position as world power. They believe, that if they don't fight now, they will have
lost.
I say, they already have.
Short of pulling a Hitler on China, meaning a total annihilation of the Chinese people,
there is nothing they can do. And even Bolton will have a hard time trying to push through
a clear cut genocide ;)
We will see China rise. Those who feared of this will see that china will not be half as
bad as thought, and those who gloirfy china and put them into a good (vs bad US) black-wide
scheme will learn of the faults of the Chinese power and its projection (Like its own
believe of supremacy, of racism (a reason why china in the cold war was pretty
unsuccessful in Africa, where most knew who deeply racist Chinese treated their fellows as
workers, guest students,..).
All in all, what we need is a true and functional global community of nations and
people, where goverments truely work together to balance out the stronger world powers. And
with the pressure of Chinas rise and its strugle with the US, we may finally have a better
chance for this to at least partially succed.
I hope.. ;) Or of course it nuclear winter time. We will see.
China now, Japan in the 1980s - it's "deja vu all over again!"
"AFTER ITS DEFEAT in World War II, Japan was content to take foreign inventions -- the
transistor, the laser, the videotape player -- and convert them into products that it could
market around the world. Japan acquired much of its base of Western technology, most of it
American, perfectly legally through licensing, careful study of scientific papers and
patents, and imitation. But when the U.S. wasn't willing to share, some Japanese companies
simply copied with little regard for patents and other intellectual property rights that
the courts have only recently begun to define in many areas of high technology.
The U.S.,
confident of its technical superiority, ''sold out to the Japanese,'' says G. Steven Burrill, head of the high-technology consulting group at Arthur Young, a Big Eight
accounting firm. ''We let them share our brain.''
Now, belatedly awake to the recognition
that Japan has been eating their breakfast, lunch, dinner, and bedtime snack, American
companies are stirring. IBM vs. Fujitsu over computer software, Honeywell vs. Minolta over
automatic focusing, Corning Glass vs. Sumitomo Electric over fiber optics -- these are only
the latest, best-publicized complaints that Japan has stolen American technology.
Even as
those legal battles are fought out, the copycat cliche is becoming obsolete. A series of
studies financed by the U.S. government since 1984 warn that Japan has caught up with the
U.S. or passed it in the development of integrated circuits, fiber optics, computer
hardware engineering, and advanced materials like polymers. It is pressing hard in some
areas of biotechnology, and lags primarily in computer software.
Already there are signs
that the Japanese, buoyed by their new prowess, have assumed the arrogance of the U.S.
along with its technology."
"A MEASURE of Japan's progress can be found in the number of patent filings in the U.S.,
Japan's most important export market. ..."
"THE FACT that Americans now worry about their access to Japanese technology is an
acknowledgment of Japan's new scientific competence. When the Japanese were known primarily
as copycats, the flow of technology was essentially in one direction. It was also cheap.
Aaron Gellman, president of a consulting firm, says that for years U.S. firms licensed
technology to the Japanese without asking for a grant-back, the right to use any
improvements they made. Says Gellman: ''This was very arrogant and implied that no one
could improve on our technology.''"
"U.S. scientists and companies have failed to take advantage of opportunities to tap
Japanese academic research. ''What's wrong here is pure laziness,'' says Martin Anderson,
an analyst with the MAC Group, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
Trust the UnitedSnake to blame the Chinese for
reneging on an agreement ! Fact is, Trump's team Add in last minute conditions that are totally unacceptable to
China.
Chinese commentators are fuming at the audacity of
the demands.
'WTF, Do they think we'r their gawd damned 51st state ?'
Typical UnitedSnake's 'negotiation' tactics, designed to fail ! Thats how Clinton justity his bombing of ex Yugo,
by blaming Belgrade for the breakdown of negotiation ,to justify its 78 days of aerial
arsons against Yugo.
How the UnitedSnake destroyed Toshiba and took over its crown jewel chip tech,... Toshiba was severely punished for breaking fukus
sanction on USSR, by selling state of art milling
machine to the Soviets. the unitedsnake slapped a heavy fine, demanded
the resignation of Toshiba CEO, imposed a ten
years ban on Toshiba products, FORCED the Japs
to share their latest chip tech with Merikkans. Toshiba never recovered from that disaster.
An excellent summary of many aspects of a serious and deteriorating situation. In the end, China has a lot of brainpower to apply to situations like this.They are used to speaking and writing one of the world's most difficult languages. They are used to playing Go, one of the world's most difficult board games. And their national endowment of analytical skills immensely surpasses that of the United
States.
They are said to have eight times as many students in math and science and engineering
in their universities. Xi himself is very bright, having earned degrees in difficult subjects at demanding
universities, and he is calm and very forward-thinking. Just consider that magnificent
long-term Silk Road Project. When I think of Trump with his constant mock-heroic poses and foot-high signatures on
every silly memo and his gang of noisy, pompous thugs in top appointments, I can't help
thinking I know how this will turn out in the end.
China's
yuan slide risks trolling Trump It's good to remember that would not be the first time. After the first round of
tariffs, China devalued the Renminbi and it basically
wiped out the tariffs . In fact, it didn't even need to devalue that much: 1 Renminbi
is now US$ 0.14 -- just a little over the Government max upwards band of 1:7.
In 2013, the CEO of French hi tech co Alstom
was arrested by FBI, while changing flight at
New York.
His 'crime', breaking MERIKKAN anti corruption
law by bribing govn officials in INDONESIA ! Such is the LONG arm of merikkan extra territorial jurisdiction, rings a bell ...
Ms meng ?
Just like Toshiba, the French paid a very heavy price. The CEO went to jail, Allstom,
the crown
jewel of French industry, was FORCED to sell off its core business to its main rival, GE.
!
What did Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability says....
ONCE IS HAPPENSTENCE, TWIC IS COINCIDENCE...
US MegaCos. outsourced and 'globalised' with the blessing, nay encouragement! of the Pol.
Class. Cheaper labor and lax environmental rules, in comparison with 'home' (US, W countries,
etc.) is a mantra. That is of course good enough, and one can track, say, sh*t-clothes
factories transiting from Bangladesh, to China, to Malaysia, to Mexico, etc.
Other motives, the first is lack of responsibility and involvement which allows
domineering and rapacious behavior. Foreign co. implant can just leave, relocate, if
whatever. A random /racist term/ exploited worker in the 3rd world is not voting in US
elections.
Deadly industrial pollution is outsourced, and energy use etc. at home while not
curtailed or significantly diminished is not as high as one might see under condition of
the industries returning home - a sort of 'greener' environment can be touted.
The PTB simply cannot grasp why some US citizens, who live high on the hog, house, 2
cars, 3 kids, endless dirt cheap consumer goods, etc. produced by 'slaves' abroad,
complain. If the 'stuff' was produced at home, it would cost much more, the pay would be
going to 'low-level' US labor -- in a more closed economic circuit there would be more
'equality' as things stand today in the US - *not* claiming it's a general rule.
Trump had some confused? thoughts about turning the present situation around, and
relocating industrial - some extractive - manufacturing - jobs back home, say 1960s, with
decent pay, to ppl who would then vote for him.
The stumbling block is that profits to shareholders, oligarchs, chief CEO's, asset
trippers, usurers, Mafia types, Banks and other Fin, and Politicians who in the US are
highly paid lackeys, etc. is set to diminish, as 'the pie' can no longer be grown much to
accomodate all these grifters. Due to energy constraints, disruption of climate change,
etc.
Brit and Dutch spooks now concur with Trump the charlatan's claim of Huawei security risk ! Trust the Brits to doublecross the Chinese, after they've been given the huawei source
codes to examine and declared it free of bugs. As for the Dutch , they seems to be the goto guys these days, whenever the 5liars need
some loyal poodles to corroborate their B.S., cue the M17 'investigation'.
This is a good overview of Huawai crisis, but the reason for it is deeper. Huaway is just a skirmish in a much larger war for
the supremacy in the neoliberal world. At the same time this is a crisis of neoliberlism as social system. Much like the crisis of
Bolshevism.
After 2008 the neoliberal elite lost legitimacy. Nasty jokes about Trump and Obama are just a tip of the iceberg, they just show
the level of distrust. In a way they are like anecdotes about Brezhnev during "Stagnation" ("Zastoy" in Russian ) period.
Simplifying, Trump is some variation on the theme of of Gorbachov. and a counterrevolution against Trump was similar to the
counterrevolution against Gorbachov ("putsch" with the main difference that putsch was instigated by Gorbachov himself and he lost
power as the result). While most probably the dirt will be swiped under the carpet, some minor figures might go to jail
in the USA as the result as this was clearly attempt of the palace coup by intelligence agencies with the support of Obama
administration and Clinton wing of republican partty.
The level of lies in MSM and level of lies of politicians on the Capital Hill is a clear sign that the social crisis is reached
the state "when the elite can't govern as usual, and prols can't live usual". People working in Wall-mart essentially live in
a third world country.
The most telling sign that this stage has come is that the neoliberal elite no longer is able to tell the truth to the
population. Russiagate was partially an attempt to cement the cracks in neoliberal facade (loss of the legitimacy of neoliberal
elite) by redirecting the anger of population to the external enemy. In this sense neoliberal elite badly long for a war, which
would solve their problems, but in the modern world this is too dangerous move. But new local wars (Iran, Venezuela ) are still a
possibility, especially because Israel fifth column ( Adelson, Hassid mafia -- Kushner and Co, etc) partially controls Trump
and were able to secure the appointments of Bolton and Pompeo.
BTW attitude to Jews here turned to be much worse (especially in NYC, there are a lot of Hassidic sects). Jews also are very
convenient scapegoats and always were.
The Trump attempt to bully China is based on the understanding that China is a neoliberal state too and as such it should fold
in the name of neoliberal globalization, as the USA is the dominant neoliberal power -- kind like the USSR was for Bolshevism.
It is funny that China defection to neoliberalism doomed Bolshevism :-)
As neoliberalism is a flavor of Trotskyism (Trotskyism for the rich :-) it can't be decoupled from the neoliberal
globalization ("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite") like Trotskyism can't be decoupled for the idea of the
World revolution. If you decouple those two you will get Stalinism.
The question now is about the control of globalization. Where is the center? In the USA or in China (China is pushing its own
version via Belt and Road Initiative -- a China-centered trading network)
As for China-USA trade war timing is everything. If it is too late the USA will come out of it with bloody nose with the
continuation of the Great Recession in the cards. The root case was only patched, but never fixed -- secular stagnation continued
past 2010: concentration of wealth at the top undermine consumption of the middle class (lower class does not matter much) and
external expansion is limited as there will be no the second USSR collapse and no new markets. As Marxist taught us -- all
imperialistic wars are the wars for the redistribution of the markets. I think this might be the case now. .
If timing for Trump attack is right, China will be crushed and pushed into economic depression.
I am incompetent in this area but it looks to me that Trump in his usually bulling style overdid it putting too much
pressure, and as a result China revolted. Neither China not the USA understand the full consequences of this move, but that does not
matter. Chinese reaction suggests that "the Rubicon was crossed" and the real trade war is in th cards. May be some
compromise reached, but if the neoliberal world is stilt into two camps: USA-dominated and China-dominated (much weaker, but
Russia and possibly India, Pakistan and Iran probably will gravitate to it). Replaying the Cold War on a new level and with
much weaker cards in the USA hands.
Looks like Trump recently understood that he committed a blunder and is trying to back off, but that might be too little too
late.
Notable quotes:
"... It's the clearest sign yet that the basic assumptions of globalization are collapsing. ..."
"... the story of the use of SWIFT against Iran, and increasingly it's the story of fights over tech/networks ..."
1. A thread on why Trump decision to put Huawei on the entity list is a very big deal indeed, as
@Dimi and others are arguing.
ft.com/content/c8d6ca . This is a far
bigger step than just excluding Huawei from the US market.
2. It requires any US company that wants to supply Huawei to first ask the US government for permission. This has obvious implications
for Google's Android operating system, Qualcomm chips and a myriad of other suppliers
4. The globalization of the 1990s massively transformed the world economy. National economic systems that had previously been
separate from each other became densely interpenetrated, and deeply dependent on financial, informational and trade networks that
spanned borders.
5. These networks are structurally embedded. Supply chains have been globalized, in the pursuit of economic efficiencies. It's
hard to imagine how the world economy could work without them. But the pursuit of efficiency created strategic vulnerabilities.
6. Some networks had hub structures meaning that states that could control the hub could control the network. Others relied on
crucial components that were single sourced or sourced within an individual country.
7. The last decade has seen states move increasingly to exploit these vulnerabilities against others or to shore their own vulnerabilities
up against outside attackers. That's the story of the use of SWIFT against Iran, and increasingly it's the story of fights over
tech/networks
9. The Huawei move displays both US fears about vulnerabilities, and US efforts to exploit them. The US is worried that 5G networks
could compromise US communications to surveillance.
10. US is not only moving to push Huawei out of existing markets - but to damage Huawei's core business by potentially preventing
it from using core US components (such as Qualcomm chips or Android OS (it remains to be seen exactly which technologies will be
listed). Chinese hawks are talking about retaliating through e.g. blocking sales of rare earths again.
11. This will also reinforce Chinese efforts to build "autonomous and controllable" technology and supply chains outside US control
to decrease their vulnerability to future attack.
12. The old model of globalization is in serious trouble. The networks that tie the world economy together are being exploited
for strategic gain. The US move is both a response to fears about its own vulnerabilities, and an effort to exploit China's vulnerabilities
in return.
13. The result will likely be escalation - but we don't know for sure. We still don't have anything that approaches a strategic
analysis of this new field of politics and how it works. Historical experience provides no good recent analogies.
14. During the Cold War, the US dominated parts of the global economy and Comecon were largely disconnected, with the exception
of raw commodities such as grain. Now, the economies of US, Europe, China and Russia are deeply intertwined.
15. If you want to be pessimistic, you can resort to scorpions-in-bottles analogies. If you want to be optimistic, you can point
to continued shared interests that states have in avoiding major economic disruptions. The willingness of the US to push this so
far and so hard
16. suggests the skeptics may find their fears justified - but we'll be finding out. Interesting times for international political
economy scholars, if frightening times for the international political economy. Finis.
Why not? Hollywood those days mostly produced utter junk. It's an easy and lucrative move
Notable quotes:
"... The most obvious is the simple fact that the U.S. is much less dependent on its services exports to China than South Korea is. While certain sectors might feel some pain, it's not likely to be strong enough to force the White House to back down. (Indeed, Trump might not mind if liberal Hollywood takes a hit.) ..."
"... Similarly, many Chinese industries rely fundamentally upon licensed American services. In 2018, foreign films accounted for 38% of China's box office; the most lucrative among them were American. That trend continues: Over the weekend, "Avengers: Endgame" became the third-highest grossing film in Chinese history. ..."
Trying to boycott U.S. entertainment and travel, as Beijing did
with South Korea, will only backfire on Chinese companies and consumers.
By Adam Minter , May 17,
2019 8:00 PM
Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the author of "Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar
Trash Trade" and the forthcoming "Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.
China may want to stand tough against Donald Trump's trade threats. It's going to have a hard time retaliating, though, and
not only because it doesn't import enough goods to match the U.S. president tariff-for-tariff.
One obvious target would be the
$58.9 billion in
services the U.S. exports to China. These include everything from Hollywood blockbusters to tourism and education. In theory,
Beijing could easily enough cut off the flow of American entertainment into China and Chinese students and tourists out of the
mainland. Indeed, the nationalist editor-in-chief of the Global Times newspaper has already
suggested such a strategy.
China has some experience with this. After South Korea agreed to deploy a U.S. anti-missile system on its soil in 2016, Chinese
television stations were
informed that programs involving South Korean stars wouldn't be approved for broadcast, while Chinese venues began
canceling appearances by K-pop
bands and other South Korean celebrities. On top of restrictions on outbound tourism, the measures helped knock 0.4% off South
Korea's expected growth rate in 2017.
On the other hand, the unofficial boycott didn't persuade Seoul to reverse its decision. And there are many reasons to think
a similar strategy directed at the U.S. would be even less effective.
The most obvious is the simple fact that the U.S. is much less dependent on its services exports to China than South Korea
is. While certain sectors might feel some pain, it's not likely to be strong enough to force the White House to back down. (Indeed,
Trump might not mind if liberal Hollywood takes a hit.)
The second reason is more important. Chinese businesses are often as dependent upon U.S. services as American retailers are
on their mainland-based supply chains. Restricting Chinese tourism to the U.S., for instance, would damage China's airlines, many
of which have been handsomely subsidized in a battle for dominance over hyper-competitive trans-Pacific air routes.
Similarly, many Chinese industries rely fundamentally upon licensed American services. In 2018, foreign films accounted for
38% of China's box office; the most lucrative among them were American. That trend continues: Over the weekend, "Avengers: Endgame"
became the third-highest
grossing film in Chinese history.
Chinese regulators are already worried about
slowing box-office revenue
. In 2016, they even
temporarily lifted
quotas on foreign films to help cinema owners. It's unlikely they'd seek to add new burdens now to the struggling industry.
In recent years, the most high-profile buyers of U.S. entertainment content have been China's celebrated tech champions. In
2015, Tencent Holdings Ltd. agreed to pay the National Basketball Association
$500 million
(potentially rising to $700 million) for the rights to stream the league's games, highlights and other content in China. It
was a smart investment: The NBA is the
most popular professional sports league among Chinese viewers. During the 2017 finals, more than
170 million people in China streamed the games live.
And Tencent isn't the only Chinese tech company leaning upon the NBA to boost user counts. The league has signed more than
a dozen media partnerships in China, including a
March 2019 agreement with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. under which the NBA agreed to create content for Alibaba users. (Alibaba
Vice Chairman Joseph Tsai owns 49 percent of the Brooklyn Nets NBA franchise.)
Ultimately, the biggest impediment to any Chinese boycott of U.S. services may be the Chinese public. Though there's no question
that Chinese popular opinion is behind Beijing, there's little evidence so far that the trade war has diminished consumer enthusiasm
for American movies and vacations. During the key Chinese New Year travel period, the U.S. was the
most popular long-haul travel destination for Chinese tourists. Los Angeles reported a
6.9% boost in Chinese visitors last
year.
While some Chinese might just switch to illegal streaming services and pirated downloads if cut off from their favorite American
TV shows and movies, trying to bar them from visiting the U.S., sending their kids to university there or seeking medical treatment
could quickly provoke a backlash among middle-class citizens. Especially at a time when growth is slowing at home, that's a constituency
the government can't afford to alienate.
Of course, none of this means the Trump Administration should think its services exports are entirely immune. As American culture
becomes more globalized, it becomes easier to emulate. China's film industry is getting more polished in spite of censorship.
Yao Ming is steadily
improving Chinese
basketball in spite of China's state meddling in sport. And low-cost airlines give Chinese access to a wide variety of destinations
just as compelling as Los Angeles. For now at least, though, China will have a hard time restricting what it can't replace.
President Donald Trump is planning on using the Insurrection Act to remove illegal
immigrants from the United States, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to multiple senior administration officials, the president intends to invoke the
"tremendous powers" of the act to remove illegal immigrants from the country.
"We're doing the Insurrection Act," one official said.
Under the Insurrection Act of 1807 , the president
has the authority to use the National Guard and military in order to combat "unlawful
obstruction or rebellion" within U.S. borders. The act was last
invoked in 1992 by George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots, and was also used by
Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in the south.
An official expressed concerns that Trump's use of the act's powers would face legal
challenges, pointing to the lawsuits against the president's travel ban from majority-Muslim
countries. However, as the official noted, the travel ban ultimately prevailed in the Supreme
Court.
In addition to the Insurrection Act, the president is also considering declaring the
country full and insisting that the U.S. can no longer handle the massive influx of illegal
immigrants. 2019 is currently on pace
to reach the highest levels of illegal immigration in a decade.
"If you take a ship and it holds 1,000 people maximum -- one more person and the ship is
going to collapse," the official explained. "The country is full."
"Our hospitals are full, our detention centers are full," they added."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom,
we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical
literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old,
it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a
system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the
nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be
fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are
voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding
Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against
the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be
a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the
elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of
capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of
elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made
possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of
political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of
Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out
of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then
found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea
Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a
politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill
3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still
dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front
of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist
agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a
zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under
President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign
warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd
Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No,
just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The
world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time
in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq
War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil
wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with
the same events. Obama talked peace too.
On Wednesday, DJT declared a national emergency by executive order over alleged threats to
US technology.
He invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, giving the president authority
to regulate commerce in response to alleged threatening emergency conditions.
According to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders:
The order "protect(s) America from foreign adversaries who are actively and increasingly
creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology
infrastructure and services in the United States (sic)."
Huawei responded saying: "Restricting (the company) from doing business in the US will not
make the US more secure or stronger." i
"(I(nstead, this will only serve to limit the US to inferior yet more expensive
alternatives, leaving the US lagging behind in 5G deployment, and eventually harming the
interests of US companies and consumers."
"We are ready and willing to engage with the US government and come up with effective
measures to ensure product security."
The Trump regime has been pressuring, bullying, and threatening other countries not to adopt
Huawei's 5G technology.
Beijing's Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang responded to Trump's order, saying it's
directed against "specific Chinese companies," calling it "disgraceful and unjust," adding:
"We urge the US side to stop oppressing Chinese companies under the pretext of security
concerns and provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for their normal
investment and operation."
According to the Eurasia Group, the latest Trump regime action is "a grave escalation with
China that at minimum plunges the prospect of continued trade negotiations into doubt,"
adding:
"Unless handled carefully, this situation is likely to place US and Chinese companies at new
risk."
Beijing will surely react strongly to this latest action, making it all the harder to
resolve major differences between both countries.
"... Department of Commerce Announces the Addition of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to the Entity List ..."
"... Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement President Donald Trump backed the decision that will "prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests." ..."
"... in a move that is seen as aimed at keeping the Chinese company Huawei out of the US market, President Trump has declared a "national emergency" to protect U.S. communications networks giving the federal government broad powers to bar American companies from doing business with certain foreign suppliers. ..."
"... As we detailed earlier, in what appears to be the US government's latest salvo in its war against Huawei, President Trump is reportedly preparing to sign an executive order that would prohibit American firms from using equipment made by foreign telecom companies that pose a 'security threat', according to Bloomberg , which sourced its report to administration insiders. ..."
"... "This is neither graceful nor fair," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing. "We urge the U.S. to stop citing security concerns as an excuse to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies and provide a fair and equitable and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S." ..."
"... As Huawei pushes to assume a global leadership position in 5G, the US's efforts to try and discredit the company have included successfully pushing for the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada, on charges she helped the company violate US sanctions on Iran. ..."
"... After the Iraq invasion of Kuwait there was a throng of viciously victimized people who claimed examples of Iraqi's bayoneting babies in incubators, raping nurses and killing patients in hospitals. It was all a lie and it was propagated by Western PR companies paid with the gold and silver coins of the Kuwaiti government. ..."
"... Since you have such insight perhaps you want to share with us fools the reason why Huawei is so dangerous? Being an arm of the Chinese government is a bit vague and it's easy to argue that Google and Facebook are arms of the US government. ..."
"... The US is becoming outright hostile. Soon companies will avoid the US altogether out of fear of being persecuted and accused of violating US national security without any proof or even venue to address the accusations. It's amazing how fast the US has gone from having been a freedom principled nation with the rule of law to a tyrannical police state with out of control lawmakers contradicting their own constitution. ..."
"... the last time the US did this with chips, China simply obtained the equipment to make their own.......a permanent loss of what was a good business for the US. ..."
"... Companies spend exorbitant amounts on building their businesses, sales, assembly lines and supply chains. Trump comes along and just wipes out years of work and profitability with the stroke of a pen. He doesn't seem to "get" that those products are still going to be built and sold, just not with US parts anymore and maybe not in the US, but sales will still increase throughout Asia, etc.........and by doing what he's done, those Asian markets will simply shun US products. ..."
Reuters reports that the
U.S. Commerce Department is adding Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and 70 affiliates to its
so-called "Entity List"
- a move that will make it much more difficult for the telecom giant to buy parts and components
from U.S. companies. U.S. officials said the decision would also
make it difficult for Huawei to sell some products
because of its reliance on U.S. suppliers.
Department of Commerce Announces the Addition of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to the Entity List
WASHINGTON – Today, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it will be
adding Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and its affiliates to the Bureau's Entity List.
This action stems from information
available to the Department that provides a reasonable basis to conclude that Huawei is engaged in activities that are
contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest
. This information includes the activities alleged in
the Department of Justice's public superseding indictment of Huawei, including alleged violations of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), conspiracy to violate IEEPA by providing prohibited financial services to Iran, and
obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of those alleged violations of U.S. sanctions.
The sale or transfer of American technology to a company or person on the Entity List requires a license issued by
BIS,
and a license may be denied if the sale or transfer would harm U.S. national security or foreign policy
interests. The listing will be effective when published in the Federal Register.
"This action by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, with the support of the President of the
United States, places Huawei, a Chinese owned company that is the largest telecommunications equipment producer in the world,
on the Entity List. This will prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially
undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests,"
said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. "President
Trump has directed the Commerce Department to be vigilant in its protection of national security activities. Since the
beginning of the Administration, the Department has added 190 persons or organizations to the Entity List, as well as
instituted five investigations of the effect of imports on national security under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962."
Additions to the Entity List are decided by the End-User Review Committee which is comprised of officials from the Department
of Commerce, Department of Defense, State Department, and Department of Energy. Under § 744.11(b) of the Export Administration
Regulations, persons or organizations for whom there is reasonable cause to believe that they are involved, were involved, or
pose a significant risk of becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy
interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List.
The Bureau of Industry and Security's mission is to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives by
ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology
leadership.
BIS is committed to preventing U.S.-origin items from supporting Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
projects, terrorism, or destabilizing military modernization programs.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement President Donald Trump backed
the decision that will "prevent
American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine U.S. national security or
foreign policy interests."
Under President Trump's leadership, Americans will be able to trust that our data and
infrastructure are secure.
#ICTSupplyChain
Update (1645ET):
Confirming what we previewed earlier,
in a move that is seen as aimed at keeping the
Chinese company Huawei out of the US market, President Trump has declared a "national emergency" to protect U.S.
communications networks giving the federal government broad powers to bar American companies from doing business with certain
foreign suppliers.
"The president has made it clear that
this administration will do what it takes to keep America safe and
prosperous, and to protect America from foreign adversaries who are actively and increasingly creating and exploiting
vulnerabilities
in information and communications technology infrastructure and services in the United States," the
statement said.
The order authorizes the commerce secretary to block transactions involving communications technologies built by firms
controlled by a foreign adversary that puts U.S. security at "unacceptable" risk -- or poses a threat of espionage or sabotage to
networks that underpin the day-to-day running of vital public services... which would include the Chinese firm Huawei.
As WaPo details, Trump's executive order
instructs the commerce secretary to develop an enforcement regime and permits
the secretary to name companies or technologies that could be barred,
according to officials.
The order acknowledges that, although an open investment climate is generally positive, the United States needs to do more to
protect the security of its networks.
The national emergency declaration comes a day after a congressional hearing in which senators from both parties
joined administration officials in calling out the risks of doing business with a company like Huawei.
They emphasized
that the problem was less about the company than the authoritarian country whose system of laws, which lacks due process and
transparency, it must obey.
"It's not about overseeing Huawei. It's about overseeing China,"
said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.),
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearing on 5G security.
But, of course,
"The executive order is company and country agnostic,"
replies a senior White House
official when asked if the executive order targets Huawei and China (h/t @W7VOA)
* * *
As we detailed earlier, in what appears to be the US government's latest salvo in its war against Huawei, President Trump is
reportedly preparing to sign an executive order that would prohibit American firms from using equipment made by foreign telecom
companies that pose a 'security threat', according to
Bloomberg
, which sourced its report to administration insiders.
The official who spoke with Bloomberg insisted the order wasn't intended to single out any country or company, but anybody who
has been following the ongoing spat with Huawei should instantly recognize that this simply isn't true (though, with the trade
negotiations at a very delicate impasse, we understand why the administration needs to maintain this pretense). Though Huawei and
its fellow Chinese telecoms giant ZTE already face serious restrictions on selling their products in the US, Huawei still
maintains a US subsidiary in Texas.
The order, which could be signed as soon as Wednesday, wouldn't outright ban sales to US entities, but it would grant the
Commerce Department more authority to review products and purchases made by firms with connections to adversarial countries (we
doubt that's directed at Ericsson and Sweden).
China's foreign ministry has already lashed out at the US over reports of the executive order.
"This is neither graceful nor fair," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing. "We urge the
U.S. to stop citing security concerns as an excuse to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies and provide a fair and equitable
and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S."
Washington has been campaigning for months to stop its allies around the globe from allowing Huawei products to be used in
their 5G networks, but to little avail. Yesterday, Huawei promised
to sign a "no spy"
pledge
to governments like the UK that are still deciding how much reliance on Huawei they are willing to stomach.
As Huawei pushes to assume a global leadership position in 5G, the US's efforts to try and discredit the company have
included successfully pushing for the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada, on charges she helped the company violate US
sanctions on Iran.
American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for spying - and not without reason.
Just last month,
Ars
Technica
found a backdoor like vulnerability in Huawei's Matebook laptop series which could have allowed remote hackers to
gain access to the system. Chinese law also could technically compel companies like Huawei to cooperate with authorities.
But even if the order is signed on Wednesday, it might not take effect for six months, as it would take time for the Commerce
Department to "fashion an approach" to the order.
In the meantime, Verizon and other US telecoms firms are still way behind in the war to dominate the global market for 5G
networking equipment.
"Stop suppressing our companies, you unreasonable, evil bullies!
The Chinese people will not be treated with such indignity!"
-China, as they suppress foreign companies.
All the time back doors into Huawei equipment are found and all
the time Huawei claims it was an accident and that they are
complying with countries' privacy and telecommunication laws. Of
course they spy! Everybody spies on everybody.
And do we really
need faster internet? 5G is also rather intrusive. Due to the high
frequencies involved, more base stations, repeaters and antennas
need to be used, operating at higher output levels. Do we really
want to expose our bodies to these kinds of frequencies and power?
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Bloomberg's Lie-Chips fable:
"
This
did not happen
.
There's no truth to this
."
Apple's Tim Cook Calls For 'Bloomberg' To Retract Story About
Chinese Spy Chips. The word from everyone willing to go on record about the
Bloomberg
spy chip story is that
it didn't happen. U.S. National Intelligence Director, Dan Coats, added his voice
to the chorus of officials denying any knowledge of the matter and
finding no reason to believe the story.
The one named source for the story expressed extreme
doubts about the story's validity
. To spare their
credibility,
Bloomberg
needs to produce evidence or a
retraction. Tim Cook has made it abundantly clear what he thinks
about
Bloomberg
's only path forward.
OMG Huawei's 5G could be used for SPYING! You know, sort of like
what the U.S. government and private corporations are already
doing.
Seriously though, let's look into a crystal ball. Let's say
China becomes the techno leader for alot more things in the coming
future. So what is the U.S. going to do? Block a ton of new
technology, while U.S. citizens remain in the stoneage, while
China forges ahead?
All those millions of Mexicans the U.S. let in, will not be
creating the newest tech for the world in the future. So get used
to a lagging 3rd-world-like stance.
After the Iraq invasion of Kuwait there was a throng of viciously
victimized people who claimed examples of Iraqi's bayoneting
babies in incubators, raping nurses and killing patients in
hospitals. It was all a lie and it was propagated by Western PR
companies paid with the gold and silver coins of the Kuwaiti
government.
Anyone who believes that Huawei is not an arm of
the Chinese government is a fool. First of all, almost all
companies in China serve as agents of the Chinese government, this
is a fact. Second, some are more government than others and some
are an inner working of the strategy, a key player...a knight.
Huawei is a knight not a rook.
I have been there many times and I have spent a lot of time
with Chinese people in business. Huawei is an agent of the
government just like James Bond served Her Secret Service. Huawei
is a stealth fighter, make no mistake.
"Doth lady protests too much, me thinks". That's the planned,
contrived and paid for wailing of the PR industry that has been
thrown the gold and silver coins by the Chinese. Those are
Western companies selling their souls to deliver the virgin Huawei
to the West. Buyer beware.
Since you have such insight perhaps you want to share with us
fools the reason why Huawei is so dangerous? Being an arm of
the Chinese government is a bit vague and it's easy to argue
that Google and Facebook are arms of the US government.
Good. Trump should block these fools. Just another nail in the
coffin of the Chinese machine.
Enjoy your depression, China.
You earned it.
By the way folks...Barr has the IG Report by Horrowitz...and it
is
DEVASTATING!!!
The US is becoming outright hostile. Soon companies will avoid the
US altogether out of fear of being persecuted and accused of
violating US national security without any proof or even venue to
address the accusations. It's amazing how fast the US has gone
from having been a freedom principled nation with the rule of law
to a tyrannical police state with out of control lawmakers
contradicting their own constitution.
The rest of the world may
soon abandon the US because the risks outweigh the benefits of
dealing with a country that behaves this way. I don't know if
American lawmakers and leaders realize this because the standard
notion seems to be that the US is number one in everything and the
rest of the world who live in mud huts are all desperately trying
to either reach the US or will do anything to do business with the
US. That is a paranoid and self delusional notion and view.
Get your gddamn act together USA and stop going down this path
of ever more conflict and war, it really doesn't suit you. The
spirit of the Unites States was always that of individual freedom,
liberty and opportunity. Where has that optimistic can-do attitude
and zest for life gone?
I guess no one has told
him that there are only 4 major Telecom Wireless Networking
companies left in the world. They are
Huawei (China), Ericsson
(Sweden), Nokia (Finland), and ZTE (China)
.
Lucent
, formerly of AT&T Bells was brought out by Nokia,
and
Cisco
has dropped out of Telecom equipment entirely,
and is focused on Enterprise Networking Solutions.
Although, Ericsson (Sweden), Nokia (Finland) are not Chinese
companies, but they have extensive sales and operations in China.
About
20%
of their sales are derived in the Chinese Telecom
markets. They also have extensive research and manufacturing
facilities in China, to take advantages of the local engineering
talents and low cost electronic manufacturings.
Currently, 90% of Ericsson and Nokia telecom equipments are
made in China. Cisco also has extensive manufacturing and
suppliers in China.
I challenge the
Orange Dotard
to ban Ericsson, Nokia,
and Cisco and their extensive networks of suppliers, affiliates,
and associates in China.
I don't see why, they will not be a National Security Threat,
if Huawei and its suppliers are a National Security Threat.
Totally agree. And the last time the US did this with chips,
China simply obtained the equipment to make their own.......a
permanent loss of what was a good business for the US.
"........ a move that will make it much more difficult for the
telecom giant to buy parts and components from U.S. companies.
U.S. officials said the decision would also
make it
difficult for Huawei to sell some products because of its
reliance on U.S. suppliers.
"
And if Chinese companies can't buy a part out of the US, do
you suppose they will just do what they always do?........start
making their own and cause US companies to lose even more
business?
Trump and his minions never seem to think things through
past the initial attack to the potential consequences of their
actions. Wonder how long it will take for China to restrict
sales of rare earths to the US.
"And if Chinese companies can't buy a part out of the US,
do you suppose they will just do what they always
do?........start making their own and cause US companies to
lose even more business?"
Huawei is not like other
Chinese companies, such as ZTE, that relies on US Companies
for their chips. They make their own chips.
Yes, Huawei has suppliers in US, but they are not
unreplaceable. Trumpturd just killed their business with
Huawei, that's all.
Honest to god, Asoka, there are days where I think the
real, true, unstated goal of Trump is to destroy the US
one sector at a time. To what end, I truly don't know.
There is no way that these actions against Huawei will be
good for US businesses affected. Every step Trump takes
takes away one more piece of hard-earned profitable
business from US companies, farmers, etc, with no end in
sight.
Companies spend exorbitant amounts on building their
businesses, sales, assembly lines and supply chains.
Trump comes along and just wipes out years of work and
profitability with the stroke of a pen. He doesn't seem
to "get" that those products are still going to be built
and sold, just not with US parts anymore and maybe not in
the US, but sales will still increase throughout Asia,
etc.........and by doing what he's done, those Asian
markets will simply shun US products.
And, because of what he's done, more supply chains are
going to move AWAY from US parts to mitigate risk of
Trump doing this again to yet another industry.
"Totally agree. And the last time the US did this with
chips, China simply obtained the equipment to make their
own.......a permanent loss of what was a good business for
the US."
Yes, O'Bomer banned the sales of
high-performance chips for Supercomputers, to Chinese
companies. But he didn't know that China already
has high-performance chips, but they don't have the low
price that comes from high volume to compete with Intel's
Chips. So Chinese Companies just keep buying from Intel in
huge quantities, like millions of them to make
Supercomputers.
By banning the sales to China, O'Bomer has handed the
Intel's Chinese Market (worth billions each year) to local
Chinese Chip Companies. With half of their global market
gone, Intel were forced to close down their Xeon chip
production lines.
There are a few more large companies in the space like Intel,
Qualcomm, Samsung and Hewlett Packard and a long list of
smaller ones with 5G specialized niches. The space needs
healthy competition especially to find solutions to the
environmental and health concern that are associated with 5G
systems and which are very valid.
well hey the chinese are very patient but i'd say goodbye
Starbuck, Apple, and of coz no rare earths for the US anymore. to
begin with. Then liquidate US debt and see if Trump isnt
assassinated by the MIC...
"Update (1645ET):
Confirming what we previewed
earlier, in a move that is seen as aimed at keeping the Chinese
company Huawei out of the US market,...."
What's not said in
this article, Huawei left the U.S. in 2013. Huawei announced at
the end of April 2013 that it had given up trying to
compete in the US telecoms equipment market. "We will focus on the
rest of the world, which is reasonably big enough and is growing
significantly."
I am not a heavy cell phone user at all. Basic plan.
But the
Huawei model had the features at a lower price (bought on Ebay)
with some performance better that the competition. I've been very pleased with it, but again I'm a basic user.
Charges fast and holds the charge well.
"Waiting for China to impose heavy tariffs on
Hollywood films. "
Why not ? They are total CIA
inspired BS or Just pyrotechnic Nonsense. Plus Holly
Wood is just a *** store front so why support those
a$$holes. Frankly I'\d sooner watch a good European,
Korean movie etc because I can read the sub titles.
Much better quality acting.
It must be terrible being Chinese and knowing you're smarter than
those Americans. But those basetards always have a new scam to
follow the last one. Fact is, the Chinese would do the NSA thing
if they were on top. These people understand political history. A
culture persists as long as it "provides for the national
defense".
Lest you forget, great nations take liberties with the
truth. Just ask the American Indians, Mexicans, Spanish, English,
Black people and everybody else who got played to enrich the
nation. Same thing today.
Plenty of examples of rats within all the cultures you named
that were willing to sell out their own for a buck. In fact it
is probably the reason they are not on top in the first place.
That doesn't count the Subsidiaries already here in the state's,
because selling and buying is a two sided coin....so now the
Demopublicans can with hold licensing until the correct
Tribute/Campaign Contribution is paid to some off shore account
that only our Congressional Salons can manage to have...it's
always only about the Benjamins Bro...next to come, Operation
Iranian Liberation......
Plaza accord, Asian Tiger crisis, and now China trade war.
Notable quotes:
"... Submitted by Christopher Dembik of SaxoBank ..."
"... The tone is clearly different in China where the official media, such as CCTV and People's Daily, adopted a tougher stance. ..."
"... As of yesterday, all the articles and TV reports mention "trade war". This terminology change means a lot and confirms that the negotiations have entered a more dangerous phase. ..."
Yesterday evening, senior Trump administration officials tried to appease tensions. US
secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin confirmed, without giving much detail, that the US-China
trade talks are still ongoing. The tone is clearly different in China where the official
media, such as CCTV and People's Daily, adopted a tougher stance. It is interesting to
note that in the previous rounds of trade disputes that occurred since Autumn 2018, People's
Daily articles mostly used the term "trade friction" instead of "trade war" until now As of
yesterday, all the articles and TV reports mention "trade war". This terminology change means a
lot and confirms that the negotiations have entered a more dangerous phase.
In addition, China has tightened its "national security" review for foreign investments,
which can be considered as another step in the retaliation process.
... ... ...
Trump's approval rate is still high
On the US domestic front, President Trump is now seeking $15 billion to bail out farmers in
order to mitigate the negative impact of the trade war. Interestingly, more and more Republican
Congressmen that were interviewed yesterday on US TV were very vocal against the latest
measures decided by the Trump administration. It is, however, unlikely to have any influence on
the ongoing process or to push the administration to comprise with Beijing. Trump is looking at
polls and the message they send is bright and clear: as of yesterday, 42% of US voters
supported Trump's policy (FiveThirtyEight). His electoral base has remained stable, faithful
and very broad since he was elected.
What's next?
By May 18 -- Potential US tariffs on global auto sector.
June 1 -- China's move to raise the rate of additional tariffs to 25% on 2,493 US
products (representing $60 billion worth of US imports) will come into effect. In addition,
list 3 tariffs from 10% to 25% decided by the USA against China will truly be implemented for
all products. For the moment, an exemption applies to list 3 products exported before May 10
and arriving in the US before June 1. For these products, the duty rate is still at 10%.
June 17 -- The USTR will hold a public hearing on potential duty of up to 25% tariffs on
virtually all Chinese goods (list 4 tariffs) that are not currently covered by previous
tariffs hikes. It will be followed by at least a week of discussions.
June 28 -- Likely meeting between presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 meeting in Osaka to
reach a compromise on trade issues.
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second,
by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." --
Confucius
The US has been the biggest offender in trade wars for decades. The petrodollar conceived
by Kissinger and Nixon forced countries to buy oil in USD. How is that not warlike? China and
other countries are trying to unhitch themselves from the dollar and who can blame them? The
problem is that when they are successful, and they will be, all those dollars will come home
to mommy and inflation will run rampant.
The country that prints the money will always have the upperhand against the country that
works hard and dirty to acquire the said money.
China is one of the cheapest producers,but that doesnt mean that the US cannot either
import or manufacture its own product.
Case in point im a salesman from greece. I know for a fact that the chinese sell a t-shirt
for 2 euros a piece (wholesale) and greek producers for 4 euros a piece. All the t-shirts are
sold (retail) for 12-70 euros. So its not about costs but about profit.
If greece decides tomorow to take back its production from the sick ***** and impose
tariffs on them literaly nothing will change.
Despite all the rhetoric about buying from other places than China, the facts remain,
manufacturing is not returning to America. Nor are the jobs coming here to America, nor is
the wealth. Conditions in America doesn't favor it. Agriculture was always America's strong
suite. But, with the trade wars causing farmers to go bankrupt, you can be assured of losing
that too. The question is now, who will feed all you American fat asses, when all your
farmers go broke?
Consumer economies are the economies of third world countries, and that is what America
has got. China, with its manufacturing economy, will go on to make investments in other
countries, and leave America in the dust.
You have had tariffs for over a year and not one company has returned from Overseas or
left China. In fact more US companies have moved manufacturing to China.
In the USA you have unions, the epa, osha, IRS... and the most litigious tort system and
most unreliable employees in the world. You have the most disability claims, the most
lawsuits against employers etc. Most absenteeism. Most employee theft. Gender issues,
bathroom issues, diversity issues. Your gov continue to pack on the minimum wages eliminating
any potential to make products to compete with the world.
In short the US is dying on the vine. Trump has caused so much bad blood with Asia, that
US global businesses will have difficulty penetrating Asian markets which are the only thing
that matters for the next 100 years. You Trumptard RACISTS are losers.
500,000 manufacturing jobs added in Us in last two years.
Where’d they come from.
US companies leaving China accelerating - relocating elsewhere in Asia, and bringing back
workers to US. Increasing location in US of foreign owned manufacturing plants to avoid trade
issues and tariffs.
The US is not only not dying on the vine, growth ACCELERATED in last several quarters.
Can’t hire skilled workers — no one available to take them. My daughter was
approached by 3 recruiters to lure her away from her job - she moved for a big pay increase -
they upped their offer 20% - and goit the job of her dreams, with all benefits at a major
company - and she is an ARTIST!! The huge increase in content production has created a golden
age even for liberal arts professions.
The US ONLY issue is its debt, which it can start to solve by simply retiring debt held by
the Fed, and continuing open market purchases and retirements. Monetize while inflation is
low and dollar strong. This will likely come with next rate drop (if we get one).
Chiona living on a MASSIVE consumer/mortgage debt bubble like the US faced in 2007. The
tide will wash over their financial industry, as it has begun, and the central government
will burn its reserves bailing them out. What goes up...
China hitting the wall of wage growth where it has become more expensive than its
competitors in SE Asia and India.
The next decade will be a lot more difficult for China. It’s totalitarian state will
need to become even more militant and oppressive to survive.
Every auto made in the world, every mower, every computer, every modem, every LED TV,
every telco switch, every smart phone, virtually any product you can think of has Chinese
Components or is manufactured in China. China is the largest semiconductor maker in the
world. LED lights... CHINA.
As we view the global economy we should consider that much of the "free trade" movement is
driven by mega companies desire for larger markets and greed. The desire of companies to both
develop and control future rules has caused them to lobby individual governments into giving
up control and becoming subservient to corporate “efficiency.”
This is probably not in the best interest of the average citizen as we can see by surging
inequality. Those concerned that a trade agreement with low wage nations will not be a great
job creator for America have history on their side. The piece below argues that fair trade
trumps free trade!
anybody pointing the finger at China because of IP theft and not doing the same to the
USSA is either brainwashed beyond repair, stupid like a piece of wood, a paid troll or any
combination of these.
"accuse the enemy of doing what you secretly do"
- plenty of people in powerful positions all across history
Most aren't paying attention to what Trump says.... he said a year ago that China was
wanting to make a deal. Trump said, "BUT,they're not ready yet" , meaning that they wanted a
small change to the imbalance like Canada and Mexico received.
China's trade imbalance is seriously astronomical compared to any other country we do
business.
Canada's trade imbalance is $20,000,000,000 per year with US.
China's trade imbalance is $420,000,000,000 per year with US.
We have almost the same trade with each $660 B with China and $620 B with Canada.
Canada is ripping us off. China is not ripping us off, they're ******* us.
Worst case is we STOP trading with China. Best case they reduce the trade imbalance
90%.
the other side of the coin is a chinese boycott of usa brands means a dollar devaluation
in the form of a tanked market. the chinese market means not much. the usa equity/bond market
is everything. a falling dollar takes a lot powder out of usa guns.
If winning elections at the expense of the electorate is the main concern of politicians,
might that suggest gross immorality amongst the political class?
On the other hand, if supporting politicians because they mouth soothing platitudes, while
yet their policies and actions, defenestrate the quality of life of the electorate, suggests
indoctrination, might that not be cause for serious concern?
Now, it's doubtless that leaders will be required to take unpopular stances sometimes, but
ought not those stances be based on cogent analysis of reality, and the elimination or
reduction of self contributory inputs?
All in all, leadership is about courage - to do what's right, and necessary, even if it
requires declaring mea culpa. Humility, is often the true indicator of leadership
abilities.
Which reminds us of Alexander, the Great that is, who had to turn back from his expedition
in India, when his troops balked at going further. He could have razzmatazzed them no doubt,
but he realized they were telling him that exhaustion was prevalent, pushing forward offered
no additional gains, and better to return home to sex their wives, teach their sons
horsemanship, give their daughters away in marriage, till their farms, chill out, smell the
roses, party, and reminisce to their children and grandkids about their adventures..
Alexander, Great that he is, listened, and with a heavy heart, due to his adventurous
nature, signaled the retreat, and homewards it was. That is why they called him Great, not
because of his martial prowess which was indeed formidable, but because of his discerning
prowess..
On the other hand, there was Marcus Crassus, who was so avaricious, he went East to war,
and got as much gold as his heart desired..molten, and poured down his throat. He died rich,
literally filled with gold, cheers...
Its real simple, if you don't like the cost of doing business in China along with being
required by the twisted communist government to turn over your intellectual property as a
requirement for doing your manufacturing there, then bring it home to America.
Not very long ago int he early 1990s I can still recall watching on the cable news
programs Chinese rockets launching and blowing up just prior to achieving orbit. The Clintons
then were at it full bore trading access to top secret rocket technologies from Loral Space
and Technology (Bernie Schwartz) CEO for campaign cash. Clintons transferred Top Secret
technologies from State Department to Commerce Department allowing them the access to Sell
out America to the Communists. It is why they had to arrange for the liquidation of Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown. Remember the video of Bill Clinton laughing and cajoling at the Ron
Brown funeral, then when he sees the camera on him, he immediately turns on the bitter tears.
These people are the phoniest crooks to ever come to power in America.
Was at Wal Mart yesterday. Surprisingly there isn't any products made in China that I
needed to buy. All the food, cleaning supplies, and toiletries are still made in the United
States. The clothing section had made in Malaysia, Singapore, India, Mexico. So in reality,
other countries can take market share from China. Some of the production will return to
United States as well.
"... The REAL REASON behind the TRADE WAR: Israhell: "I want Iran embargoed and starved to death." China: "I will buy Iran's oil." BAM! Trade War! ..."
The 'play of the day' above comes against a backdrop of markets trying to accentuate the
positive in the latest US-China trade war deterioration. Indeed, Moody's has declared a trade
deal will still be done and a Bloomberg survey of US economists shows around two thirds think a
deal will be signed by year-end, a fifth by 2020, and only 13% don't see a deal for at least
five years. Field Marshall, please take these men and women out and have them shot, there's a
good chap.
The rhetoric from China has turned starkly, aggressively nationalist. The Global Times is
calling for a "People's War", a 1930's Mao reference to repelling Japanese imperialism; "trade
war" now fills Chinese media, having been largely absent for months; and Tuesday's People's
Daily mouthpiece posted an image of the Chinese flag with "Talk -- fine! Fight -- we'll be
there! Bully us -- delusion!" superimposed on it. US President Trump is also not backing down
in a further set of trade-related tweets, again stating tariff revenues will support 'patriot'
farmers and adding: "China will be pumping money into their system and probably reducing
interest rates, as always, in order to make up for the business they are, and will be, losing.
If the Federal Reserve ever did a "match," it would be game over, we win! In any event, China
wants a deal!"
A huge fiscal deficit; trade tariffs; a rapid increase in military expenditure; 'Patriot'
farmers; and a political call for lower interest rates for a national struggle. It all sounds
very Chinese, doesn't it? But that shouldn't be a surprise. Last year's ' The Rise and Fall and
Rise of the Great Powers (and Great Currencies)' argued the historical lessons of the economics
of past power struggles are that one must have low borrowing costs, spend a lot on a large
military, and be mercantilist if your enemy is. True, one also needs to be economically
vibrant, and that isn't assured with mercantilism, militarism and large fiscal deficits. Yet
real free trade, pacifism, and austerity is *ruinous* for Great Power . Which is why the EU is
not a Great Power but a Great Whinger.
Some in the markets are starting to get this.
Regular Bloomberg commentator Noah Smith yesterday published an article --'The Grim Logic
Behind Trump's Trade War With China'-- that admits he was wrong to expect a trade deal, that
Trump is doubling down, and concludes "There may be a grim sort of logic to this approach If
Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do
it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might
conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity
for Americans, might be the president's true objective . if weakening China really is the goal,
then this could be just the opening rounds of a long and grinding trade war." That's' what I
argued back in November 2017's 'On Your Marx' special reports, which stressed a New Cold War
was likely ahead.
However, many in markets are still acting like a Treasury clerk telling Churchill that
Badolf Hissler can offer him a great deal on cut-price bullets, ships, and planes .
On a related front, we see reports of an alleged Iranian drone attack on Saudi oil
pipelines(!); also hear Iran's leader say there will be no war with the US; and Trump has
stated reports of 120,000 US troops moving to the region are fake news -- because if he were to
send troops it would " a hell of a lot more ." Mixed messages to put it mildly.
for 40 years, western liberals and capitalists have had a nebulous idea of China
developing, opening and "liberalizing." It hasn't usually occurred in the ways they wanted,
but China certainly has become a big market and has moved towards a more open economy and
somewhat, more open society overall, while still maintaining a "fascist" structure.
But we can all agree - that process is done. China's economy, society and politics are
what they are. The country is "grown-up." Do not ever expect the communist party to change
the tight, top-down structure it has. Do not expect changes to politics, do not expect anyone
in China to give up control, and certainly don't expect foreigners to have any say or
influence within China. China will always do exactly what benefits China and the CCP.
Trump is merely being a realist. So accept that, and trade/invest/exchange
accordingly.
Is it any surprise that a "Noah Smith" of Bloomberg would attribute all the wrong
motives and strategy behind President Trump's and America's trade dispute with China's
totalitarian regime?
That he sees the Chinese Communist Party as honest, good faith partners in this
scenario?
There is nothing Trump could ever do to please the internationalist media.
I seriously doubt if "weakening" China is Trump's primacy here. Perhaps a by-product but
let's finally admit one thing: The US-China trade arrangement is egregious at best. What no one is willing to discuss yet is the fact that this "philosophy" of evening out
trade with China will soon take on a life of its own: With the US consumer. We need to bring back a lot of jobs back to the US economy and that's not rocket science.
It won't happen overnight but it will indeed happen.
What is the point of this piece? To demonstrate the author’s wit and historical
knowledge (was that entire little playlet not invented)?
To maximize American prosperity long term, should the US simply allow China to cheat,
manipulate and intimidate its way to the top? China has proven that, unlike the US, its
growth is a zero sum game. It adds nothing to the equation of global growth except cheap
labor, which subtracts wealth from other nations by taking away their well-paid manufacturing
jobs. It contributes almost no raw materials, imports its food and energy, and has stolen
most of its technology at enormous cost to Western innovators.
The US has always provided net inputs to the system of global growth. Natural resources,
renewable materials (crops, renewable energy), and the relentless innovation and productivity
increases of its workforce. China is an extractor. Thus it needs to expand its borders
through exploitative economic imperialist initiatives under their One Belt One Road scam, and
their militaristic imperialism in the South China Sea. The US is a machine that puts out far
more than it takes in. China is the opposite. If the US directs its economic output away from
China’s vast and relentless maw, China’s machine will slow and sputter.
The real point of the trade war is to end the vacuum of Western and Asian prosperity by
China’s greedy and imperialist machine of economic destruction. China knows and
implements that its economic growth by definition comes at the cost of others’
prosperity. That the US took 20 years to wake the **** up is astonishing.
The key factor here is that the USA is a neoliberal state which means profits before people
and outsourcing to area with lower labor cost. Like leopard can't change its spots, neoliberalism
can't change it "free movement of goods and labor" principles, or it stop being
neoliberalism.
No jobs will come back to the USA as financial oligarchy is transnational body that uses the
USA military as an enforcer for their gang. It does not care one bit about the common people in
the USA.
Pause on the sound and fury for necessary precision. Even if the Trump administration slaps
25% tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US, the IMF has projected that would trim just a
meager slither – 0.55% – off China's GDP. And America is unlikely to profit,
because the extra tariffs won't bring back manufacturing jobs to the US – something that
Steve Jobs told Barack Obama eons ago.
What happens is that global supply chains will be redirected to economies that offer
comparative advantages in relation to China, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Cambodia
and Laos. And this redirection is already happening anyway – including by Chinese
companies.
BRI represents a massive geopolitical and financial investment by China, as well as its
partners; over 130 states and territories have signed on. Beijing is using its immense pool of
capital to make its own transition towards a consumer-based economy while advancing the
necessary pan-Eurasian infrastructure development – with all those ports, high-speed
rail, fiber optics, electrical grids expanding to most Global South latitudes.
The end result, up to 2049 – BRI's time span – will be the advent of an
integrated market of no less than 4.5 billion people, by that time with access to a Chinese
supply chain of high-tech exports as well as more prosaic consumer goods.
Anyone who has followed the nuts and bolts of the Chinese miracle launched by Little
Helmsman Deng Xiaoping in 1978 knows that Beijing is essentially exporting the mechanism that
led China's own 800 million citizens to, in a flash, become members of a global middle
class.
As much as the Trump administration may bet on "maximum pressure" to restrict or even block
Chinese access to whole sectors of the US market, what really matters is BRI's advance will be
able to generate multiple, extra US markets over the next two decades.
We don't do
'win-win'
There are no illusions in the Zhongnanhai, as there are no illusions in Tehran or in the
Kremlin. These three top actors of Eurasian integration have exhaustively studied how
Washington, in the 1990s, devastated Russia's post-USSR economy (until Putin engineered a
recovery) and how Washington has been trying to utterly destroy Iran for four decades.
Beijing, as well as Moscow and Tehran, know everything there is to know about Hybrid War,
which is an American intel concept. They know the ultimate strategic target of Hybrid War,
whatever the tactics, is social chaos and regime change.
The case of Brazil – a BRICS member like China and Russia – was even more
sophisticated: a Hybrid War initially crafted by NSA spying evolved into lawfare and regime
change via the ballot box. But it ended with mission accomplished – Brazil has been
reduced to the lowly status of an American neo-colony.
Let's remember an ancient mariner, the legendary Chinese Muslim Admiral Zheng He, who for
three decades, from 1405 to 1433, led seven expeditions across the seas all the way to Arabia
and Eastern Africa, reaching Champa, Borneo, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Calicut, Hormuz,
Aden, Jeddah, Mogadiscio, Mombasa, bringing tons of goods to trade (silk, porcelain, silver,
cotton, iron tools, leather utensils).
That was the original Maritime Silk Road, progressing in parallel to Emperor Yong Le
establishing a Pax Sinica in Asia – with no need for colonies and religious proselytism.
But then the Ming dynasty retreated – and China was back to its agricultural vocation of
looking at itself.
They won't make the same mistake again. Even knowing that the current hegemon does not do
"win-win". Get ready for the real hardcore yet to come.
The Swine fever is sweeping china hog farms and since the start of 2019 200+ millions hogs
have been culled. Chinese hog production is down from 2016 high of 700 million to below 420
million by the end of the year. The fever is not under control.
Soybeans from Ukraine are unloaded at the port in Nantong, in eastern China. Imports of
soy used to come from the US, but have slumped since the trade war began. Should point out
that the Ukraine soy production matures at a different time of the year than the US soybean.
The USA planting season starts in Late april, may and june. Because of the harvest time
differences worldwide the USA supplies 80% of the late maturing soybeans needed by
October/Nov and December.
Perhaps this is one of the "casualties" ( https://www.rt.com/news/459355-us-austria-embassy-mcdonalds/
) of economic war given the significance of China and just how important it is to the U.S. in
it's purchases of $USD to maintain the illusion of it's reserve currency status and
"vigor"...
Surprised this didn't happen first at the U.S. Embassies in Russia and China?... Obviously
Ronald McDonald has turned into a charity of sorts helping out Uncle $am in his ailing
"health" these dayz!...
SUPER SIZE ME!... Cause I'm not lovin it anymore!... I'm needin it!!!!
I've never understood this "jobs aren't coming back" argument. Do you really think that it
will stop tariffs? They're happening. Better start preparing.
Oh, right, tariffs WILL bring back American jobs! Then why didn't the Administration
impose them fully in 2017? Why negotiate at all; just impose all the tariffs!?! lol
Pepe is correct as usual. Even if America tariffs the world the jobs aren't coming back as
corporations will be unable to turn profits in such a highly taxed country like America would
be. What could happen however is America can form an internal free market again going
isolationist with new home grown manufacturing.
You VERY obviously have ZERO knowledge of Chinas history and its discoveries/inventions
etc USED BY THE WEST.
I suggest that you keep your eyes open for "History Erased-China" on Y Tube. The series
shows what would happen in todays world if countries and their contributions to the world did
not happen.
"... Thanks to USA govt publicity, Huawei phones are selling like hot cakes in Europe. Apple fans are jumping ship ..."
"... American lawmakers are compromised by the Israeli government & the military security state. It's the US that wants a back door to China's 5G. China pays with smears but it won't matter. China has 5G and the US doesn't. ..."
In
Latest Move Against Huawei, Trump To Order New Restrictions On Foreign Telecom Companies
by
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/15/2019 - 11:04
0
SHARES
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print
In what appears to be the US government's latest salvo in its war against Huawei, President Trump is reportedly
preparing to sign an executive order that would prohibit American firms from using equipment made by foreign telecom
companies that pose a 'security threat', according to
Bloomberg
, which sourced its report to administration insiders.
The official who spoke with Bloomberg insisted the
order wasn't intended to single out any country or company, but anybody who has been following the ongoing spat with
Huawei should instantly recognize that this simply isn't true (though, with the trade negotiations at a very delicate
impasse, we understand why the administration needs to maintain this pretense). Though Huawei and its fellow Chinese
telecoms giant ZTE already face serious restrictions on selling their products in the US, Huawei still maintains a US
subsidiary in Texas.
The order, which could be signed as soon as Wednesday, wouldn't outright ban sales to US entities, but it would grant
the Commerce Department more authority to review products and purchases made by firms with connections to adversarial
countries (we doubt that's directed at Ericsson and Sweden).
China's foreign ministry has already lashed out at the US over reports of the executive order.
"This is neither graceful nor fair,"
ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in
Beijing. "We urge the U.S. to stop citing security concerns as an excuse to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies
and provide a fair and equitable and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S."
Washington has been campaigning for months to stop its allies around the globe from allowing Huawei products to be
used in their 5G networks, but to little avail. Yesterday, Huawei promised
to sign a
"no spy" pledge
to governments like the UK that are still deciding how much reliance on Huawei they are willing to
stomach.
As Huawei pushes to assume a global leadership position in 5G, the US's efforts to try and discredit the company have
included successfully pushing for the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada, on charges she helped the company
violate US sanctions on Iran.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for spying - and not without reason.
Just last month,
Ars Technica
found a backdoor like vulnerability in Huawei's Matebook laptop series which could have allowed remote
hackers to gain access to the system. Chinese law also could technically compel companies like Huawei to cooperate with
authorities.
But even if the order is signed on Wednesday, it might not take effect for six months, as it would take time for the
Commerce Department to "fashion an approach" to the order.
In the meantime, Verizon and other US telecoms firms are still way behind in the war to dominate the global market
for 5G networking equipment.
Trump is not good for Chinese business.
China knows its coming.
Can only make a deal with obama/clinton/bush. Clearer motive for
China Collusion vs Russian Collusion.
Sad to imagine the US technology security under
obama/clintons/bush. USA will be up for sale while we sleep.
Major credit to Pres. Trump is hard to swallow by the left.
ZH is thoroughly infested with Hasbara trolls trying to ensure
that the Orange *** - aka Israel's Best Buddy - gets defended.
There are at least 5 or 6 kikes on this thread alone.
"This is neither graceful nor fair,"
ministry spokesman
Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing.
The irony of them saying it's not graceful or fair when they do
the same thing to foreign companies in China. I mean they don't
even allow youtube or instagram in China among many others. What
is the big threat of instagram other than flat out protectionism?
Then you expect other countries to be open?
Hopefully no one. The world doesn't need it. What is it
about "we don't want your ****" that you don't understand?
You going to force us to buy it? Give it a shot 李娜.
A recent exploration trip to the bottom of the Mariana
Trench - the deepest spot on Earth, found human trash on
the floor of the ocean - an old tire, metal pieces,
plastic, even fabric that looked like men's pants.
China's garbage is everywhere in the Earth's oceans. The
US needs to stop exporting our trash for China to dump,
and start controlling our production of plastic waste in
particular. We are doing a far better job than China or
India, but not enough.
True. I saw those reports. I'm not even sure why this
is a difficult concept for the Chinese. The US economy
is not here to serve China. We're not "beholden" to
buy Chinese products. The mood (and tide) has shifted.
Every trip to Walmart is another 20 gallons of paint
for a Chinese warship. WTF is wrong with us? I avoid
Chinese products whenever possible--even if it means I
pay significantly more.
I had a Chinese neighbor when I was in college. He
used to always leave his garbage outside his door. The
dumpster was 50 feet away. Used to bug the **** out of
me.
Ha,Ha!!! And to think American companies are not a security
threat, like Cisco and others cooperating with NSA, which Edward
Snowden has said to be.
This is just the latest continuation
of America's war on Huawei since 2003. Huiwei saw this coming
back in January, and has asked its compontent suppliers to move
out of the U.S.,. I am sure that angered the Trump
administration, but there is nothing Trump can do about that, if
they leave. Not only do they take the technology with them, but
also all those jobs. So, thinking he was going to retaliate
against Huawei, Trump wants to sign an executive order from "using
Huawei's equipment", which means, Trump has just encourage
Huawei's suppliers to take Huawei's earlier advise and leave the
U.S., if they want to stay in business. Trump's executive order
is sort of like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
What's not said in this article, Huawei left the U.S. in 2013.
Ren Zhengfei put the US's attitude down to jealousy at Huawei's
technical superiority over US rivals such as Cisco. Huawei
announced at the end of April 2013 that it had given up trying to
compete in the US telecoms equipment market. "We will focus on the
rest of the world, which is reasonably big enough and is growing
significantly."
By discouraging US telecoms companies from buying Huawei
equipment out of fear that it would open the country's key
infrastructure up to cyberespionage, the government would deny
domestic carriers access to market-leading technology.
Ren also said: U.S. concerns over cyber-espionage has been
mounting at a time when Huawei has done next to no business with
leading American carriers.
"If you look at Huawei's total market share in the US telecoms
equipment market, it is close to 0%. Given that we have virtually
no presence in the US telecoms infrastructure market, there is no
connection between Huawei and any information security incident
that has occurred in the country".
Again to remind you, Ren said this in 2013! Here it is, 6
years later, and the U.S. is still trying to put Huawei out of
business, to satisfy its own spying needs. If anyone is worried
about security, then it should be against the U.S., not Huawei.
It has been proven over and over that Hulawei imbeds exploits
in its hardware. Countries that were STUPID enough to install
their equipment have been retrofitting and spending fortunes
trying to test and close all the back doors and exploits that
expose them to theft and much worse.
Yeah, Hulawei probably
figured out the US was on to them - the FBI clearly was, and
figured if they could infest our partner countries with their
Trojan horses they could attack us through them.
Clever. But indefensible. They deserve to be sanctioned and
punished under international law for cyber crimes of the
highest order.
Back in early 2017 I attended a presentation by Bill Priestap,
Deputy Director of Counterintelligence at the FBI (yes THAT
Priestap) in which he laid out how the US Intelligence Community
had been screaming at the Obama Administration for 8 solid years
that China was the single greatest threat to the US and Western
democracies, and they were achieving their goals through IP theft,
backdoor spyware, commercial, industrial and military espionage,
corruption, and massively imbalanced trade policies. He was
stunned by the HRC/BHO/Kerry resistance to DO anything or even
slow the train down, and said he HOPED the Trump Administration
would pay attention. He laid out the 20 biggest threats.
Ugh. Might be too late. In certain tech like CCTV, you can't
escape Huawei. They started cranking out hisilicon a few years
ago and now those chips are in lots of application specific
systems. Most Taiwanese, Korean, etc. brands now use them as
designed from their Chinese partners. There are no other IP
camera systems out there now.
'American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for
spying - and not without reason."
American lawmakers are
compromised by the Israeli government & the military security
state.
It's the US that wants a back door to China's 5G. China pays
with smears but it won't matter.
China has 5G and the US doesn't.
ChiComs do not believe in Profit but they do believe in
accepting billions of dollars from foolish global investors
trying to "get in on the ground floor on a fantastic Asian
investment opportunity!!" Suckers are going to lose their shirts as a result of
their ChiCom lending. Good.
In the immortal words of little Georgie Jr, 'bring it on'...
right? Isn't this Trumpy's role in his puppet masters script of
global chaos, regime change? to 'out their OWO and introduce us
to their NWO before Mother Nature arrives?
Isn't it best if the
puppets don't see those strings jerking them around stage? Isn't
this why the saying exists here in 'purgatory', no pain, no gain?
Isn't this how we learn, the hard way? We are witnessing the rug
being pulled on the OWO... enjoy the show.
It has become a cliché to quote William Butler Yeats’s poem “The
Second Coming,” written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better: “Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, /
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”
Donald Trump's decision to raise duties on Chinese goods from ten to 25 percent of additional $200 billion of China exports
came into force. It is unclear how this will work and how much the US consumers will pay. Probably half of this raise
so from 5% to 10% which might be not very noticeable outside such items as shoes and clothing. The cost of Chinese's shoes already
is quite high -- plastic regular $60-30 with discounts on holiday. Leather -- $100-$50 and almost no discounts.
Trump uses his favorite "bully in the schoolyard" style, a typical the American foreign policy tactic to direct, lawless
pressure. First, they accuse partners of violations, to introduce restrictions on this basis (and at the same time to plunge world
markets into panic), and then to agree on the resumption of negotiations. But the previous decisions about tariffs were left, of
course, in force.
His gambit to conclude a deal with North Korea collapsed in failure in Hanoi in February, and
it is a huge blow to his self-styled image of a master dealmaker. Trump also faces a flurry
of congressional subpoenas at home from Democrats who now control the House of
Representatives. Hence with mounting legal and political troubles, Trump is cornered and
desperately needs a conclusion to the prolonged trade war with China, which has netted zero
benefits for him.
The prospect of a trade deal with China remains as elusive as ever, despite Trump's
increased tariffs to pressure China to come to the negotiating table with the list of
concession that he wants. It is highly unlikely that China will grant Trump the concessions
he wants. China remembers clearly the deal that Tokyo concluded with Washington in the 1990s
that caused Japan to slip into economic stagnation for many years. That period has now been
dubbed Japan's "lost decade."
China is not dumb and it will not concede to Trump.
Worse still, the move to increase tariffs took place while Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He was
in Washington to negotiate with the Trump administration.
It is a blunder by Trump and will be perceived by the Chinese as a cheap shot against
President Xi Jinping. The tariffs hike came despite Xi's
"beautiful letter" to Trump, and it is a massive loss of face for the Chinese leader to
see his group of officials return home from Washington with no deal to conclude the trade
war.
Xi could not afford to look weak in front of his people and he knows that millions of
Chinese netizens access information about the outside world by using virtual private networks
(VPNs) to circumvent the Great Firewall. Many ordinary Chinese know about the trade war's
latest developments and should any deal with Trump infringe on China's core interests, it
will be political suicide for Xi.
One of the main reasons the US-China trade talks broke down was that Washington's demands
were unpalatable to China. Some of the demands from the US, such as an end to government
support for state companies in specific industries and a streamlined approval process for
genetically engineered US crops, are a direct challenge to the Communist Party of China's
control of the economy.
Since Xi took office, he has extended the party's reach into every corner of Chinese
society, and every businessman in China who aspires to reach the top of the hierarchy knows
that they must receive the blessing of the party. It is not surprising that even Jack Ma, who
is one of China's most internationally recognizable figures, has been revealed to be a member
of the CPC after years of denial.
Hence in the face of renewed pressure from Trump, Xi and the Chinese government have
reached the conclusion that it is better to bear the consequences of increased tariffs than
to concede to US demands.
Xi is in for the long haul and can well afford to ride out the storm. And based on Trump's
past negotiations such as his failed bid to pressure House Democrats to fund his wall on the
Mexican border, which led to the longest government shutdown in US history, Xi knows that the
chances are good that Trump will blink first.
Trump uses his regular bulling style, but for him there are no mechanism out or this deadlock. China can't retaliate dollar to dollar but they
can encourage boycott of US goods that are replaceable with Chinese models such as Apple phones
In any cases there will additional unemployment in China and an additional stress on Chinese economy, which probably two
factors the Trump is counted on.
Notable quotes:
"... China should ban Boeing products for its compromise on aviation safety. Hit where it hurts with consumer power. ..."
"... When the 25 percent hits 345 billion dollars of additional untaxed imports Americans will just buy less. After this next round of taxes we will be on the road to bankrupting China and Iran. Europe's turn comes next. ..."
"the Chinese won't do us
the courtesy of saying hey this is because of your detention of madam Meng" actually this is
poorly understood by this professor. it's not a discourtesy, it is the opposite. it is a
courtesy to give Canada an opportunity to save face. that is, Canada frees madam Meng and can
claim they did so for OTHER reasons than bowing to Chinese pressure. It is a face-saving
measure for Canada's benefit. Come on, more cultural understanding is needed.
Western fools have learned one lesson : the CHINESE are NOT SOFT or like the JAPANESE in
the 80's.
The CHINESE have their mightiest WILL to stand against the demonic tyranny of the
US - the whole world know US is descending as US itself is struggling like one mad dog for
its prestigious status of world domination - refusing to acknowledge the country the nation
"in the last days of Rome".
When the 25 percent hits 345 billion dollars of additional untaxed imports Americans will
just buy less. After this next round of taxes we will be on the road to bankrupting China and
Iran. Europe's turn comes next.
"... "The most important thing is that in the China-US trade war, the US side fights for greed and arrogance ... and morale will break at any point. The Chinese side is fighting back to protect its legitimate interests," the nationalist, state-owned Global Times tabloid wrote . ..."
"... The Global Times also accused the Trump administration of misleading Americans about the victims of US tariffs. It singled out Larry Kudlow's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which Trump's top economic advisor said that US consumers would also suffer from the trade war, contradicting Trump's claim that China would foot the bill. ..."
"... More than just a retaliation to "unprovoked" US aggression, China now sees its response as a crusade against the western style of life. During a prime time broadcast on Monday, CNN reported that the state broadcaster CCTV also aired a statement saying that China would " fight for a new world." ..."
"... The editorial also hinted that more retaliations are coming, saying that "China has plenty of countermeasures" and telling its readers that "the US tariff moves are very much like spraying bullets. They will cause a lot of self-inflicted harm and are hard to sustain in the long term. China, on the other hand, is going to aim with precision, trying to avoid hurting itself." ..."
"... The conclusion: "the Chinese side is obviously more realistic while the US is falsifying. This will, to a large extent, influence how the two countries digest the trade war impacts." ..."
China Calls For "People's War" Against The US, Vows To "Fight For A New World"
by
Tyler Durden
Tue, 05/14/2019 - 15:50
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print
While market mood has shifted diametrically from yesterday, with stocks sharply higher on Tuesday following what has
widely been interpreted as conciliatory comments from both president Trump and various members of China's ruling elite,
one would be hard pressed to find any de-escalation amid the Chinese press commentaries written in the aftermath of the
latest escalation in trade war between the US and China.
In a series of editorials and op-ed articles published Monday
and Tuesday, Chinese state media slammed what it labeled the Trump administration's "
greed and arrogance
",
called for a "
people's war
" targeting the US "
with precision
" as China begins a "
fight
for a new world
."
"The most important thing is that in the China-US trade war, the US side fights for greed and arrogance ... and
morale will break at any point. The Chinese side is fighting back to protect its legitimate interests," the nationalist,
state-owned Global Times
tabloid wrote
.
Urging indirect boycott of US goods and services, the editorial slammed Trump and suggested a nation-wide uprising
against the US aggression: "The trade war in the US is the creation of one person and one administration, but it affects
that country's entire population.
In China, the entire country and all its people are being threatened. For us,
this is a real 'people's war.'"
Whether this means a renewed collapse in Chinese iPhone sales remains to be
seen - for confirmation, watch for a new guidance cut from Apple in the coming days.
The
Global Times
also accused the Trump administration
of misleading Americans about the victims of US tariffs. It singled out Larry Kudlow's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in
which Trump's top economic advisor said that US consumers would also suffer from the trade war, contradicting Trump's
claim that China would foot the bill.
More than just a retaliation to "unprovoked" US aggression, China now sees its response as a crusade against the
western style of life. During a prime time broadcast on Monday, CNN reported that the state broadcaster CCTV also aired
a statement saying that China would "
fight for a new world."
"As President Xi Jinping pointed out, the Chinese economy is a sea, not a small pond," anchor Kang Hui said on his 7
p.m. news show. "A rainstorm can destroy a small pond, but it cannot harm the sea. After numerous storms, the sea is
still there." Hui concluded echoing a popular refrain, that "China doesn't want to fight, but it is not afraid to
fight."
The Global Times also mocked Trump's suggestion that the tariff hike would "force companies to leave China", stating
that "the consumption capabilities and market consumption potential driven by demand are what foreign companies value
most when they come to China." As a result,
"the White House might as well try to call on American companies such as General Motors, Ford,
Apple, McDonald's and Coca-Cola to leave China. Will any of them follow?
"
The editorial also hinted that more retaliations are coming, saying that "China has plenty of countermeasures" and
telling its readers that "the US tariff moves are very much like spraying bullets. They will cause a lot of
self-inflicted harm and are hard to sustain in the long term. China, on the other hand, is going to aim with precision,
trying to avoid hurting itself."
In an amusing twist, China then accused Trump of spinning and "seeking to beautify the trade war", while
Beijing has been "blunt about the difficulties and losses that the trade war will bring to the Chinese economy."
The conclusion: "the Chinese side is obviously more realistic while the US is falsifying. This will, to a large
extent, influence how the two countries digest the trade war impacts."
Whatever side of the ideological divide one finds themselves, this is hardly the rhetorica that will allow China to
reach a quick and painless compromise.
Right or wrong, the Chinese will fight as one for China. As well,
they have allies and resources, but the main thing is they are
homogenous and patriotic.
America is controlled from Jerusalem,
who will exit at the first sign of the gravy-train slowing, not to
mention *****-hat American snowflakes, a treacherous media and
politics. Etc.
Beware, Americans, about what you are getting into. You have
turned trade negotiations into a war and you will not win this
long-term. Just like all the others.
The Giant has awoken. Good job Trump. I guess it was all fake
news when you were telling us gullible Americans we were
winning. Any other wars you would like to start? Oh yea, Iran
and perhaps Venezuela first. Must stick with the
Israel
First
agenda.
The real issue is intellectual property. If the Chinese can't
steal our IP, they got nothing and they know it. Also we should
send home all their undergrad and graduate students. Let them
learn all this sh## on their own.
China is calling for a war, they've been engaged in for decades
via their technology, patent, forced technology transfers, and
copyright theft. And we should probably include their
subsidies of politically connected firms exporting products,
but at least in that case, the Chinese taxpayers are paying for
the subsidies.
If China wants a 'new world', they need to put on their big boy
pants and DEDOLLARIZE. You can't beat an opponent when you play by
the opponent's rigged rules!
The USA can't abolish neoliberalism. And the logic of neoliberalism is to use low cost labor oversees. Which means china.
Notable quotes:
"... If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the U.S. is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans, might be the president's true objective. ..."
Trump is doubling down. He's
raising
tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent, and imposing new tariffs on almost all of the
remaining $325 billion or so. China today said it would retaliate and starting next month would impose tariffs on $60 billion of
U.S. goods. This is the biggest trade war in modern American history.
... ... ...
If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the U.S.
is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical
primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans, might be the president's true objective.
Unusually shallow take from Noah. The real reason for the trade war is China's subsidizing SOEs. They subsidize them until
the SOEs outcompete all other manufacturers so much that competition dies, and then take over the market. See Moly Corp and rare
earths as an example.
Such dumping is pretty easy to catch, and pretty easy to stop. Perhaps a more focused but more severe tariff structure on things
like steel, tires etc would make more sense as an enforcement mechanism.
Note that the Chinese are willing to give lip service to things that they supposedly agree to, but cannot actually put the
mechanisms in place without "losing face". Gimme a break. If Xi hadn't crowed about China's intent for dominance by means of mercantilism,
we would still be bending over. Now the only face being lost is his.
The Chinese will never give up their use of administrative barriers to impede trade internally. But at least they could have
said they would. But they couldn't even do that. So again, tariffs are about the only thing they will listen to.
The flaw there is that the SOEs may generate a lot of employment in China, but they don't actually generate as much economic
growth. And the govt knows this. The support for the SOEs isn't about giving them market share, but to keep them from collapsing
precipitously, with all the resulting unemployment. It's China's version of the auto bailout, just on an extended basis. They
make up only 25% of China's economy today, down from 50% in 2000.
If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the
U.S. is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical
primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans, might be the president's true objective.
Are we living on the same planet? Coherent, long-term strategic thinking and geopolitical calculus are about as foreign to
Trump as marital fidelity.
Except the Chinese have fewer cards to play. They are in the mother of all bubbles that they desperately want to deflate with
a soft landing. And they were well on their way to doing it. Until Xi crowed about it, and basically rubbed the world's nose in
his ass with the SCS and OBOR, on top of the trade issues.
That soft landing is now in serious jeopardy. And we all will pay, so I take no satisfaction from China's troubles, now and
imminent. But don't blame trump for it happening. It was all those thousand vauted people whose hubris you worship.
Whatever China's economic problems are, and why wouldn't a country with such enviable rapid growth into the (soon to be) world's
largest economy with the worlds' most internet connected population, have some problems, but they at least seem to study and plan
for their future in an intelligent and rational way.
I don't blame Trump for being a pathological liar and a narcissist, but the spineless Republican Party and "conservatives"
who have done nothing to thwart his idiotic behavior. The Chinese have a word for those without a backbone, it translates as "folding
chair". My sources tell me a different story about Public Opinion in China.. fwit.. No, they've seen this Trump in action long
enough to know he's unreliable as a trading pardner and unbelievable as a leader... He'll fold and the OBOR will proceed more
or less as envisioned... Too bad America (trump) has "poisoned" many allies in Asia.
The sky is falling and it's all Donald Trumps fault!
The problem is not tariffs or Donald Trump (specifically with China)
The problems are state sanctioned intellectual property theft and cheating on international trade agreements by the Chinese dictatorship.
Producers can shift their supply chains away from China to countries that do not view/treat the USA as an adversary and those
products will not have tariffs on them. Problem solved. A few years of extra prices from supply-chain resourcing is a very small
price to pay to address a dictatorship that seeks to undermine democratic values and human rights.
If you are looking for cheap labor, the labor you find will be unskilled and without technical resources. It means they must
be brought up to today's standards, technically, with your IP. It is the US CEO's that gave away the farm, looking for cheap labor.
Apple taught them how to make iPhones, guess what happened? Regardless where they go, US CEO's must give up IP for technical competence.
This time the United States has all the cards. We buy $500 billion per year from them. They only buy $100 billion a year from
us. We have 5x leverage. All we have to do is play the hand according to economic game theory.
If our long run goal is to have a larger economy (and with it all the benefits of being the largest economy, including military
security by being able to afford capital ships and planes), we must stop paying China $400 billion extra more than they take from
us.
If China wants to trade, its trade -- $500 billion for $500 billion. If they simply want to use our consumers to build more
factory capital we should not allow it. And because of the asymmetry in the balance of trade, we hold all the cards.
This is Trump's hand to lose by caving in. The optimal move in this game is to raise tariffs and hold until China increases
its purchases.
(And -- tariffs might actually raise S&P 500 earnings long run as additional manufacturing is diverted to old and new U.S.
factories -- no one knows and the prognosticator "economists" here have as much empirical evidence as the Austrian School, i.e.
they really have no idea other than how they think tariffs ought to cause a recession.)
There were much better ways to do this. Trump only knows his unilateral tariff way. But it is an improvement over "lead from
behind" Obama, who did nothing.
The West normalizing relations with China is apt to go down as the biggest blunder in all of human history. China needs to
be isolated and cut off at the knees.
Chinese trade policies have always been predatory to the US across Republican and Democrat administrations since Reagan was
President. The cost of labor in China is cheap at about $4/hour. Add to that there are few environmental or OSHA-like standards
and the pollution is so obvious that at the 2008 Beijing Olympics industry was shut down so that the smog might clear. No US manufacturer
without tariff protection can compete with that for unskilled labor. That is a fact. If the US wants to keep some semblance of
manufacturing in this country, then tariffs are necessary. And that goes for the countries in the New Nafta and the proposed TPP.
The hypocrisy on tariffs is maddening because California's agricultural and Maine and Massachusetts' shoe industry for just a
few examples survive only because of the tariffs. Getting tough with China is long overdue, and the political outrage over trying
to protect US interests is just Trump Derangement from educated people who should know better.
Buying "made in China" was far too easy, although quality usually suffered (and sometimes dangerously so). Tariffs will force
our purchasing agents to look around for better deals...Not a bad idea.
We need to stop allowing Chinese Nationals into our STEM programs!
Look at any graduate program at a top US University's comp sci program, physics, math or any engineering department and you
will see that it is heavily filled -- if not dominated -- by Chinese Nationals.
China has a well organized program to send students to IS STEM programs and US jobs at tech firms and steal the technology.
I mean...same plan forever?
That plan is to soak the middle class to make life better for the working class. The theory is mfg will return to the US, because
we'll have 9-billion percent tariffs on all imports.
The net middle-class life goes downhill, the net working-class life goes up.
then next software and robots will be outlawed.
Washington & Wall Street want to stay top dog as long as possible. If that means most Americans are poorer than they might
be, their attitude is, too bad for them. The power base only looks out for itself. That isn't too surprising, since most people
are selfish.
The rise of China would be no big deal if it wasn't a totalitarian state. That makes it extremely dangerous, depending on the
wishes of the man at the top. Fortunately, the US is protected from invasion by large oceans, and democratic neighbors with close
trade and cultural ties. And then there are all the nukes. No sane person would risk using them first.
Mr. Smith writes about the 'why' of trumpy's trade war:
"It's also possible, of course, that the trade war is a purely populist endeavor, and that maintaining tariffs is simply
a way for Trump to look tough. "
Reality TV show for trumpy... that will hurt millions of Americans... and trumpy and his cronies will never feel it. Just like
his business partners that he cheated.
You hit the nail right on the head! Good report. Pres Trump main goal is to cripple and contain the rise of China. The trade
war is his strategy. As to whether it will succeed or not, only time will tell....The rest of the reasons are just "red herrings"
and surprisingly, most Americans felled for it hook line and sinker. But the rest of the world knows all along because US is a
hegemonic nation and there are abundant examples of countries that were destroyed by the US for challenging her dominance all
over the world. That's why US keep changing the "goal post" from trade deficits to stealing of intellectual property and force
technology transfers and now state subsidies. Just as China agrees to US demands, the latter now up the ante and is now insisting
that China has to change her laws so that the US can enforce them. Very soon it will be regime change. It will be interesting
to see what happen next because to me war is never easy to win. Both sides will suffer and so will the rest of the world. To even
think that the US economy is immune to it because it is strong and the numbers are good and it will be able withstand the perfect
storm is hubris. Maybe Pres Trump and his neocons can prove history and the Smoot Haley Tariff Act wrong...?
If you know anything about Narcissists, this is most likely Trumps way of getting you to focus on something other than his
deplorable Mueller report, his son DonJr, his huge losses as a business man and his impending Tax returns exposed.
After vowing over the weekend to "never surrender to external pressure",
Beijing has defied President Trump's demands that it not resort to retaliatory tariffs and announced plans to slap new levies
on $60 billion in US goods.
CHINA SAYS TO RAISE TARIFFS ON SOME U.S. GOODS FROM JUNE 1
CHINA SAYS TO RAISE TARIFFS ON $60B OF U.S. GOODS
CHINA SAYS TO RAISE TARIFFS ON 2493 U.S. GOODS TO 25%
CHINA MAY STOP PURCHASING US AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS:GLOBAL TIMES
CHINA MAY REDUCE BOEING ORDERS: GLOBAL TIMES
CHINA ADDITIONAL TARIFFS DO NOT INCLUDE U.S. CRUDE OIL
CHINA RAISES TARIFF ON U.S. LNG TO 25% EFFECTIVE JUNE 1
CHINA TO RAISE TARIFFS ON IMPORTS OF U.S. RARE EARTHS TO 25%
China's announcement comes after the White House raised tariffs on some $200 billion in Chinese goods to 25% from 10% on Friday
(however, the new rates will only apply to goods leaving Chinese ports on or after the date where the new tariffs took effect).
Here's a breakdown of how China will impose tariffs on 2,493 US goods. The new rates will take effect at the beginning of next
month.
2,493 items to be subjected to 25% tariffs.
1,078 items to be subject to 20% of tariffs
974 items subject to 10% of tariffs
595 items continue to be levied at 5% tariffs
In further bad news for American farmers, China might stop purchasing agricultural products from the US, reduce its orders for
Boeing planes and restrict service trade.
There has also been talk that the PBOC could start dumping Treasurys (which would, in addition to pushing US rates higher, could
also have the effect of strengthening the yuan). Though if China is going to dump Treasuries, will they also be dumping US stocks
and real estate?
China may stop purchasing US agricultural products and energy, reduce Boeing orders and restrict US service trade with China.
Many Chinese scholars are discussing the possibility of dumping US Treasuries and how to do it specifically.
"... Americans have made this clear twice: in the election of Donald J. Trump and in the equally unexpected rise of Ross Perot, an unprecedentedly successful Third Party candidate in the Nineties who rocketed to prominence by boldly condemning "the giant sucking sound of jobs going across the border to Mexico." ..."
"... Maybe, Perot would have done the same thing as Trump if he had made it to the White House. But people like Ann Coulter are popular because -- like Perot -- they articulate in no uncertain terms crucial, popular points that most politicians are just too cowering to even address verbally, much less redressing voters' grievances with any real action. ..."
Americans probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own
history. With little education in our system of constitutional governance in formerly
politically apathetic -- now Woke -- public schools bereft of civics classes, the lack of
historical grounding is not surprising.
One thing Americans do understand, though, is the need to stop the mass flow of
welfare-assisted immigration, curbing the illegal kind entirely and reducing the legal kind
significantly. Americans have made this clear twice: in the election of Donald J. Trump
and in the equally unexpected rise of Ross Perot, an unprecedentedly successful Third
Party candidate in the Nineties who rocketed to prominence by boldly condemning "the giant
sucking sound of jobs going across the border to Mexico."
It just does not matter what Americans want in our rigged system. Whatever we vote for,
mostly for economic reasons but also a few other good reasons, Neoliberal economic Elites
ignore it, pursuing their own economic interests once in office.
Maybe, Perot would have done the same thing as Trump if he had made it to the White
House. But people like Ann Coulter are popular because -- like Perot -- they articulate in no
uncertain terms crucial, popular points that most politicians are just too cowering to even
address verbally, much less redressing voters' grievances with any real action.
On the campaign trail, Trump cleverly sidestepped the issue of immigration with mocking
comedy that could be conveniently repackaged in case of any victory. It was just a matter of
interpretation: whether you heard more Build The Wall or more Big Beautiful Door in the wall
in Trump's thunderous speeches. Trump's voters heard Build The Wall, and many did not show up
to vote for Republicans in the midterms, whereas the Cheap Labor Lobby & the corporate
donor class heard Big Beautiful Door.
"It's not China that pays tariffs. It's the American importers, the American companies that pay what in effect is a tax increase
and oftentimes passes it on to U.S. consumers," Wallace said.
As we
noted earlier , on Saturday, President Donald Trump said in tweets that it would be wise for China to "act now" to finish a trade
deal with the U.S., warning that "far worse" terms would be offered after what he predicted would be his certain re-election in 2020.
* * *
And so, as attention turns to China's "countermeasures", Bloomberg notes that while the Communist Party hasn't yet announced what
steps it would take, "the commentaries are probably the first part of its response, since state media in China is tightly controlled
and the government dictates what can be covered."
"If they weren't being seriously provoked, the Chinese people would not favor any trade war. However, once the country is strategically
coerced, nothing is unbearable for China in order to safeguard its sovereignty and dignity," the Global Times said in the editorial.
If the U.S. is to play a roller-coaster-style thriller game, it will bear the consequences."
In an earlier editorial, the Global Times said the U.S. has made a fundamental misjudgment, that is, believing China is unilaterally
benefiting from China-U.S. economic and trade relations."
"The U.S. has misunderstood the interests of both sides, and seriously underestimated China's endurance," the Global Times warned.
So to summarize the current state of the talks that on Friday were described as "constructive" helping send the Dow soaring by
over 500 points intraday, here is a
quick recap courtesy
of Mish Shedlock :
Trump demands China put commitments into law.
China replied that "no one should expect China to swallow bitter fruit that harms its core interests".
Trump ordered Lighthizer to begin the process of imposing tariffs on all remaining imports from China This would impact an
additional $300 billion worth of goods.
China said it would retaliate.
On Saturday, Trump warned China not to retaliate or it would face worse terms. Trump Tweeted "Love collecting BIG TARIFFS!"
Kudlow said on Sunday he expected retaliatory tariffs to kick in but that it had not happened yet.
China warned Trump on Sunday not to underestimate China's endurance and that China is not afraid to fight.
China posted its own set of demands for further talks including the removal of all extra tariffs.
As Mish concludes, "This dialog is what's known as "constructive". It's so constructive that further talks between Trump and have
been pushed back until the end of June, subject to change of course."
Meanwhile, as the market's hope for quick resolution fades, keep an eye on Apple and other Chinese consumer-reliant companies,
for the market's snap reaction - if Beijing plans to engage in "soft retaliation", it is those corporations that derive much of their
revenue from China that will be hit first and hardest. And if there is indeed a shift in sentiment, it will first appear in US equity
futures and Chinese stocks, both of which open for trading in just a few hours.
The idea behind imposing tariffs is to discourage buying, but 10-25% doesn't really make an impact on that front. It only proves
that the gubbermint wants to squeeze more out of the little people. Unfortunately, it will backfire (if not already) as shortsighted
policies (especially ones that are carried out over Twitter) usually do.
The verdict is not in on that yet. A corporation like Cummins can pay the tariff and deduct it as a business expense same with
a importer that is a corporation. LCC now have been destroyed by RINOTAX so they must pass that on to consumers or change to corporations.
Bottom line the consumer and or Taxpayer will eat the Tariffs.
Large multinationals are livid at Trump for this. The GOP is comatose, It has the feeling of a George Bush Subprime moment.
The GOP is going to take a big hit for this. Trump is mentally ill and out of control. Congress will have to rescind the section
232 delegation and remove that power from Trump.
The us trades with 102 nations and China has factories and banks in virtually all Asian countries. So there is a logistical
fix for this too. And as I have said before HONG KONG has its own treaty with the USA so it is immune to Trump Tariffs. All tariffs
are based on shipping origins and destinations so that's a pretty easy fix. Attacking 1 country out of 102, just makes the other
101 countries nervous about the arbitrary and capricious conduct of Trump.
China as you yourself stated is a heavyweight not some small outfit that can be pushed around by Trump. China is the largest
manufacturer in the world. 1000 metric tons of steel etc. Trump is harming US multinationals in China so Trump's days are numbered.
Corporations will be hamming republicans tomorrow. Trump is not smart, he's mentally ill and very sick. He had a breakdown when
he closed the gov and this is similar in that his mental illness responses are the same paranoia. The threats are similar etc.
Same disease different circumstance. And China knows this. They put the hammer down with their three demands. They will not budge.
China gets a bad rap because they were once very poor. But Gen MacArthur said that if the Chinese Army had not held off the
Japanese and fought to the death, the US Marines could not have taken the Japanese islands.
One other point. Part of the Asian culture is restraint. If China wanted to bust TRUMP hard they would cancel all Boeing Aircraft
orders. Mao would have done that. China is now very focused on business and trade and will only retaliate in small measured ways.
America's character went to **** in Vietnam. Then Bush family war criminals got into power. The only thing good about Obama
was he distanced America from the Jooz. But along came Trump and his joo daughter and son of a crook in law Kushner and then Trump
was antagonizing Iran, Jerusalem with the US embassy and put a US military base in Israel. So Trump is Bibi's houseboy. Then to
enforce this Trump appoints bolton, pompeo and Abrams, arms Saudi and signs on for year 17 in Afghanistan. Yet all this is just
fine with the TRUMPTARDS as long as they can chant built the wall. Absolutely astonishing how this Orange Tyrant is never held
accountable by his Trumptards.
Trump sounds terrified. His 60 tweets a day are indicative of someone suffering from fear. I have seen this in battle and thats
why everyone else gets clear of the yapper. His number is up.
I wonder if the Chinese media will show all the factories owned by the communist party cadres chugging along with free money
from the government, while millions of workers in privately owned factories are losing their jobs. All Trump wanted was for these
government run industries to go private, but the communist party needs to give jobs to friends and relatives. Because if you're
not a friend or relative of the communist party, you don't really matter in China.
what about the factories of Lockheed martin, Boeing, rayteon, churning along along with free money from the US government,
while millions of workers in privately owned companeis such as SEARs, Toys R US are losing their jobs?
Correction, Trump wants China to open up their markets to western exploitation which is not happening. If you understand history
about China it is mired in exploitation from European powers in the region. I don't blame China for its protectionism and their
ambitions to become an independent country.
The Orange Swine cut taxes for big corporations and multi millionaires and now lets middle class consumers pay the trade war
with China. And then orders the Fed to cut rates by 1% to destroy the Dollar. What's next? Value added tax anyone?
North American includes the USA and Canada. China exports 438 Billion and imports 180 billion from North America.
So if you look at it intelligently, US Tariffs have very little leverage but do harm the US supply chain enormously. When China
applies retaliatory tariffs to the US and Canada, they can hurt you badly. The US farmer is the prime example.
But the most important thing to look at is not your silly protectionism but the size of the ASIAN markets. China has been consolidating
all of Asia. They have companies and banks in all of those countries and their Asia Trade alone is over 2 trillion annually. Trump
screams about applying tariffs to 380 Billion in goods with no comprehension of how much he loses in access to Asia.
So as Bill O'Neil said, the only thing that matters for the next 100 years is the Asian Consumer. Nothing else matters. Asian
growth is exploding.
The chief export of the USA is aircraft 130 Billion a year. That will change drastically with Boeing. China is building its
own narrow body aircraft. Russia is also getting into the narrowbody aircraft space. The US doesn't want to be cultivating enemies
in Asia.
Many go directly to Washington coffers. But maney will be taken mostly from the US consumers
of Chinese goods. Also it is unclear what sanctions China will introduce in return, if any.
Notable quotes:
"... But the prolonged trade war — and Friday’s tariff hike — serves as ammunition for hawks on both sides, who see a more confrontational struggle for global dominance unfolding. ..."
"... In China, there is a growing belief that the U.S. motive in the talks is not to balance trade relations, but to undermine China, slow its rise and hamper its ability to best America in strategic high-tech fields. ..."
"... Hu Xijin , editor of the Communist Party-owned Global Times , has tweeted in English that China was “fully prepared for an escalated trade war.” He argued there is increased popular support in Beijing for a confrontational approach to the U.S. ..."
"... “The real intention of the U.S. is to squeeze China’s space in new technologies,” the editorial said. ..."
"... “Things will continue to slide downward into deeper competitive tensions,” Gill predicted, “including on the economic front because trade is not the problem. The deeper problem … is the question of economic and technological competition. ..."
"... Chinese President “Xi Jinping is not a forgiving man, so I think we can see that Xi Jinping will take a more robust stance against the U.S. if and when he feels that the Chinese government is able to do so successfully,” Tsang said. ..."
"... The United States faces a possibility that in decades, China could overtake it as the world’s largest economy. China’s economy is already ranked No. 1 in terms of purchasing parity power, a measure that adjusts GDP to account for price differences in countries. ..."
Even if the two sides can break through the stalemate and strike a deal on trade, the larger
message of the week is that U.S.-China relations have changed fundamentally, and there is
probably no going back.
Although their business relations are deeply entwined, the White House and China view
themselves as aggressive rivals jostling for global influence and geopolitical power.
The trade war launched by Trump is just one manifestation of this. Military friction in the
South China Sea, a string of espionage scandals, China’s rising military strength and the
Trump administration’s battle against Chinese tech giant Huawei are all signs of an
ominous chill in relations.
Although a trade deal seemed at hand in recent weeks, Trump administration officials have
accused China of reneging on agreements that had been made over months of negotiations. To
pressure Beijing to return to its previous commitments, Washington ratcheted up tariffs on $200
billion in products from China from 10% to 25%. China announced immediately that it would
retaliate.
Some experts said last-minute revisions from China are typical of its negotiating strategy,
as with Trump’s mercurial bargaining style.
If trade negotiators do not reach a deal in coming weeks, the U.S., Chinese and global
economies will be hurt, say analysts, who assume both sides will find a way to end the
impasse.
“My baseline scenario is that both leaders still need a deal for political reasons,
so we are likely to get one in the next few weeks, but it won't be this week,” said
Arthur Kroeber of Gavekal Dragonomics , a
financial research firm headquartered in Hong Kong. “The maneuvering right now is
mainly end-of-negotiation stuff. But both sides are playing brinkmanship pretty hard so there
is material risk (say 20 to 25%) that we don’t get a deal.”
But the prolonged trade war — and Friday’s tariff hike — serves as
ammunition for hawks on both sides, who see a more confrontational struggle for global
dominance unfolding.
In China, there is a growing belief that the U.S. motive in the talks is not to balance
trade relations, but to undermine China, slow its rise and hamper its ability to best America
in strategic high-tech fields.
Tariffs already have prompted some U.S. firms in China to shift their supply chains
elsewhere. China hawks in the Trump administration believe that applying heavy taxes on imports
can be one way to “decouple” from China.
U.S. legal charges against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, and Secretary of State Michael R.
Pompeo’s blunt efforts to dissuade European nations from using Huawei in 5G telecom
networks by threatening not to share intelligence, have hardened suspicions in China, as have
harsh criticisms and rhetoric from other senior officials in the Trump administration.
“None of the news of the past year or two has been very positive in terms of the
geopolitical direction of this relationship. It’s gone from tense to worse, and while the
trade relationship seems to get a lot of the headlines, a lot more problematic, even dangerous
elements are unfolding in other areas of the relationship particularly around security and
military affairs,” said Bates
Gill, China expert and professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.
“A so-called resolution of the current trade war is not going to remove or resolve the
fundamental structural problems in the economic relationship,” he said.
U.S. business has long favored engagement with China, arguing that external pressure from
the United States and others has pushed China to open its economy. More recently, however, that
assumption has been called into question by many in the West, giving Trump more political space
to go after China on trade and other areas.
Still, Jacob Parker , vice
president of China Operations at the U.S.-China Business Council , warned that if the Trump
administration confronts China too aggressively, it could backfire. He said that instead of
persuading China to open up more to American companies and ending its insistence that they
share their technology in return for market access, aggressive new tariffs could have the
opposite effect.
Parker also warned that Friday’s tariff hike on $200 billion of Chinese imports
— and Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on an additional $325 billion in Chinese
goods in the near future — has undermined economic reformers in the Chinese system and
strengthened the voices of hard-liners.
“That hardens those voices domestically and reinforces the perspective that the U.S.
is trying to contain China,” he said. “If we push the Chinese too far, I think
there’s a concern in the business community that we may go beyond what China can accept
and that things could start to fall apart. If that happens, I think we can at the least expect
that the Chinese economic reform process would come to an end.”
And in Washington, the lack of a deal would result in “increased tensions between the
national security wing of the U.S. administration, who will be happy with this result, and the
business-tech community, who are anxious to expand their participation in China and will be
pretty mad,” said Kroeber, of the Hong Kong financial research firm.
Stephen K. Bannon , former
chief strategist to Trump, is among a group of hawks who formed the Committee on the Present
Danger: China, an organization that sees its role as warning
Americans and political and business leaders of the “existential threats” to
America posed by China.
Meanwhile, Hu Xijin ,
editor of the Communist Party-owned Global
Times , has tweeted in English that China was “fully prepared for an escalated trade
war.” He argued there is increased popular support in Beijing for a confrontational
approach to the U.S.
“More and more Chinese now tend to believe the current US government is obsessed
with comprehensively containing China,” he tweeted Thursday.
A Global Times editorial Thursday said trade was “only a sideshow” in the
confrontation between the U.S. and China and the real issue was the U.S. fear that China would
catch up to it in high-tech fields.
“The real intention of the U.S. is to squeeze China’s space in new
technologies,” the editorial said.
Many analysts, including Australian professor Gill, share the view that relations are in
long-term decline.
“Things will continue to slide downward into deeper competitive tensions,”
Gill predicted, “including on the economic front because trade is not the problem. The
deeper problem … is the question of economic and technological competition.
“Ultimately at the bottom of all of this, the problem abides that the two countries
don’t trust each other and see each other as long-term strategic competitors.”
Steve Tsang ,
director of the SOAS China Institute
at the University of London, said regardless of who is president, the U.S. and China will
become increasingly competitive in the next two decades.
Chinese President “Xi Jinping is not a forgiving man, so I think we can see that
Xi Jinping will take a more robust stance against the U.S. if and when he feels that the
Chinese government is able to do so successfully,” Tsang said.
As relations decline, both Washington and Beijing are likely to compete to draw countries
into their orbit, he predicted.
He said European countries and the U.K. would drift toward the U.S. “because
ultimately this is what we believe in more. You will have a whole bunch of other countries that
will drift towards the Chinese because they remain fundamentally authoritarian
states.”
China’s global Belt and Road Initiative — in which it projects its international
power through soft loans for infrastructure — would also draw some nations to China, he
added.
Underscoring frictions are U.S. fears that China may overtake it in a range of high-tech
fields including space exploration, artificial intelligence, surveillance technology,
driverless cars and even military hardware.
Huawei’s emergence as the global leader in 5G technology — with no American
rival — was a shock to U.S. policymakers.
Parker, of the U.S.-China Business Council, said that although the U.S. and China face a
challenging security relationship, it is important to ensure that trade is not affected.
“I think there’s definitely a competitive dynamic between the U.S. and China,
and that will continue into the future. The twist is to ensure that the national security
issues don’t get entwined with the businesses’ side.”
The United States faces a possibility that in decades, China could overtake it as the
world’s largest economy. China’s economy is already ranked No. 1 in terms of
purchasing parity power, a measure that adjusts GDP to account for price differences in
countries.
“It would be a major milestone. It would send a lot of shock waves and shivers
certainly in the United States and much of the rest of the world and I think would be seen as a
major turning point, not unlike the United States overtaking the United Kingdom as the
world’s largest economy back in the late 19th century,” Gill said. “It would
certainly be the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.”
Trump's misguided tariff/trade war policies are straight out of the 19th century. They are
tearing apart relations with our allies and playing straight into Putin's hands. They will
cost U.S. consumers and businesses billions in tariff fees and higher prices on goods. They
are squeezing American farmers to the breaking point. Nobody wins a trade war.
Trump bravado is probably unwarranted. Here the train already left the station: the USA can do a damage to Chine economy only
by talking considerable damage to the empire and probably to the status of the dollar as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Commenting on this list, the Editor in Chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, who has become a real-time translator for Chinese unspoken intentions on twitter, explained that "from perspective of China's politics, there is little room for compromises. They will insist. This political logic won't be changed no matter how much additional tariffs the US will impose." ..."
"... Trump responded immediately on Twitter when he made it clear on Saturday that the US would not relent, stating that the Chinese may have felt they were "being beaten so badly" in the recent talks that it was better to drag their feet in hopes he would lose the 2020 election and get a better deal from the Democrats. Trump then said that "the only problem is that they know I am going to win (best economy & employment numbers in U.S. history, & much more), and the deal will become far worse for them if it has to be negotiated in my second term. Would be wise for them to act now, but love collecting BIG TARIFFS!" ..."
Following some soothing words from both the US and Chinese sides on Friday that while talks
to avert a tariff hikes had failed, they were "constructive" and there was grounds for
"cautious optimism" for the future, the standoff between the U.S. and China abruptly escalated
over the weekend when China's vice premier Liu He said that China is planning how to retaliate
and listed three core concerns that must be addressed, and on which it wouldn't make
concessions, ahead of any deal including:
i) the complete removal of all trade-war related tariffs,
ii) set targets for Chinese purchases of goods in line with real demand and
iii) ensure that the text of the deal is "balanced" to ensure the "dignity" of both
nations.
Commenting on this list, the Editor in Chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, who has become a
real-time translator for Chinese unspoken intentions on twitter, explained that "from
perspective of China's politics, there is little room for compromises. They will insist. This
political logic won't be changed no matter how much additional tariffs the US will impose."
Trump responded immediately on Twitter when he made it clear on Saturday that the US would not relent, stating that the
Chinese may have felt they were "being beaten so badly" in the recent talks that it was better to drag their feet in hopes he
would lose the 2020 election and get a better deal from the Democrats. Trump then said that "the only problem is that they know
I am going to win (best economy & employment numbers in U.S. history, & much more), and the deal will become far worse for them
if it has to be negotiated in my second term. Would be wise for them to act now, but love collecting BIG TARIFFS!"
Trade, however, doesn't represent the only U.S.-China economic activity whose profile has
lowered recently. For example, since 2016, two-way foreign direct investment (purchases of
so-called hard assets, like factories and real estate, as opposed to financial assets, like
government bonds) has cratered by fully 70 percent. Most of the drop is due to an 80 percent
decrease in Chinese investment in the United States, and the bulk of that decline came in 2018.
But American direct investment in China peaked back in 2008, as the recession struck, hasn't
come close to recovering since, and is also down slightly since 2012.
U.S.-China economic flows are still so great that they won't dry up completely. Nor should
anyone expect the current unwinding to continue at its current pace. After all, China still
boasts advantages in many manufacturing industries (which dominate bilateral trade) sure to
sustain sales to American households and businesses. Chief among them are the scale of existing
production complexes in China and the efficiencies that result, along with the wide range of
cost-reducing subsidies these sectors receive from Beijing. Further, China can't expect to find
foreign markets capable of replacing its sales to the United States, and therefore supporting
its own ability to grow and maintain the employment levels vital for political stability. Nor
will American businesses be able to totally blow off the enormous Chinese market and its own
still-impressive growth.
.... ... ...
Nonetheless, the days are over when the United States -- or at least its
political and business leaders -- saw mushrooming commerce with China as an expressway to
greater national prosperity and higher profits, not to mention a powerful contributor to global
well-being, security, and stability, and a means of democratizing China itself. With all these
hopes dashed, Washington and the American business community will find ample reasons to keep
looking for exits.
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on
economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.
I do not necessarily support his course of action...but I feel that sometimes, doing
the unexpected and unconventional thing can lead to new doors and new possibilities.
China's internal debt situation is so precarious that it can ill-afford a trade war
with US. China has a trade surplus of $325 billion with the US. This kind of skewed
number is totally unacceptable. By reneging on the provisional agreements over IP and
other hurdles, China is playing with fire.
I am not a Trump supporter but I think his policy on China is right on the money. No
other US president had the courage to address this issue.
Even if the two sides can break through
the stalemate and strike a deal on trade, the larger message of the week is that U.S.-China
relations have changed fundamentally, and there is probably no going back. Although their
business relations are deeply entwined, the White House and China view themselves as aggressive
rivals jostling for global influence and geopolitical power. The trade war launched by Trump is
just one manifestation of this. Military friction in the South China Sea, a string of espionage
scandals, China's rising military strength and the Trump administration's battle against
Chinese tech giant Huawei are all signs of an ominous chill in relations. Although a trade deal
seemed at hand in recent weeks, Trump administration officials have accused China of reneging
on agreements that had been made over months of negotiations. To pressure Beijing to return to
its previous commitments, Washington ratcheted up tariffs on $200 billion in products from
China from 10% to 25%. China announced immediately that it would retaliate. Some experts said
last-minute revisions from China are typical of its negotiating strategy, as with Trump's
mercurial bargaining style. If trade negotiators do not reach a deal in coming weeks, the U.S.,
Chinese and global economies will be hurt, say analysts, who assume both sides will find a way
to end the impasse. "My baseline scenario is that both leaders still need a deal for political
reasons, so we are likely to get one in the next few weeks, but it won't be this week," said
Arthur Kroeber of Gavekal Dragonomics , a
financial research firm headquartered in Hong Kong. "The maneuvering right now is mainly
end-of-negotiation stuff. But both sides are playing brinkmanship pretty hard so there is
material risk (say 20 to 25%) that we don't get a deal." But the prolonged trade war -- and
Friday's tariff hike -- serves as ammunition for hawks on both sides, who see a more
confrontational struggle for global dominance unfolding. In China, there is a growing belief
that the U.S. motive in the talks is not to balance trade relations, but to undermine China,
slow its rise and hamper its ability to best America in strategic high-tech fields. Tariffs
already have prompted some U.S. firms in China to shift their supply chains elsewhere. China
hawks in the Trump administration believe that applying heavy taxes on imports can be one way
to "decouple" from China. U.S. legal charges against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, and
Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo's blunt efforts to dissuade European nations from using
Huawei in 5G telecom networks by threatening not to share intelligence, have hardened
suspicions in China, as have harsh criticisms and rhetoric from other senior officials in the
Trump administration. "None of the news of the past year or two has been very positive in terms
of the geopolitical direction of this relationship. It's gone from tense to worse, and while
the trade relationship seems to get a lot of the headlines, a lot more problematic, even
dangerous elements are unfolding in other areas of the relationship particularly around
security and military affairs," said Bates Gill, China expert and professor at Macquarie
University in Sydney, Australia. Advertisement "A so-called resolution of the current trade war
is not going to remove or resolve the fundamental structural problems in the economic
relationship," he said. U.S. business has long favored engagement with China, arguing that
external pressure from the United States and others has pushed China to open its economy. More
recently, however, that assumption has been called into question by many in the West, giving
Trump more political space to go after China on trade and other areas. Still, Jacob Parker , vice president of China
Operations at the U.S.-China Business
Council , warned that if the Trump administration confronts China too aggressively, it
could backfire. He said that instead of persuading China to open up more to American companies
and ending its insistence that they share their technology in return for market access,
aggressive new tariffs could have the opposite effect. Parker also warned that Friday's tariff
hike on $200 billion of Chinese imports -- and Trump's threats to slap tariffs on an additional
$325 billion in Chinese goods in the near future -- has undermined economic reformers in the
Chinese system and strengthened the voices of hard-liners. "That hardens those voices
domestically and reinforces the perspective that the U.S. is trying to contain China," he said.
"If we push the Chinese too far, I think there's a concern in the business community that we
may go beyond what China can accept and that things could start to fall apart. If that happens,
I think we can at the least expect that the Chinese economic reform process would come to an
end." And in Washington, the lack of a deal would result in "increased tensions between the
national security wing of the U.S. administration, who will be happy with this result, and the
business-tech community, who are anxious to expand their participation in China and will be
pretty mad," said Kroeber, of the Hong Kong financial research firm. Advertisement
Stephen K. Bannon , former
chief strategist to Trump, is among a group of hawks who formed the Committee on the Present
Danger: China, an organization that sees its role as warning
Americans and political and business leaders of the "existential threats" to America posed by
China. Meanwhile, Hu Xijin ,
editor of the Communist Party-owned Global
Times , has tweeted in English that China was "fully prepared for an escalated trade war."
He argued there is increased popular support in Beijing for a confrontational approach to the
U.S. "More and more Chinese now tend to believe the current US government is obsessed with
comprehensively containing China," he tweeted Thursday. A Global
Times editorial Thursday said trade was "only a sideshow" in the confrontation between the U.S.
and China and the real issue was the U.S. fear that China would catch up to it in high-tech
fields. "The real intention of the U.S. is to squeeze China's space in new technologies," the
editorial said. Many analysts, including Australian professor Gill, share the view that
relations are in long-term decline. "Things will continue to slide downward into deeper
competitive tensions," Gill predicted, "including on the economic front because trade is not
the problem. The deeper problem is the question of economic and technological competition.
"Ultimately at the bottom of all of this, the problem abides that the two countries don't trust
each other and see each other as long-term strategic competitors." Steve Tsang , director of the SOAS China Institute at the University of
London, said regardless of who is president, the U.S. and China will become increasingly
competitive in the next two decades. Chinese President "Xi Jinping is not a forgiving man, so I
think we can see that Xi Jinping will take a more robust stance against the U.S. if and when he
feels that the Chinese government is able to do so successfully," Tsang said. As relations
decline, both Washington and Beijing are likely to compete to draw countries into their orbit,
he predicted. He said European countries and the U.K. would drift toward the U.S. "because
ultimately this is what we believe in more. You will have a whole bunch of other countries that
will drift towards the Chinese because they remain fundamentally authoritarian states." China's
global Belt and Road Initiative -- in which it projects its international power through soft
loans for infrastructure -- would also draw some nations to China, he added. Underscoring
frictions are U.S. fears that China may overtake it in a range of high-tech fields including
space exploration, artificial intelligence, surveillance technology, driverless cars and even
military hardware. Huawei's emergence as the global leader in 5G technology -- with no American
rival -- was a shock to U.S. policymakers. Parker, of the U.S.-China Business Council, said
that although the U.S. and China face a challenging security relationship, it is important to
ensure that trade is not affected. "I think there's definitely a competitive dynamic between
the U.S. and China, and that will continue into the future. The twist is to ensure that the
national security issues don't get entwined with the businesses' side." The United States faces
a possibility that in decades, China could overtake it as the world's largest economy. China's
economy is already ranked No. 1 in terms of purchasing parity power, a measure that adjusts GDP
to account for price differences in countries. "It would be a major milestone. It would send a
lot of shock waves and shivers certainly in the United States and much of the rest of the world
and I think would be seen as a major turning point, not unlike the United States overtaking the
United Kingdom as the world's largest economy back in the late 19th century," Gill said. "It
would certainly be the end of an era and the beginning of a new one." Trump's
tariff hike on Chinese goods takes effect as the two sides keep talking "
"... And if we don't protect manufacturing jobs in the US the whole damned car will be made in China and there won't be decent paying jobs here manufacturing them. ..."
"... I have worked with Chinese auto parts suppliers. They run from OK to horrible. ..."
"... In reality, the tariffs are 'cash in the bank' for the U.S. Treasury. If nothing else, tariffs will allow our politicians to spend more each year - perhaps we might even get to the point that our nation avoids 'deficit spending' for at least one year. ..."
John Murphy of Bank of America joins CNBC's "Closing Bell" to discuss the impact of new tariffs on the auto industry.
William 23 hours ago
And if we don't protect manufacturing jobs in the US the whole damned car will be made in China and there won't be decent paying
jobs here manufacturing them.
c craig f 21 hours ago
Cars that do not use Chinese parts will sell better and the world it will keep turning
P Park Slope 23 hours ago
Great. I'll keep my old one. Thanks for the savings.
BobBob, yesterday
I have worked with Chinese auto parts suppliers. They run from OK to horrible. I'd never buy from them - maybe as a LAST option
to avoid going belly up. The problem then becomes losing repeat customers due to quality and reliability problems....
GeorgeGeorge, 10 hours ago
Do not understand how the anti-Trump politicians and the media can be against these tariffs. In reality, the tariffs are
'cash in the bank' for the U.S. Treasury. If nothing else, tariffs will allow our politicians to spend more each year -
perhaps we might even get to the point that our nation avoids 'deficit spending' for at least one year.
In an unusual move, the Chinese delegation has come clean to the domestic press about
Beijing's remaining trade-deal related demands, exposing steep divides that could make it a
final deal impossible for Trump, who has repeatedly said he will only accept a "great"
deal.
Unsurprisingly, Liu He, the leading Chinese trade negotiator, confirmed what Beijing has
intimated time and time again :
That without the complete removal of all trade-war related tariffs, Beijing will not
remorse a deal.
The other two demands were related to American commitments to buy Chinese goods , something
that could also pose a problem.
In a wide-ranging interview with Chinese media after talks in Washington ended Friday,
Vice Premier Liu He said that in order to reach an agreement the U.S. must remove all extra
tariffs, set targets for Chinese purchases of goods in line with real demand and ensure that
the text of the deal is "balanced" to ensure the "dignity" of both nations.
China for the first time made clear what it wants to see from the U.S. in talks to end their trade war, laying
bare the deep differences that still exist between the two sides.
In a wide-ranging
interview
with Chinese media after talks in Washington ended Friday, Vice Premier Liu He said that in order to
reach an agreement the U.S. must remove all extra tariffs, set targets for Chinese purchases of goods in line with
real demand and ensure that the text of the deal is "balanced" to ensure the "dignity" of both nations.
Liu's three conditions underscore the work still to be done if an accord is to be reached between the world's
two largest economies. President Donald Trump's own negotiators told China it has a month to seal a deal or face
tariffs on all its exports to the U.S.
That threat was made during talks Friday in Washington, hours after Trump upped the ante by imposing a second
round of punitive duties on $200 billion in Chinese goods. China vowed retaliation, but hadn't announced any
details as of Saturday evening in Beijing.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the administration would on Monday release details of its
plans for tariffs on an additional $300 billion in imports from China, setting the process in motion for Trump to
deliver on the threat to hammer all Chinese trade.
U.S. officials insist they have been working on a deal that would bring an end to what they portray as China's
rampant theft of American intellectual property and rein in the industrial subsidies that have fueled the rapid
ascent of Chinese corporate giants.
Trump's move to raise tariffs on Friday came after China backed away from prior commitments to enshrine changes
promised at the negotiating table in Chinese law, according to U.S. officials. During his meetings in Washington
this week Liu said China was ready to commit to pushing reforms via State Council directives but again balked at
changing any laws, according to one person familiar with the discussions.
In his interview Liu said both sides agreed to keep talking despite what he called "some temporary resistance
and distractions,'' and to hold future meetings in Beijing. He dismissed the idea that talks had broken down.
"It's normal to have hiccups during the negotiations. It's inevitable."
Liu also struck a note of defiance. "For the interest of the people of China, the people of U.S. and the the
people of the whole world, we will deal with this rationally," the vice premier said. "But China is not afraid,
nor are the Chinese people," adding that "China needs a
cooperative agreement
with equality and dignity."
'Candid and Constructive'
In a series of tweets that cheered markets, Trump declared Friday that the talks with China had been candid and
constructive. "The relationship between President Xi and myself remains a very strong one, and conversations into
the future will continue," he said. Further talks are possible, but there's no immediate plan for the next round,
according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
Liu's comments, however, revealed yet another new fault line: a U.S. push for bigger Chinese purchases to level
the trade imbalance than had originally been agreed.
To Be Tariffed...Maybe
Top 10 U.S. imports from China which haven't been tariffed in current dispute
According to Liu, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed "on a number" when they met in Argentina last
December to hammer out the truce that set off months of negotiations. That "is a very serious issue and can't be
changed easily."
The amount of purchases by China should be "in line with reality," according to a commentary by state news
agency Xinhua on Saturday. China also sees the removal of all the extra tariffs that have been imposed since last
year as a precondition to a deal, whereas U.S. negotiators see retention of some duties as a key mechanism to
enforce a deal.
The lack of progress left major question-marks hanging over the search for a deal on trade -- just one source
of tensions in a
growing geopolitical rivalry
that's already shifting supply chains and testing established economic and
security alliances.
Trump, who is seeking re-election on the back of a booming U.S. economy, on Friday sought to justify his
decision to hike tariffs as well as to convince businesses and financial markets that he wasn't walking away from
a deal.
No Rush
"There is absolutely no need to rush," the U.S. president said. In another tweet, Trump
proposed a vast new plan
to use income from tariffs to buy up the crops of American farmers who've watched
their exports to China collapse, and send them to poor countries as aid.
The presidential good humor hid what people familiar with the discussions say has been an increasingly gloomy
mood around the negotiations in recent days.
Before a rebound late Friday, U.S. equity markets had posted their worst week of the year, as the trade truce
that had been in place for months was shattered by the new U.S. tariffs. The S&P 500 recovered from earlier losses
Friday, ending the day 0.4% higher.
Election Year
This week's tariff move is likely to have
significant
short-term consequences for retailers and other U.S. businesses reliant on imports from China. But
extending it to all trade would increase the economic and political stakes even further for Trump and American
businesses.
Such a step would see price increases on smartphones, laptops and other consumer goods -- the kind that Trump's
advisers have been eager to avoid, out of concern for the domestic fallout. It would
likely provoke further retaliation
, and some economists are predicting it could even tip the U.S. economy into
recession just as Trump faces re-election in 2020.
'Gets Harder'
This week's talks have also amplified the differences that remain between the two governments as they navigate
their own domestic politics as well as a growing international rivalry.
Liu's interview underlined the need for any agreement not to be seen as undermining Chinese sovereignty -- as
the U.S. demand to change domestic laws surely would be.
The text "must be balanced" for the dignity of a country, Liu said, repeating China and the U.S. are "trying to
meet halfway" despite different views on some crucial issues.
Securing a trade deal is likely to get harder from here unless outside factors, such as
an economic downturn
, force a compromise, according to Ely Ratner, a China expert who served in the
administration of President Barack Obama and is now director of studies at the Center for a New American Security
think-tank.
"The question is can the Chinese come back and offer enough such that Trump can sell it?'' he said. "It is
going to be hard for them to do that in the face of Trump escalating. I think it gets harder as this thing goes
on, and it gets harder politically for Trump.''
-- With assistance by Jennifer Jacobs, Ye Xie, Andrew Mayeda, Jim Jia, Natalie Lung, Saleha Mohsin, and Jenny
Leonard
"... I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in China for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US and in fact we just got proof since Microsoft is now known to be telling the NSA about bugs in Windows before it fixes them. ..."
"... All the major western tech companies cooperate with the western security services. In Murder in Samarkand I gave the first public revelation that the government can and does listen through your mobile phone microphone even when the phone is ostensibly switched off, a fact that got almost no traction until Edward Snowden released documents confirming it six years later. China is full of western devices with backdoors that are exploited by western intelligence. That the tables turn as Chinese technology advances is scarcely surprising. ..."
Theresa May almost certainly sacked Gavin Williamson not just on the basis of a telephone billing record showing he had a phone
call with a Telegraph journalist, but on the basis of a recording of the conversation itself.
It astonishes me that still, after Snowden and his
PRISM revelations, after Wikileaks
Vault 7 releases , and after numerous other sources including
my own humble contribution, people still manage to avoid the cognitive dissonance that goes with really understanding how much we
are surveilled and listened to. Even Cabinet Ministers manage
to pretend
to themselves it is not happening.
The budget of the NSA, which does nothing else but communications intercept, is US $14.2 billion this year. Think about that enormous
sum, devoted to just communications surveillance, and what it can achieve. The budget of the UK equivalent, GCHQ, is £1.2 billion,
of which about 10% is paid by the NSA. Domestic surveillance in the UK has been vastly expanded and many taboos broken. But the bedrock
of the system with regard to domestic intercepts is still that legal restrictions are dodged, as the USA's NSA spies on UK citizens
while the UK's GCHQ spies on US citizens, and then the information is swapped. It was thus probably the NSA that harvested Williamson's
phone call, passing the details on. Given official US opposition to the UK employing Huawei technology, Williamson's call would have
been a "legitimate" NSA target.
Mass surveillance works on electronic harvesting. Targeted phone numbers apart, millions of essentially random calls are listened
to electronically using voice recognition technology and certain key words trigger an escalation of the call. Williamson's call discussing
Huawei, China, the intelligence services, and backdoors would certainly have triggered recording and been marked up to a human listener,
even if his phone was not specifically targeted by the Americans – which it almost certainly was.
Williamson of course is relying on the security services' secrecy about their methods to maintain his protests of innocence, secure
in the knowledge that the recording of him would not be produced. The existence of the recording – of which I am extremely confident
– is the only possible explanation for May's degree of certainty and swift action against one of her very few loyal allies.
All of which of course throws into stark relief the stunning hypocrisy of those who are worried that Huawei will be used for electronic
eavesdropping, when they are up to their ears in electronic eavesdropping themselves. One of my heroes is the great Richard Stallman,
who put it this way six years ago:
RMS: Well, it's perfectly reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in
China for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US and in fact we just got proof since
Microsoft is now known to be telling the NSA about bugs in Windows before it fixes them.
RSS: I was just going to bring this up exactly, so I was saying that the NSA recently received notifications about the zero-day
holes in advance and [incomprehensible] the NSA and the CIA to just crack PCs abroad for espionage purposes.
RMS: Now, [incomprehensible] that this proves my point, which is that you have to be nuts if you were some other country and
using Windows on your computers. But, you know, given that Windows has a universal back door in it, Microsoft would hardly need
to tell the NSA about any bugs, it can tell the NSA about the mal-feature of the universal back door and that would be enough
for the NSA to attack any computer running Windows, which unfortunately is a large fraction of them.
All the major western tech companies cooperate with the western security services. In Murder in Samarkand I gave the first public
revelation that the government can and does listen through your mobile phone microphone
even when the phone is ostensibly switched off, a fact that got almost no traction until Edward Snowden released documents confirming
it six years later. China is full of western devices with backdoors that are exploited by western intelligence. That the tables turn
as Chinese technology advances is scarcely surprising.
Personally I do not want the Chinese, Americans, Russians or British eavesdropping on me, or on each other, and I wish that they
would stop. The spy games will of course continue, as they make money for a lot of well-connected people. But for any side to claim
moral superiority in all of this is just nonsense.
Stephen K. Bannon served as chief strategist for President Trump from January 2017 to
August 2017.
Getting tough with China to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States was the
linchpin of President Trump's electoral march through the Rust Belt during his 2016 victory.
Today, the goal of the radical cadre running China -- the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) -- is
to be the global hegemonic power. The president's threatened
tariffs on Sunday demonstrate the severity of this threat. But as Washington and Beijing
wrap up months of negotiations on a trade deal this month, whatever emerges won't be a trade
deal. It will be a temporary truce in a years-long economic and strategic war with China.
These are six "understandings" that highlight why it is futile to compromise with this
regime.
The first understanding : The CCP has been waging economic war against industrial
democracies ever since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, and now China
has emerged as the greatest economic and national security threat the United States has ever
faced.
As a framework for the current trade talks, China must agree to end forced technology
transfers; intellectual property theft; cyberintrusions into business networks; currency
manipulation; high tariff and nontariff barriers; and unfair subsidies to state-owned
enterprises. However, if the CCP agrees to the United States' demands in an enforceable manner,
it would amount to a legal and regulatory dismantling of Chinese state capitalism.
The second understanding : The trade deal under negotiation this month is not a deal between
two similar systems seeking closer ties, as its cheerleaders on Wall Street and in the media
and academia argue. Rather, this is a fundamental clash between two radically different
economic models.
The best U.S. result is a detailed document in which China renounces its predatory,
confiscatory and mercantilist practices while providing ample means to monitor and promptly
enforce the agreement.
The best CCP result is to get the tariffs lifted by filing reams of paper with false,
unenforceable promises that will allow it to run out the clock on the Trump administration and
hope for a less antagonistic Democratic alternative.
The third understanding : Chinese state capitalism is highly profitable for its owners --
the members of the CCP. Stagnant state-owned enterprises gain a competitive edge through
massive government subsidies and the cost savings won by stealing the intellectual property,
technology and innovations of foreigners.
If China halted such grand theft, its enterprises would be rapidly outcompeted by the
Germans, South Koreans, Japanese and especially the United States.
This fact explains much about internal Chinese politics today. President Xi Jinping faces a
palace sharply divided between reformers led by chief trade negotiator Liu He and a swarm of
hawks who have profited and gained power from the status quo. Within China itself, it is both
gallows humor and even money as to whether Liu He will be celebrated as the next Deng Xiaoping
or end up in a Chinese gulag.
The fourth understanding : Trump advisers inside and outside the White House are playing on
the president's well-earned pride in a rising stock market and a fear he might lose the Farm
Belt to try to box him into a weak deal. But it is a decidedly false narrative that any failure
to reach a deal will lead to a market meltdown and economic implosion.
In fact, there is no better argument for Trump keeping his bold tariffs on China than the
latest report that the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.2 percent
in the first quarter .
Anything less than a great deal will subject the president to relentless criticism from the
Charles E. Schumer and Bernie Sanders wings of the Democratic Party. In addition, Sens. Marco
Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) might use it to get to the right of Trump on China --
potentially setting up a later primary challenge. For these reasons, the president's best
political option is not to surrender, but rather, to double down on the tariffs -- they have
been highly effective in pressuring the Chinese without harming the U.S. economy.
The fifth understanding : Even the toughest agreement needs effective monitoring, which is
difficult even with accommodating partners and perhaps impossible with China. The danger is for
the president to sign what appears to be a reasonable deal and find out several years later
that the United States was hoodwinked.
The United States failed to adequately monitor China's entry into the WTO in 2001. Instead
of access to a billion Chinese consumers, the United States lost more than 5 million
manufacturing jobs since 2000.
The sixth understanding : The world now bears witness to a rapidly militarizing totalitarian
state imprisoning
millions in work camps; persecuting Uighurs, Christians and Buddhists; and spying on, and
enslaving, its own population.
This is history in real time; and the world is a house divided -- half slave, half free.
Trump and Xi are facing off to tip the scales in one direction or the other. One way leads to
the benefits of freedom, democracy and free-market capitalism. The other leads to a
totalitarian and mercantilist power run on state capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
The United States' fight is not with the Chinese people but with the CCP. The Chinese people
are the first and continuous victims of this barbarous regime.
The central issues that must be faced are China's intentions on the world stage and what
those ambitions mean for U.S. prosperity. With our country at a crossroads, it is more
important than ever that Trump follow his instincts and not soften his stance against the
greatest existential threat ever faced by the United States.
1. China must agree to end forced technology transfers; intellectual property theft;
cyberintrusions into business networks; currency manipulation; high tariff and nontariff
barriers; and unfair subsidies to state-owned enterprises.
In the good 'ol USA, we refer to this as "corporate welfare", direct federal subsidies (eg
farm subsidies), MIC and government 'no-bid defense' contract, oil depletion allowance, tax
credits and other tax incentives such as accelerated depreciation, dividend tax, Advanced
Technology Program, federal land giveways, local & state land & tax "incentive"
giveways, carried interest, welfare and food stamp costs paid to employees of companies like
Walmart and McDonalds (because employee wages for full time employment fall below poverty
level), the clunker auto subsidy program to bail out US auto companies, the mortgage interest
deduction, and more. The cherry on top is, of course, the trillions of dollars in TARP and QE
given to giant banks to bail out Wall Street.
For all the hot air, it appears that reciprocity is not really what Steve has in mind.
2. The best U.S. result is a detailed document in which China renounces its predatory,
confiscatory and mercantilist practices while providing ample means to monitor and promptly
enforce the agreement.
Steve? Steve?? Are you aware that the U.S. is currently trying to economically strangle
countries all over the world with economic sanctions? Venezuela. Cuba. Syria. Iran.
Russia.North Korea. Lebanon. Yemen. And if economic sanctions don't work, we bomb them. Iraq.
Afghanistan. Libya. Syria.
3. by stealing the intellectual property, technology and innovations of
foreigners.
Libya's gold "disappeared". As did much of Iraq's gold. And the Bank of England, citing
U.S. sanctions as its legal fig leaf, confiscated $1.2 billion of Venezuelan gold. As to
stealing technology, no one does it better than Uncle Same: Vault 7 and Stuxnet are prime
examples of US spying on foreign technology companies.
4. But it is a decidedly false narrative that any failure to reach a deal will lead to
a market meltdown and economic implosion.
I dunno. I'm hearing a lot of very unhappy muttering in the rural Midwest, where I live. I
think we're facing the very real possibility of a large-scale Trumpian economic disaster, due
to his trade war, negative trending macoeconomic indicators, the unbelievable Trumpian debt
(the biggest debt in the history of the galaxy, putting Obama and Bush Jr., and even WWII
debt to shame), and the looming loss of the dollar's world reserve currency status. Toss in a
global recession, to boot. This feels like "implosion" to me.
5. Instead of access to a billion Chinese consumers, the United States lost more than 5
million manufacturing jobs since 2000.
Typical capitalist hypocrisy. We demand free markets for other people. Never for
ourselves. Many American companies have been doing fine selling to "a billion Chinese
consumers". The problem is, Americans participating in the free market often choose Chinese
goods.
Not only are you full of hot air, Steve-- you and Bolton and the rest of Trump's
Israel-first neocon apologists are effectively destroying our economy and our country. When
the very likely "implosion" does occur, watch the rats (hate to use that metaphor, since the
lowest mangy flea-bitten rat is better than any neocon) scurry for the exits, blaming
everyone but themselves.
Who is Steve Bannon going to blame? Ocasio-Cortez, who else?
Understanding the core nature of China is important to comprehend the lack of flexibility
ingrained in their system. This comes in the ideology that directs its actions. China is
still very much a communist country, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controls
everything. While it may appear both State-owned and private firms operate within China's
economic system. This is mostly an illusion following economic reforms in the 1980s.
In reality, the communist system does not allow for true private ownership and views all
"tech innovation" as essential to its national interests. Thus, private and state-owned
Chinese firms act in the interest of the Chinese regime when it comes to foreign investments
in the high-tech sectors. Below is the second part of a part-two series which explores why
China is on a one-track path and blind to other options going forward. This is a recipe for
conflict.
What pisses me off is the fact that pretty much every western company has decided to
manufacture in China.
My Mrs bought me a coat today. A nice snazzy Italian brand. Then looking at the label it
says made in China. So it's not an Italian coat at all. It's a Chinese coat with Italian
branding.
Burberry do the same thing. They can basically charge whatever they want for coats, and as
a consumer you buy into that British heritage . Low and behold their stuff is made in
China.
Perhaps we should slap the tariffs (I'm not a fan of tariffs BTW,) on the western
companies that continue to outsource to China .
The ceding of national interests, without the wilful, knowing consent of both political
parties, and citizens believing they could simply vote their way out of this or that brand of
swamp, could never have been accomplished ..
The story of the scorpion, and the frog, crossing the river ..
After much pleading by the scorpion, the frog did give the scorpion a lift to safely cross
the river, and after being bitten during the crossing, frog crys out "but you promised you
would not bite me!!"
Scorpion replys, " you knew what i was when you picked me up .. "
The story of the American body politic, on steroids the last 40 -50 years ..
That is exactly what happened. The murican and other corporations moved to the larger
consumer markets for their products, Asia. China has moar than 3 times the population of
murica. Labour is plenty, wages are low, no benefits or overtime. 12 hour days or moar is the
norm there. It's not China that people should be blaming for the transition to manufacture
there. The corporations are all about profits. They care less about you and yoar family or
jobs for you. The corporations are making money like never before. GM sells 3 times as many
cars in China than in murica. It costs money to ship over seas, cheaper to move manufacturing
to where the demand is.
China also has a growing middle class that will be big consumers of goods, whereas murica
has a decling middle class and retiring baby boomers. Murica is in decay. Neglected
infrastructure, dying cities, NY, Baltimore, Seattle, Detroit, Chicago, SanFran, farms are
over producing and need social welfare from tax payers, high consumer debts, low consumption
of goods. Car manufacturers will be back at the Fed window for free tax payers money to avert
total bankruptcy. We've seen this play before and here we are again.
Murica is bankrupt. This is why the banks around the world are buying gold reserves. All
currencies eventually become worthless paper for fire starting or heating in winter. There is
no currency that ever exceeded 100 yrs. as money. Gold has been money for thousands of
years.
Economies work best when currencies are stable in value. Once we know what the goal is, we
then look for a way to achieve it and the best way has always been to base a currency on
gold. Nobody has found a better way, even in the form of a proposal and nobody has ever
needed to find a better way, because gold has always worked very well.
The fight is actually with America's own politicians and corporations. They sold out
America long ago. The Chinese trade differently. They don't have to bomb. It's really too bad
what American democracy stands for today around the world. Nobody wants anything to do with
it and gradually they're dumping it.
British and Roman empires were not much different towards the end of their rein. They
become complacent and arrogant towards other countries. Eventually they run out of friends,
then start woars to rape and pillage gold, silver and resources. An attempt to sustain the
costs of maintaining their exuberant life style and military around the globe. Rome at first
started debasing their gold and silver money. Once trading partners realized their coins were
not pure, they called the empire a fraud and didn't want to trade with the crooks. Woar
ensued.
what a dumbass. bannon represents the wacko christian wing of the zionazi party.
usa oligarchy greed did this to the american people. the chinese happily cooperated likely
wondering how they were being screwed because the usa policy was so stupid. the usa made the
mistake of thinking the chinese would roll over like the japanese and koreans did, once the
spice started flowing.
the chinese don't have to give anything because the usa screwed itself so badly they need
china to keep producing crap for the usa because there is no competitive alternative either
by other countries to fill the gap and certainly not with a built from scratch usa
manufacturing sector. the usa is so stupid it has foreign countries make critical military
tech parts to maximize profit for mic.
does bannon really think the chinese people won't riot if they are unhappy with .gov? does
he remember tianemen square? it's american people who won't do anything about .gov and the
oligarchs screwing them.
according to bannon it is okay for the usa to kill millions of muslims and christians in
the mid east for jewland and the zionazis but wrong for china to control their influence in
china?
bannon's calling is a homeless alchy. he fits the part with lunatic rants and his
appearance.
The problem here isn't the WTO, it's the WTC. Bannon says China entered the WTO in 2001
and have been criminals ever since. Also in 2001 the Neocons started their insane wars after
blowing up the WTC and have been criminals ever since. Eighteen years of pissing away cash
and not minding the store - and these lunatics are back in the White House. Anybody hoping
for a happy ending with China is just as nuts.
You fat ******* zio-slob/slut troll. It may have been a good idea if it were just about
trade and you are willing to actually seek a mutually beneficial compromise, but when you are
also poking them militarily it changes the dynamics of the successful negotiations and
cooperation. Who wants to do a deal with someone who continually sends warships up and down
your coastline in engaging in provactive actions
Bannon has got some screws loose in the head. Getting tough with China isn't going to
bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States for ten reasons:
1. Those jobs have nowhere in the U.S. to come home to. Most of the factories have been
shut down and demolished years ago.
2. American workers have been out of the loop for so long, that they are basically
unskilled and untrained at this point...... all 95.5 million of them!
3. The fight isn't against China, as it is against corporate America. Corporate America
doesn't want to pay the higher wages or benefits here. That is why they went hunting for the
cheap labor in China in the first place. It's not China's fault!
4. America's entire tax system stinks and its predatory. There is nothing that is going to
make those businesses in China go to America , particularly when China is offering those same
companies tax incentives to stay.
5. China's transportation infrastructure is far better than America's. America's road
system is now a full 40 years behind China's, and America's rail system is 75 years behind
China's. Air transportation is about the same as the U.S., but China has the better airports
for handling large number of passengers and freight. Maritime shipping is first rate all the
way, the U.S. can't hardly touch them in moving freight overseas.
6. The United States routinely blocks the World Trade Organization's appointments of
judges who could rule on tariffs, because the U.S. wants to load the dice in their favor at
the WTO. Companies are often used as captive hostages by the U.S.,. Not the case with
China.
7. The U.S. has a notoriety for not honoring any treaty it signs. The WTO has cited the
U.S. as undisciplined, and the decision of whether to comply with international legal
obligations varies depending on which domestic political actors are engaged in the policy
process. Some American institutions are more likely to supply compliance than others. Why
would any company want to come to America without any assurances in governing trade rules or
a hostile political environment that turns on a dime?
8. China is the ideal place for emerging markets. It has access to lots of different
manufacturing for emerging businesses, something the U.S. lacks these days.
9. China has economic free zones, like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau, etc.,. The U.S. has
nothing to compare.
10. China's main priority has been shifted from expansion to stability. By stability, what
is implied is demand that is internal, rather than external, and that requires a focus on the
consumer. This could represent an opportunity for businesses that invest in the opportunity
to sell goods in the country. As it stands now, there is really no reason for a company in
China to come to the U.S., because every American is maxed out on credit and doesn't have the
money to buy anything. Why set up a business in the U.S. when the U.S. economy is in imminent
danger of collapsing over night, and becoming a casualty???
This is another false (fraudulent non-existent choice) being presented by the global so
called but no longer existent elite. U.S. vs China. It doesn't make any difference whether it
is the corporations presenting the false choice or the so called deep state. Either way it
has no truth and therefore no value.
As I've provided extensive facts and evidence as details on both sides all governments are
full of traitors. Traitors both foreign, domestic and international. Any future global
attempt at government will never consist of any of these two places or any other since all
others continue to fail in their own right to take the appropriate actions in their own
governments or against those that are attempting to implement wholly criminal operations
internationally.
Very little of the Chinese technology was stolen by them. It was freely given by US
universities getting big bucks to fill seats and US corporations looking to boost executives
pay and perks, plus offloading the headaches they were getting paid big bucks to solve, by
offshoring to China. As evidenced by the recent tax cut for corporations and the funds they
brought back from overseas bringing back or creating jobs in the US is a pipe dream. Your
CEO's thought it was more important to feather their nests, and in many cases putting their
company into hock, to buy back their stock. Raises or funds for R&D? Fuggeddaboutit. With
China in the cross hairs the captains of industry are sailing to other shitholes for their
stuff rather than the US. Don't blame the Chinese for the "best and brightest" selling the US
down the drain to enrich themselves. One of the many reasons the US is circling drain due to
self inflicted hurt is the whole country from top to bottom wants **** and they want it now
no matter what it takes whether it be power, riches, or both.
Trump continued tweeting on the trade situation Monday. "The United States has been losing,
for many years, 600 to 800 Billion Dollars a year on Trade. With China we lose 500 Billion
Dollars. Sorry, we're not going to be doing that anymore!" he wrote.
"Risks of a full blown trade war are escalating," Chua Hak Bin, a senior economist at
Maybank Kim Eng Research Pte. in Singapore, said before the ministry's announcement. "Trump's
threat may backfire as China will not want to negotiate with a gun pointing at their
heads."
... ... ...
China was considering delaying a U.S. trip this week by a trade delegation led by Vice
Premier Liu He after Trump's tariff threat, according to people familiar with the matter. Liu
and about 100 other officials had been scheduled to arrive Wednesday for what was shaping up to
be the final round of negotiations.
The two sides have been locked in intense negotiations since last year for an agreement to
address U.S. concerns over China's trade surplus, alleged theft of intellectual property and
forced technology transfers. Trump and Xi agreed to a tariff truce on Dec. 1 to allow senior
officials time to negotiate.
... ... ...
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Fox News that the president was "issuing a
warning." While "great progress" has been made in the talks, structural and enforcement issues
remained, he said.
... ... ...
Trump imposed duties of 25 percent on an initial $50 billion of Chinese goods last year and
then 10 percent on an additional $200 billion in products in September. Those duties were set
to rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1 and then again on March 1, but Trump delayed that as talks
continued. China has imposed tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. exports in retaliation and
repeatedly warned it would counter tariffs with actions of its own.
That means there's a risk China would counter any extension of U.S. levies, though the
smaller size of its imports may constrain its ability to do so.
"China isn't likely to make concessions that the U.S. want with a big stick hanging over its
head," said Zhou Xiaoming, a former Ministry of Commerce official and diplomat. "If the tariffs
that Trump threatens are implemented on Friday, China has to respond."
So much for months and months of constant leaks, headlines, tweets, and press reports that
US-China trade talks are going great, and are imminent amid an ocean of "optimism" (meant
solely to sucker in amateurs into the most obvious bull headfake since 1987).
Just after noon on Sunday, President Trump tweeted that 10% tariffs paid by China on $200
billion in goods will rise to 25% on Friday, and that - contrary to what he himself and his
chief economist, Larry Kudlow has said for months, talks on a trade deal have been going too
slowly.
And, just to underscore his point, Trump also threatened to impose 25% tariffs on an
additional $325 billion of Chinese goods "shortly."
With the tariff rate on numerous goods originally set at 10% and set to more than double in
2019, Trump postponed that decision after China and the US agreed to sit down for trade talks;
following Trump's tweet it is now confirmed that trade talks have hit an impasse and that
escalation will be needed to break the stalemate.
It was as recently as Friday that Vice President Mike Pence told CNBC that Trump remained
hopeful that he could strike a deal with China (at the same time as he was urging for a rate
cut from the Fed).
Curiously, on Wednesday, the White House - clearly hoping to sucker in even more naive bulls
to buy stocks at all time highs - said the latest round of talks had moved Beijing and
Washington closer to an agreement. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said, "Discussions remain
focused toward making substantial progress on important structural issues and re-balancing the
US-China trade relationship."
In recent weeks there were multiple reports that China and U.S. were close to a trade deal,
and an agreement could come as soon as Friday. Major sticking points the U.S. and China have
been intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers. There has also been
disagreement as to whether tariffs be removed or remain in place as an enforcement
mechanism.
While it was not clear why Trump has decided to escalate his tariff policy, the most obvious
explanation is that for a White House, which has been obsessed with pushing the S&P to
record levels, this was the last lever it had at its disposal. And now that the S&P is back
at all time highs, the lies can end, if only for the time being.
Meanwhile, crickets about the border/invasion situation, even here on ZH articles. From an
off-duty, decompressing senior border patrol guy I happened to meet - El Paso alone has had
over half a million "migrants" come thru seeking "asylum". They are releasing about 2000 a
week into the US, leasing buildings, including a Las Cruces high school for the weekend to
stage them. he said unusual number of Cubans, maybe from VZ. Lots of sickness/disease, he
personally saw flesh-eating infections, dying AIDS patients, children accompanied by unknown
males. Already 90% who had court hearings were no-shows. They've found cutoff ankle monitors
at airports.Their hands are tied by archaic laws and a (((congress))) unwilling to do ****
about it. The **** governor of NM, Lujan-Grisham ****-blocking any effort to stem the tide.
But articles about giant meteors, James Woods, Russia-gate, China, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Sorry for the hi-jack. The globalists have mobilized their armies. Chinese **** I can live
without, except SKS in a pinch. Might need it when the in country migrant hordes are given
the sign and LE and mil stand down.
BTW< he said two more caravans are forming, one of about 30000.
Interesting to see how the stock market futures will react. If they dive, we can just
blame someone else. If it does good, we can give all the credit to Trump. And if we don't,
Trump will surely give himself credit for it and gloat.
When the U.S. taxes another country's goods, it puts downward pressure on that country's
currency. When China's yuan falls against the U.S. dollar, it makes Chinese goods cheaper,
canceling out some of the effect of the tariff. The yuan was at about 16 cents to the dollar
earlier this year, but as Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods and ramped up his trade-war
rhetoric, it fell to roughly 14 cents -- a decline of more than 12 percent:
When you hear the same cue words you know exactly where it comes from.
Peace as its goal through staged wars ( undeclared since WW11).
"
February 9, 1950 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent
Resolution 66 which begins:
"Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the
United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."
The resolution was first introduced in the Senate on September 13, 1949 by Senator Glen
Taylor (D-Idaho). Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) called it "a consummation devoutly to
be wished for" and said, "I understand your proposition is either change the United Nations,
or change or create, by a separate convention, a world order." Senator Taylor later
stated:
"We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable
them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves."
Me**** the problem with this draft of war plan is that if you are pointing fingers of a
" Presidential coup" at home and expect the Treasonous culprits to do time, you can't
purpose the same scheme in a foreign country without reprecusions.
And I think that is the Traitors in the White House plan to save their slimy asses....
Expose the undeclared coup through media ( weaponized as usual) and bring down Barrs
attempts to clean up our own swamp.
As commander in chief Trump has a n op problem.
Whoever inititated this because of ecconomic warefare ( bankers... How the web catches
you at every corner) both at home ( USA) and world.
War, undeclared, declared, either way and use universal peace as goal equals profits for
the war machine and depopulation for the world.
Win win situation for the original planers of one world govetnment.
You remember Dulles don't you ( Dulles airport).
New plan same as the old plan:
April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a
speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that "treaty laws can
override the Constitution." He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give
them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal
Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the
people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.
A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no
treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote."
"... the Huawei controversy is part of a wider conflict, with America determined to stop the Chinese changing the world's power structure, moving it from under America's control. When China was just a cheap manufacturing centre for low-tech goods, that was one thing. But when China started developing advanced technologies and began to dominate global trade, that was another. China must be put back in its box. ..."
"... America failed to bring Russia to her knees, so now the focus is directly on destroying, or at least containing China. China has already outspent America in Africa, Central and South America, buying influence away from America in her traditional spheres of influence. Attempts to neutralise North Korea are coming unstuck. ..."
"... Behind the cyber war, there is a financial war. In the financial war, America has the advantage of its currency hegemony, which it exercises to the full. It has allowed Americans to have lived beyond their means by importing more goods than they export, and the government spends more than it receives in taxes. In order to achieve these benefits, inward capital flows are necessary to finance them. To date, these have totalled in current value-terms some $25 trillion, being total foreign ownership of dollar assets and deposits. ..."
"... In 2017, Hong Kong was the third largest recipient of foreign direct investment (substantially property) after the US and China. FDI inflows rose by £104bn to total nearly $2 trillion. Largest investors were China, followed by corporate money channeled through offshore centers. ..."
"... China is sure to see the financial and monetary stability of Hong Kong as being vital to the Mainland's interests. Apart from the Bank of China's Hong Kong subsidiary being the second largest issuer of bank notes, the Peoples' Bank itself maintains reserve balances in Hong Kong dollars, which in the circumstances Kyle Bass believes likely, they can increase to support the HKMA's management of the currency peg. ..."
"... The alternative is for Washington to recognise and accept that its days of being a uni-polar global power are coming to an end but that is not possible when power is in the hands of maniacal psychos like Bolt-on. ..."
"... Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, BIS, just for starters. The US/UK built the present financial system. Of which most of the world has joined, because in the main it profits them. ..."
"... What are the benefits? Being enslaved by a bunch of inbred assholes in Switzerland? ..."
Behind the Huawei story, we must not forget there is a wider financial war being waged by
America against China and Russia. Stories about China's banks being short of dollars are
incorrect: the shortage is of inward capital flows to support the US Government's budget
deficit. By attracting those global portfolio flows instead, China's Belt and Road Initiative
threatens US Government finances, so the financial war and associated disinformation can be
expected to escalate. Hong Kong is likely to be in the firing line, due to its role in
providing China with access to international finance.
Introduction
Huawei is hitting the headlines. From ordering the arrest of its Chief Financial Officer in
Vancouver last December to the latest efforts to dissuade its allies from adopting Huawei's 5G
mobile technology, it has been a classic deep state operation by the Americans. Admittedly, the
Chinese have left themselves open to attack by introducing a loosely-drafted cybersecurity law
in 2016/17 which according to Western defence circles appears to require all Chinese technology
companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services.
Consequently, no one now knows whether to trust Huawei, who have some of the leading
technology for 5G. The problem for network operators is who to believe. Intelligence services
are in the business of dissembling, which they do through political puppets, all of which are
professionals at being economical with the truth. Who can forget Weapons of Mass Destruction?
More recently there was the Skripal poisoning mystery: the Russians would have been
bang-to-rights, if it wasn't for Skripal's links through Pablo Miller to Christopher Steele,
who put together the dodgy dossier on Trump's alleged behaviour in a Russian hotel.
The safest course is to never believe anything emanating from a government security agency,
which does not help hapless network operators. They, and the rest of us, should look at
motives. The attack on Huawei is motivated by a desire to impede China's technological
progress, which is already eclipsing that of America, and America is using her leadership of
the 5-eyes intelligence group of nations to impose her geostrategic will on her allies. The row
in Britain this week escalated from a cabinet-level security breech on this subject, to
American threats of withholding intelligence from the UK if UK companies are permitted to order
Huawei 5G equipment, to the sacking of the Minister of Defence.
A threat to withhold intelligence sharing, if carried out, only serves to isolate the
Americans. But you can see how desperate the Americans are to eliminate Huawei. Furthermore,
the Huawei controversy is part of a wider conflict, with America determined to stop the Chinese
changing the world's power structure, moving it from under America's control. When China was
just a cheap manufacturing centre for low-tech goods, that was one thing. But when China
started developing advanced technologies and began to dominate global trade, that was another.
China must be put back in its box.
So far, all attempts to do so appear to have failed. Control of Afghanistan, seen as an
important source of minerals ready to be exploited by China, has been a costly failure for the
West. Attempts to wrest control of Syria from Russia's sphere of influence also failed. Russia
is China's economic and military ally. America failed to bring Russia to her knees, so now the
focus is directly on destroying, or at least containing China. China has already outspent
America in Africa, Central and South America, buying influence away from America in her
traditional spheres of influence. Attempts to neutralise North Korea are coming unstuck.
In truth, there is an undeclared war between China and Russia on one side, and America and
her often reluctant allies on the other. It will now escalate, mainly because America
increasingly needs global portfolio flows to cover her deficits.
America's financial war
strategy
Behind the cyber war, there is a financial war. In the financial war, America has the
advantage of its currency hegemony, which it exercises to the full. It has allowed Americans to
have lived beyond their means by importing more goods than they export, and the government
spends more than it receives in taxes. In order to achieve these benefits, inward capital flows
are necessary to finance them. To date, these have totalled in current value-terms some $25
trillion, being total foreign ownership of dollar assets and deposits.
America's policy of living beyond its means now requires more than just recycled trade
flows: inward portfolio flows are required as well. Global portfolios, comprised of commercial
cash balances as well as investment money, periodically increase their exposure to other
regions, potentially leaving America short. The problem is resolved by destabilising the region
that has most recently benefited from capital investment, to encourage money to return to
dollars and thus America's domestic markets. Now that she is due to escalate infrastructure
spending both in China and along the new silk roads, it is China's turn.
This will be the opinion of Qiao Liang, who was a Major-General in the PLA and one of its
chief strategists. It was his explanation for the South-East Asian crisis of 1997, when a run
started on the Thai baht and spread to all neighbouring countries. In the decade prior to the
crisis, the region saw substantial inward capital flows, so much so that countries such as
Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia ran significant deficits on their balance of payments.
This conflicted with the US's trade balance, which was beginning to deteriorate. The solution
was the collapse of the South-east Asia investment story, which stimulated the re-allocation of
investment resources in favour of the dollar and America.
Qiao Liang cites a number of other examples from the Latin-American crisis in the
early-1980s to Ukraine, whose yellow revolution reversed investment flows into Central Europe.
This did not go to plan, with over a trillion dollars-worth of investment coming out of Europe,
most being redirected to the Chinese economy, which was the most attractive destination at that
time. Through the new Shanghai-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, in April 2014 China
facilitated inward investment and the ability for foreign investors to realise profits without
going through exchange controls.
Being the gateway for foreign investors, our story now moves to Hong Kong. According to
Chinese and Russian intelligence sources, America tried to destabilise it with covert support
for the Occupy Hong Kong movement between September and December 2014. The Fed ended its QE
that October, and international capital was needed back in the US. The Americans had also
escalated the row over the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal at the beginning of that year,
which effectively halted free trade negotiations between China, Japan, South Korea, Macau,
Taiwan and Hong Kong. The Chinese hoped this potential free trade area could be expanded to
include the ASEAN FTA, which would then have been the largest in the world by GDP and an area
in which they could develop the renminbi as the reserve currency.
These plans were effectively scuppered, but China was not provoked into a public response by
these actions. Instead, they started reducing their US Treasury holdings in their dollar
reserves from $1.27 trillion to $1.06 trillion in 2016 – not a great fall, but
demonstrating they were not recycling their trade surpluses into dollars.
All that happened at a time when both the American and global economies were expanding
– admittedly at muted rates. Trump's trade protectionism has changed that, and early
indications are that the US economy is now stalling. Tax revenues are falling short, while
government expenditures are rising. America now urgently needs more inward capital flows to
finance the growing budget deficit.
If Qiao Liang were to comment, doubtless his conclusion would be that America will increase
its attack on China to precipitate disinvestment and reallocation to the dollar. And so, the
attacks have begun; first by trying to break Huawei. Now, the mainstream media, perhaps with
off-the-record briefings, are claiming China and Hong Kong are facing difficulties.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming China's banks are running
out of dollars. Clearly, this is untrue. China's banks can acquire dollars any time they want,
either by selling other foreign currencies in the market, or by selling renminbi to the
People's bank. They have their dollar position because they choose to have it, and furthermore
all commercial banks use derivatives, which are effectively off-balance sheet exposure.
Furthermore, with the US running a substantial trade deficit with China, dollars are flooding
in all the time.
Following the WSJ article, various other commentators have come up with similar stories. How
convenient, it seems, for the US Government to see these bearish stories about China, just when
they need to ramp up inward portfolio flows to finance the budget deficit.
There is, anyway, a general antipathy among American investors to the China story, so we
should not be surprised to see the China bears restating their case. One leading China bear, at
least by reputation for his investment shrewdness, is Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital Management.
According to , he has written his first investment letter in three years, saying of Hong Kong,
"Today, newly emergent economic and political risks threaten Hong Kong's decades of stability.
These risks are so large they merit immediate attention on both fronts."
If only it were so simple. It is time to put the alternative case. Hong Kong is important,
because China uses Hong Kong and London to avoid being dependent on the US banking system for
international finances. And that's why the US's deep state want to nail Hong Kong.
Lop-sided
analysis
Bass is correct in pointing out the Hong Kong property market appears highly geared, and
that property prices for office, residential and retail sectors have rocketed since the 2003
trough. To a large extent it has been the inevitable consequence of the currency board link to
the US dollar, which broadly transfers the Fed's inflationary monetary policy to Hong Kong's
more dynamic economy. Bass's description of the relationship between the banks, the way they
finance themselves and property collateral is reminiscent of the factors that led to the
secondary banking crisis in the UK in late-1973. Empirical evidence appears to be firmly on
Bass's side.
Except, that is, for a significant difference between events such as the UK's secondary
banking crisis, and virtually every other property crisis. Hong Kong is a truly international
centre, and the banks' role in property transactions is as currency facilitator rather than
lender. In 2017, Hong Kong was the third largest recipient of foreign direct investment
(substantially property) after the US and China. FDI inflows rose by £104bn to total
nearly $2 trillion. Largest investors were China, followed by corporate money channeled
through offshore centers.
So, yes, Hong Kong banks will be hurt by a property crisis, but not as much as Bass implies.
It is foreign and Chinese banks that have much of the property as collateral. It is not the
Hong Kong banks that have fuelled the property boom with domestic credit, but foreign
money.
Bass fails to mention that a collapse in property prices and the banking system is unlikely
to be confined to Hong Kong. Central banks have made significant progress in ensuring all
banking systems are tied into the same credit cycle. Unwittingly, they have simply guarenteed
that the next credit crisis will hit everyone at the same time. It won't be just Hong Kong, but
the EU, Japan, Britain and America. Everyone will be in difficulty to a greater or lesser
extent.
Interestingly, the Lehman crisis, which occurred after Hong Kong property prices had already
doubled from 2003, caused strong inflows to develop, driving the Hong Kong dollar to the top of
its peg. The situation appears to be similar today, with US outward investment at low levels,
but near-record levels of foreign ownership of dollar assets. Despite Hong Kong's foreign
direct investment standing at $2 trillion, the prospect of capital repatriation to Hong Kong
should not be ignored.
Probably the most important claim in Bass's letter is over the future of the currency peg
operated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). He claims that the "aggregate balance",
which is a line-item in the HKMA's balance sheet, is the equivalent of the US Fed's excess
reserves, and that "Once depleted, the pressure on the currency board will become untenable and
the peg will break."
The aggregate balance on the HKMA's balance sheet has declined significantly over the last
year, from HK$180bn to HK$54.4bn currently. The decision about changes in aggregate balances
comes from the banks themselves, and for this reason they are commonly taken to reflect capital
flows into and out of the Hong Kong dollar. This is different from aggregate balances
reflecting actual pressures on the peg, as suggested by Bass.
The HKMA maintains a US dollar coverage of 105%-112.5% of base money (currently about 110%)
and has further unallocated dollar reserves if necessary. The peg is maintained by the HKMA
varying its base money, not just by managing a base lending rate giving a spread over the Fed's
fund rate, not just by influencing the commercial banks' aggregate balances, but by addressing
the three other components that make up the monetary base. These are Certificates of
Indebtedness, Government notes and coins in circulation and Exchange Fund Bills and Notes
(EFBNs). In practice, it is the EFBNs in conjunction with the aggregate balances that are used
to adjust the monetary base and keep the currency secured in the Convertibility Zone of 7.75
and 7.85 to the US dollar.
In maintaining the peg, the HKMA prioritises maintaining it over managing the money supply.
There is little doubt this goes against the grain of mainstream Western economists who believe
inflation good, deflation bad. Over the last year base money in Hong Kong contracted from
HK$1,695bn to HK1,635bn. Does this worry the HKMA? Not at all.
How the Chinese will act in the circumstances of a new global credit crisis is yet to be
seen, but we should bear in mind that they are probably less Keynesian in their approach to
economics and finance than Westerners. Admittedly, they have freely used credit expansion to
finance economic development, but theirs is a mercantilist approach, which differs
significantly from ours. We simply impoverish our factors of production through wealth transfer
by monetary inflation. We think this can be offset by fuelling financial speculation and asset
inflation. China enhances her production and innovation by generating personal savings. Wealth
is created by and linked more directly to production.
The objectives and effects of monetary and credit inflation between China's application of
it and the way we do things in the West are dissimilar, and it is a common mistake to ignore
these differences. The threat to China's ability to manage its affairs in a credit crisis is
significantly less than the threat to Western welfare-dependent nations whose governments are
highly indebted, while China's is not.
China is sure to see the financial and monetary stability of Hong Kong as being vital to the
Mainland's interests. Apart from the Bank of China's Hong Kong subsidiary being the second
largest issuer of bank notes, the Peoples' Bank itself maintains reserve balances in Hong Kong
dollars, which in the circumstances Kyle Bass believes likely, they can increase to support the
HKMA's management of the currency peg.
Conclusions
It is a mistake to think the Hong Kong property market is as much of a systemic danger as it
first appears. Expectations of a devaluation of the peg appear to be wishful thinking by the
bears.
Far more important are the consequences of the cyber and financial war being pursued against
China and Russia, its close ally, by the American deep state. Under President Trump it was
accelerated by his trade tariff policies, which are fundamentally an attack on China's economy.
China will be a hard nut to crack, and the effect of America's trade protectionism has been to
trigger a diminution in international trade, which is now becoming apparent. The negative
effects on the American economy appear to be being underestimated.
The attempt to destroy Huawei's 5G global ambitions is both the current and most visible
part of an undeclared cyber and financial war. Trade protectionism was only a step along the
way. The financial war is now escalating with the global economy facing at least a significant
recession, almost certain to trigger an overdue credit crisis. The Chinese have long been on a
financial war footing, as shown by Qiao Liang's analysis of how America needs global portfolio
flows and what they are prepared to do to attract them. Western thinking that the Chinese and
their Russian allies are vulnerable to American hegemony has been disproved time and again.
Financial analysts consistently fail to understand the Chinese are not muppets.
China will not be provoked, and by standing firm, they are sure to protect Hong Kong and get
on with diverting investment flows from a failing US economy into its Belt and Road Initiative.
This will force a financial crisis on the Americans of their own making. At least, that's how
China has always seen it and they see no need for their passive financial war strategy to
change.
The Washington strategy described here to prevent China from becoming a global player in
geo-politics and technology is doomed to failure as more and more countries side with China
(including Russia, which wants its own share of the action). It will lead to a hot war and I
believe Washington knows this and is stepping in that direction.
The alternative is for Washington to recognise and accept that its days of being a
uni-polar global power are coming to an end but that is not possible when power is in the
hands of maniacal psychos like Bolt-on.
Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, BIS, just for starters. The US/UK built the present
financial system. Of which most of the world has joined, because in the main it profits
them.
All clubs have rules. All clubs have requirements. Or else, by by.
China wants in the club, wants the club facilities, the club benefits, wants to go to the
parties and be warmly accepted at the bar. But it doesn't like the rules. But it doesn't like
being outside the club either.
The Communist Chinese government, decades used to treating its own people as dirt. This is
how they roll.
So too Iran, Maduro, Cuba, Putin.
They want the benefits of the west, but not the strings. State Street, as we say in
Massachusetts ( State Street in Boston is where the state capital is, and it is one way
only)
"...financial war being waged by America against China and Russia."
And by China and Russia against America. Lets not pretend the Russians and Chinese are
innocent victims here. Its a competition. Thats the way the world works. Were all competing
for trade, money and resources.
In a few days we may be witnessing a massive game of "chicken" between the world's two
largest economies:
"If China does not cut Iran oil purchases to zero, the Trump administration may have to
make a decision on blocking Chinese banks from the U.S. financial system. That could have
unintended consequences for finance and business between the world's two biggest economies,
already in negotiations over trade disagreements.
The unnamed "senior official" consulted for this article is remarkably confident the
Chinese will blink on this matter, based on a what seems a limited understanding of what
constitutes their base interest. In previous times, foreign policy initiatives always
featured internal deliberation with advocates from all sides of an issue, so a complete range
of option and consequence could be anticipated. Such process seems to have been
abandoned.
"... The real test for having an “unprecedentedly high level” relationship would be to coordinate diplomatic campaigns against U.S. policies. Working together they are more likely to split off American allies and friends from unpopular initiatives, such as unilateral sanction campaigns. ..."
"... Lets all mindlessly repeat the platitudes of Thinktankistan entities like CATO... Russian economy is smaller than new York... Russian relies on oil sales and doesn't make anything.... These sock puppets must think we are imbeciles. ..."
"... He's an Atlantacist fool. Senior fellow at the CATO institute, pretty much says it all. His style is to drop the odd truth-bomb (like criticizing the ill-advised NATO expansion and US geopolitical belligerence) but he still sticks to the main planks of Euro-Atlantic narratives. ..."
...Beijing and Moscow share one very big objective: resist U.S. dominance. Washington
expanded NATO up to Russia's borders; America's navy patrols the Asia-Pacific and treats those
waters as an American lake. Elsewhere there is no issue upon which Washington fails to
sanctimoniously pronounce its opinion and piously attempt to enforce its judgment.
Unfortunately, for quite some time Washington has seemed determined to give both China and
Russia good cause for discontent. Instead, in response, Washington should do its best to
eliminate behaviors which bring its two most important competitors together. Then the United
States wouldn't need to worry what Presidents Putin and Xi were saying to one another
.
Thus, Washington has done much to bring its two leading adversaries together. However,
hostility is a limited basis for agreement. There is no military alliance, despite Chinese
participation in a Russian military exercise last fall. Neither government is interested in
going to war with America and certainly not over the other’s grievances. A shared sense
of threat could change that, but extraordinarily sustained and maladroit U.S. policies would be
required to create that atmosphere.
When the two countries otherwise act for similar purposes, it usually is independently, even
competitively, rather than cooperatively. For instance, both are active in Cuba, contra
Washington’s long-failed policy of starving the regime into submission. Beijing and
Moscow also are both supporting Venezuela’s beleaguered Maduro government. However, China
and Russia appear to be focused on advancing their own government’s influence, even
against that of the other.
Both nations have a United Nations Security Council veto, though the PRC traditionally has
preferred to abstain, achieving little, rather than cast a veto. However, working together they
could more effectively reshape allied proposals for UN action. They could do much the same in
other multilateral organizations, though usually without having a veto.
The real test for having an “unprecedentedly high level” relationship would
be to coordinate diplomatic campaigns against U.S. policies. Working together they are more
likely to split off American allies and friends from unpopular initiatives, such as unilateral
sanction campaigns. Europe is more likely to cooperate if the PRC, valued for its economic
connections, joined Russia, still distrusted for its confrontation with Ukraine and
interference in domestic European politics. So far this former communist “axis” has
been mostly an inconvenience for the United States, rather than a significant hindrance,
Still, that could change if the Trump administration makes ever more extraordinary
assertions of unilateral power. Washington officials appear to sense the possibilities, having
periodically whined about cooperation between China and Russia, apparently ill-prepared for any
organized opposition to U.S. policies.
... ... ...
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
"China appears poised to absorb Russia’s sparsely populated east."
Good Lord, but when does this endless BS end? Seriously, no-one really believes this
yet these clowns and fools keep trotting out these absurd canards.
"In a sense, the Putin-Xi meeting was much ado about nothing. The relationship
revolves around what they are against, which mostly is the United States. They would have
little to talk about other than the latest grievance about America to express or American
activity to counter."
Yeah sure... no reason why Putin and Xi wouldn't want to talk about economic links
given that Russia-China trade is now over $100B per year equivalent.... a figure reached
more than 5 years earlier than Western "experts" had predicted, and which is growing very
strongly.
Lets all mindlessly repeat the platitudes of Thinktankistan entities like CATO...
Russian economy is smaller than new York... Russian relies on oil sales and doesn't make
anything.... These sock puppets must think we are imbeciles.
Orwell predicted "It is a warfare of limited aims between
combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause
for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference."
He's an Atlantacist fool. Senior fellow at the CATO institute, pretty much says it
all. His style is to drop the odd truth-bomb (like criticizing the ill-advised NATO
expansion and US geopolitical belligerence) but he still sticks to the main planks of
Euro-Atlantic narratives.
The granting of a "permanent normal trading relationship" (PNTR) and then the subsequent
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 have been a boon for China, but the
persistence of ongoing American trade deficits have led many,
including the current president, to judge the United States a loser in ongoing trade
negotiations with Beijing. It's not a totally irrational judgment: China's WTO accession
hasn't been
great for U.S. manufacturers .
Part of the problem stems from the extraordinary fact that Washington has seldom deployed a
negotiator who is actually well-versed in trade issues. Since the days of the Clinton
administration, it has been the U.S. Treasury Secretary, as opposed to the country's chief
trade representative, who has consistently directed trade negotiations, with the resultant (and
eminently predictable) impact that financial interests have superseded those of any other
economic sector. That pattern was briefly disrupted when President George W. Bush appointed
Alcoa's CEO, Paul O'Neill, to head the Treasury, and then CSX president John W. Snow, but
ultimately the " Wall Street uber alles " mentality again prevailed with the appointment
of Hank Paulson (to be followed by Tim Geithner, Jack Lew, and now Steve Mnuchin -- all of whom
have finance-centric backgrounds).
For all of the supposed financial sophistication of America's Wall Street-based Treasury
Secretaries, it is indeed ironic that China has consistently been able to play them for fools
with the implied threat of its so-called "nuclear option," a highly flawed
narrative that alleges that as a final resort, Beijing would dump its huge stockpile of
U.S. Treasuries, thereby driving up U.S. rates, and creating a catastrophic depression for the
U.S. economy. That so-called threat to the bond market is the traditional reason why successive
Treasury Secretaries have been hesitant to resort to the blunt trauma force of trade sanctions
or tariffs when it came to negotiating with Beijing. They were also comforted by the idea that
as it modernized, China would increasingly abide by traditional norms of free trade doctrine
against all
available evidence that shows that it has not played by the same rules.
Let's leave aside the internal incoherence of the nuclear option: China exiting
dollar-denominated assets could well create downward pressure on the external value of the
free-floating currency. But that would enhance U.S. export competitiveness, assuming, of
course, that America has anything left to export, an unfortunate legacy of the Treasury's
malign neglect of U.S. manufacturing. It's also operationally wrong (see here
for further detail), and mistakenly assumes (against all historical evidence to the contrary)
that Beijing would pursue an economic policy that is the functional equivalent of cutting its
own nose to spite its face, as Paul Krugman, among others, notes.
Even if Paulson, Geithner, Lew, Mnuchin, etc., didn't truly believe in the "nuclear option,"
they have been happy to tamp down the possibility of a trade war in order to keep the capital
markets stable. Each trade "deal" has therefore largely sustained the status quo, the price for
which sees Beijing usually offering up a few well-timed purchases of soybeans or Boeing
aircraft (although the latter will be more problematic in light of the 737 fiasco). But China's
policy makers have never been forced to deal with the economic consequences of their country's
mercantilism, which has resulted in the steady erosion of America's Rust Belt, as the U.S.
economy gave back the considerable employment gains it achieved during the 1990s, via
a
historic contraction in manufacturing employment .
Things have changed markedly since Trump seized the "China trade" portfolio from the
Treasury's Steve Mnuchin, and placed it under the control of Robert Lighthizer, the current
trade representative. Unusually for a member of the Trump administration, Lighthizer actually
knows his brief. He has had literally decades of experience in trade issues, dating from his
days as a deputy U.S. trade representative in 1983 (when Japan was widely perceived as the main
trade threat), to his current role as America's chief trade negotiator. As Trump's U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR), he has provided policy flesh and bones to the president's robustly
unilateral approach in trade.
If anything, Lighthizer's trade hawkishness has become even more pronounced over the years,
as he has shifted his attention away from Japan to China. In his 2010 congressional
testimony , he argued that U.S. policy makers gravely underestimated the threat posed to
American manufacturing by virtue of China's entry into the WTO, marshaling an array of evidence
to cast doubt on the idea that its entry had brought any significant economic benefits to U.S.
workers and businesses. He also highlighted the mercantilist nature of Beijing's state
capitalism and noted that the country's administrative complexity likely precluded it embracing
WTO rules, even if wanted to do so (which he doubted):
"As part of China's system, specific large companies receive government patronage in the
form of credit, contracts, and subsidies. The Chinese government, in turn, sees these
'national champions' as a means of competing with foreign rivals and encourages their
dominant role in the domestic economy and in export markets
{[S]cholars have questioned whether -- given its lack of institutional capacity and the
complexity of its constitutional, administrative, and legal system -- China is even capable
of complying with its WTO obligations.
No doubt in thrall to the prevailing free-trade ideology, Washington's "policy passivity"
made it loath to use available tools such as the WTO's "421" special safeguards to counter
the resultant trade shock. In that same testimony, Lighthizer also signaled that he was
uninterested in the niceties of WTO style multilateralism, more inclined to the use of "
aggressive unilateralism "
via executive orders, diplomatic pressure, and most importantly,
the use of Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to levy tariffs on various
products, premised on the notion that the targeted country (in today's case, China)
represented a national security threat.
Most significant from the Lighthizer perspective is an explicit rejection of the idea that
China needs to do more than just buy more U.S. goods before the two countries strike a
permanent trade deal, which in any case is highly problematic if the end objective is to bring
the bilateral trade balance between the two countries to zero.
"The scope for explosive growth in soybeans is actually fairly limited, as the pre-tariff
base for soybeans [the number one or two largest U.S. export to China] was quite high -- the
United States was supplying $12 billion of China's almost $40 billion in oil seed imports. A
huge tilt away from Brazil might cause U.S. beans exports to double, but getting much more
than that would be difficult (there is a natural seasonality to soybean trade that favors
alternating supply from the Southern and Northern Hemispheres).
"The real growth would need to come in sectors where China doesn't buy much now. Corn. Rice.
Perhaps pork and beef Getting really big numbers there though would risk pushing up U.S.
prices, and getting China to abandon its goal of self-sufficiency in basic grains."
So U.S. farm prices would be pushed up, which would hurt U.S. domestic consumers, even as it
cosmetically dresses up America's trade position vis a vis China.
"China has signaled it is willing to let foreign firms take majority stakes in a few more
sectors, and has reiterated its belief that technology transfer isn't a legal requirement for
entry into the Chinese market. There are likely to be settlements on some long-standing
disputes as well -- the rating agencies have gotten approval to enter the Chinese market; Visa,
American Express and Mastercard likely will
finally get approval too (
Mastercard through a joint venture not everything changes); and some tariffs introduced as
retaliation in the past may get dropped."
But how does the entry into China of consumer credit card companies or the ratings agencies
help Americans? Ironically, this looks precisely like the kind of sop to finance that Trump
said he would eschew. However, because of corporate/Wall Street pressure, the Trump agenda
pivoted a few months ago from selective decoupling and protection of American strategic
industries to opening up China for U.S. investment and pushing China to treat American
companies doing business in China more equally. That is why leading U.S. companies have become
friendlier and increasingly less critical of the president's trade policy, even as the economic
commentariat has continued to blast him.
Trump himself needs to understand that a third to a half of 'trade' is really transnational
production with inputs from suppliers coordinated by mostly third-party manufacturers in Asia
(notably in semiconductors). The purpose of modern mercantilism (particularly as it is
practiced in China today) is not just to sell more finished goods but to try to monopolize the
high value added rungs of supply chains. It is unclear that targeting China's bilateral trade
surplus with the United States will ultimately disrupt these entrenched supply chains. It
almost certainly won't bring semiconductor manufacturing back to America's shores.
In the end, therefore, pushing China's leadership to make structural changes to open up
China to American companies is probably an illusion. Beijing is unlikely to rip up the model
that has seen it create national champions that can now compete successfully with America's
biggest corporations. It may make token promises to curtail cybertheft, or the subsidies that
the administration complains create an uneven playing field for American companies. But, as
noted above, even Lighthizer himself has cast doubt that Beijing could enforce those promises,
given the administrative complexity of its system of governance. In his eagerness to claim a
win, therefore, Trump ironically might end up settling for the usual Faustian bargain: more
large Chinese purchases, selective decoupling of supply chains (as American companies
rethink
their reliance on China ), and increased domestic protection for certain sectors (such as
5G) on national security grounds, Lighthizer's considerable efforts notwithstanding. We may
have reached the peak as far as this particular tariff war goes, but the longer-term trade
tensions will almost certainly persist well beyond this hollow 'victory,' which Mr. "Art of the
Deal" will no doubt claim for himself when the negotiations do officially end.
Excellent assessment of the situation here. I suppose another factor for Trump is the fact
that as the US 2020 elections drew ever nearer, he will want some sort of win – any
sort of win – to take to the American people to show that he was tough on China and got
a better deal. His opponents will disagree with the deal. Hell, probably most economists will
disagree but Trump will only care what his supporters think as they are the ones that will
re-elect him.
But of course the interests of people like Robert Lighthizer may come into play here as he
may not care what Trump wants. He is the sort of person that might just blow up negotiations
in order to be tough on China to get it to buckle. I have seen this movie before. Let me
quote from a Salon article here-
"In the summer of 1941, before leaving for Placentia Bay, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt had ordered a freeze on Japanese assets. That measure required the Japanese to seek
and obtain licenses to export and pay for each shipment of goods from the United States,
including oil. This move was most distressing to the Japanese because they were dependent on
the United States for most of their crude oil and refined petroleum products. However,
Roosevelt did not want to trigger a war with Japan. His intention was to keep the oil flowing
by continuing to grant licenses. Roosevelt had a noose around Japan's neck, but he chose not
to tighten it. He was not ready to cut off its oil lifeline for fear that such a move would
be regarded as tantamount to an act of war.
That summer, while Roosevelt, his trusted adviser Harry Hopkins and U.S. Undersecretary of
State Sumner Welles were attending the shipboard conference off Newfoundland and Secretary of
State Cordell Hull was on vacation at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, the authority to grant
licenses to export and pay for oil and other goods was in the hands of a three-person
interagency committee. It was dominated by Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson, whom
one historian described as the "quintessential opportunist of U.S. foreign policy in
1941."
Acheson favored a "bullet-proof freeze" on oil shipments to Japan, claiming it would not
provoke war because "no rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in
anything but disaster for his country." With breathtaking confidence in his own judgment, and
ignoring the objections of others in the State Department, Acheson refused to grant licenses
to Japan to pay for goods in dollars. That effectively ended Japan's ability to ship oil and
all other goods from the United States.
Acheson's actions cut off all American trade with Japan. When Roosevelt returned, he decided
not to overturn the "state of affairs" initiated by Acheson, apparently because he feared he
would otherwise be regarded as an appeaser. Once Roosevelt perpetuated Acheson's trade
embargo, the planners in Japan's imperial military headquarters knew that oil to fuel their
fleet, as well as rubber, rice and other vital reserves, would soon run out."
And we all know what happened next. So I would not be surprised if Robert Lighthizer could
very well be the re-encarnation of Dean Acheson and given half a chance, would seek to put
China under the gun if he thought that he would get away with it.
Rev Kev
I hope you are right. LIghthizer is actually one of the few beacons of hope in the Trump
Administration. But I fear he'll drink the Trump Kool-Aid and basically settle for less than
half a loaf. That's a fascinating historical precedent you have cited. Thank you for bringing
it to my attention.
Very interesting article. In the mean time Japans aim was land conquest. They raped,
murdered, and pillaged their neighbors so WWII USA/Japan was not avoidable to say the least.
They worshipped an emperor and thought they were superior ideologically and militarily. One
could argue that they should have addressed the Japan issue years earlier.
Trump has taken on 20+ years of terrible trade deals and is now stepping up to change it. He
should be applauded! Instead, everyone in the peanut gallery (news media) takes pot shots at
him. We are dealing with a "COMMUNIST" country here which says it all. We now have a business
man running the USA thank God. To make changes will take time!
Darn. When I read the headline, I hoped the article would explain what a victory in U.S.
trade policy with China would look like -- that is, what kind of trade relationship would
"rectify lingering structural problems that have devastated U.S. manufacturing (with genuine
enforcement provisions)." That's a tough question to answer! But all this article describes
is why Trump's policy won't achieve that result. Every policy tried so far has not achieved
that result, so it's not really surprising that this one won't either. In fact, the article
seems to suggest that China cannot play by reasonable trade rules. So what is victory?
Seriously, we need an answer to that one.
How can State Capitalism have caused that 'quantum leap' for China when everyone told us
Central Planning does not work?
If it does work, maybe the US should try it in a way other than the PPT, Fed bailouts, ag
subsidies, military industrial complex, mortgage subsidies, sanctions on rivals, military
action on rivals, etc they already do.
As I understand it, US manufacturing left the US for other countries because of the lower
cost of labour and the lower cost of doing business in foreign countries. What would bring
manufacturing back from foreign countries? Maybe when the cost of doing business in the US
(i.e., wages and salaries of the working class) are lower than those in foreign countries.
Maybe a labour contigent made up entirely of robots would bring back manufacturing to the
US.
While lower wage costs helped drive it, now they the ever rising cost of shipping their
wares. Course they have seen the Chinese boycotts work so well, they may think they will have
a US version to deal with, as so many dislike ok, hate globalization, that any that smacks of
it has a PR problem. Course its likely we will see a repeat of NKoroea too
different budget line probably, so can still be presented as cost-saving also factor in
the use of consultants before/during/after off-shoring – but again different budget
line!
I'm not sure at all what others think a "victory' would look like, but to me it would be
anything that finally raises the profile our (Western Nations) reliance (addiction?) on
supply chains emanating from CHina that impact, negatively, our National Security. If we
could even BEGIN to discuss this dilema I'd be satisfied. And it appears we are beginning to
question the dependence.
China has been at war with the United States for decades. It is an all domain,
unrestricted war. The Chinese do not play by any rules but their own. They have used the
West's strengths of an open political and market system against North American and European
industrialized democracies.
A win against China means re-industrializing the United States across all manufacturing
industries. Tariffs and regulations are the most efficient means to effect this result.
Negotiating is a fool's errand. China will not live up to its obligations under the
agreement anyway.
Perhaps, readers should ask themselves if China is beginning to resemble the Third Reich.
Dictatorship, concentration camps, military buildup, territorial expansion, religious
persecution, military aggression, economic warfare, racist ideology If so, then we should
determine what steps the West and its allies in the East should take to ensure its survival
and prosperity.
Probably we need tariffs to protect against the wage race to the bottom. Not at all clear
trumps 25% threat is high enough.
But spending big on overdue infra would employ lots of blue collars, some at union wages not
in competition w foreign labor, and focusing on higher unemployment regions first avoids
inflation.
Regarding changes in Chinese gov us has been warmonger for decades, assassinates foreign
leaders etc China so far not nearly as aggressive.
Our corporations which benefit from unlimited credit via our very own Military Industrial
Capitalism are no different from China's SOEs. China is protecting essential industries, so
are we. We have tried to force austerity on the rest of our economy – but China does
not. Why is that? And because we have succeeded in establishing the world's most unequal
society, we should be proud of our success. Mindless and shameful as it has been. China
doesn't think it would be politically beneficial to do that to 1.5 billion Chinese. They will
find their own way. Why should they now shoot themselves in the foot just because we did? For
them to bend to our demand that they stop being so mercantilist means they would have to
impose austerity on their people to some degree. It's an appropriate point for a showdown.
And I can't imagine we will win unless we are willing to continue our own ridiculous social
"structure" which is undemocratic and tyrannical. We're looking at a political revolution
because everyone is fed up. China is not. Who's right? We can only brag that we have the
"liberal" high ground because we haven't faced facts yet.
The latest Iran sanctions salvo, the claim that "waivers" for China and others will be
eliminated, is another complication. It will be perceived, with good reason, as deliberately
interfering with world trade under false pretenses. An aggressive follow-up and this could be
an effective way for team Trump to get out of whatever agreements they made in negotiations
so far. More drama
I would not say advantage US; for example China needs US semiconductors. To me if feels
like the US and China are two pilots locked in a kamikaze plane together; both nations are
floating on a sea of debt and IMO prone to massive downside risk during a recession (eg, US
corporate balance sheets are in very poor shape due to debt used to fund stock buybacks). The
US has the reserve currency, but China has sane leadership and doesn't have to carry around
other countries. Interesting times.
@ William Gruff
"Planned economies cannot have overproduction problems like market economies do" I don't
agree with that; look at China's empty cities (overproduction of everything in that city).
The recent book China's Great Wall of Debt went through China's massive overproduction of
certain items (do they really need that much cement?). The book's thesis is that China builds
what it knows how to build, whether it needs it or not.
Data Tells: China's BRI promotes global trade
By Zhang Xinyuan
As a development strategy proposed by China that focuses on connectivity and cooperation
on a trans‐continental scale, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has significantly
boosted global trade and investment in recent years.
With a wave of trade protectionism sweeping across the world in recent years, causing
global economic turmoil, China still adheres to economic openness, actively pushing toward
economic globalization, and striving to build a more convenient and liberal environment for
international trade and investment.
BRI is one of the most important tools for China to achieve that goal. About 125 countries
and 29 international organizations have signed cooperation agreements with China on jointly
building the Belt and Road, according to data published in March on China's official Belt and
Road website.
The total trade volume of goods between China and countries along the Belt and Road
exceeded six trillion U.S. dollars from 2013 to 2018, according to a Ministry of Commerce
(MOFCOM) statement on Thursday.
The average annual growth rate of trade between China and countries along the Belt and
Road hit four percent during the 2013-2018 period, higher than the growth rate of China's
foreign trade during the same period, accounting for 27.4 percent of China's total trade in
goods, according to MOFCOM.
According to the Belt and Road Big Data Annual Report of 2018 from the State Information
Center, BRI in 2017 connected 71 countries around the world, spanning across Asia, Europe,
and Eastern Africa, and in total the BRI countries' foreign trade reached 9.3 trillion U.S.
dollars in 2017, 27.8 percent of the total world trade volume.
Among the BRI countries, South Korea ranks first in terms of foreign trade volume,
reaching over one trillion U.S. dollars in 2017, Singapore and India follows with 697 billion
U.S. dollars and 617 billion U.S. dollars, respectively, the report showed.
In terms of trade commodities, the top import and export commodities among BRI economies
fall in the same categories, including electronic machinery, sound recorder and reproducers,
and televisions, followed by nuclear reactors, boilers, and other heavy machinery, based on
the report.
Private enterprises in China have played a major role in trade with BRI economies. In
2017, China's private enterprises trade with BRI countries reached 619 billion U.S. dollars,
representing 43 percent of the total trade volume between China and BRI countries. Foreign
companies grabbed 36.6 percent of the trade pie, while state-owned enterprises got 19.4
percent of the market share.
BRI has greatly prompted the development of private economies in China and further opened
its market to foreign companies.
As Jimmy Carter observed....the US spread death and destruction investing in war and spending
on war to the tune of trillions, China is investing in the future.
Carter to Trump: While China has some 18k miles of high-speed rail, the US has wasted $3
trillion on military spending. "It's more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single
penny on war, and that's why they're ahead of us. In almost every way."
China set a defense budget growth target of 7.5 percent in 2019, slower than last year but
still enough to fulfill President Xi Jinping's plans to build a world-class military.
Authorities made the announcement on Tuesday in a statement released ahead of the National
People's Congress, the annual gathering of China's legislature in Beijing. In 2018, before
the trade war started to affect China's economy, officials predicted an increase of 8.1
percent to 1.11 trillion yuan ($164 billion). ...
When the US economy was a larger share of the world economy, then access to the US market
meant more. For example, World Bank statistics say that the US economy was 40% of the entire
world economy in 1960, but is now about 24%. The main source of growth in the world economy
for the foreseeable future will be in emerging markets.
For a sense of the shift, consider this figure from the most recent World Economic Outlook
report, published by the IMF (April 2019). The lines in the figure show the trade flows
between countries that are at least 1% of total world GDP. The size of the dots for each
country is proportionate to the country's GDP.
In 1995, you can see international trade revolving around the United States, with another
hub of trade happening in Europe and a third hub focused around Japan. Trade between the US
and China shows up on the figure, but China did not have trade flows greater than 1% of world
GDP with any country other than the US.
The picture is rather different in 2015. The US remains an international hub for trade.
Germany remains a hub as well, although fewer of its trade flows now exceed 1% of world GDP.
And China has clearly become a hub of central importance in Asia.
[Graph]
The patterns of trade have also shifted toward greater use of global value chains--that
is, intermediate products that are shipped across national borders at least once, and often
multiple times, before they become final products. Here's the overall pattern since 1995 of
falling tariffs and rising participation in global value chains for the world economy as a
whole.
[Graph]
Several decades ago, emerging markets around the world worried about having access to
selling in US and European markets, and this market access could be used by the US and
European nations as a bargaining chip in economic treaties and more broadly in international
relations. Looking ahead, US production is now more tied into global value chains, and the
long-term growth of US manufacturing is going to rely more heavily on sales to markets
outside the United States.
For example, if one is concerned about the future of the US car industry, the US now
produces about 7% of the world's cars in 2015, and about 22% of the world's trucks. The
future growth of car consumption is going to be primarily outside the US economy. For the
health and long-term growth of the US car business, the possibility of unfair imports into
the US economy matters a lot less than the access of US car producers to selling in the rest
of the world economy.
The interconnectedness of global value chains means that General Motors already produces
more cars in China than it does in the United States. In fact, sales of US multinationals now
producing in China are already twice as high as exports from the US to China. Again, the
long-term health of many US manufacturers is going to be based on their ability to
participate in international value chains and in overseas production.
Although what caught my eye in this World Economic Outlook report was the shifting
patterns of world trade, the main emphases of the chapter are on other themes that will come
as no surprise to faithful readers of this blog. One main theme is that shifts in bilateral
and overall trade deficits are the result of macroeconomic factors, not the outcome of trade
negotiations, a theme I've harped on here.
The IMF report also offers calculations that higher tariffs between the US and China will
cause economic losses for both sides. From the IMF report:
"The starting point is a collapse in US–China trade, which falls by 25–30
percent in the short term and somewhere between 30 percent and 70 percent over the long term,
depending on the model and the direction of trade. The decrease in external demand leads to a
decline in total exports and in GDP in both countries. Annual real GDP losses range from
–0.3 percent to –0.6 percent for the United States and from –0.5 percent to
–1.5 percent for China ... Finally, although the US–China bilateral trade deficit
is reduced, there is no economically significant change in each country's multilateral trade
balance."
Some advocates of higher tariffs take comfort in noting that the estimated losses to
China's economy are bigger than the losses to the US economy. Yes, but it's losses all
around! As the 21st century economy evolves, the most important issues for US producers are
going to involve their ability to compete in unfettered ways in the increasingly important
markets outside the US.
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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 missiletechnology
. During the Cold War, a succession of U.S. administrations expressed frustration and anger at
the de facto alliance between the totalitarian Soviet Union and democratic India. Yet the
underlying cause for that association was not hard to fathom. Both countries opposed U.S.
global primacy. India was especially uneasy about Washington's knee-jerk diplomatic and military support for
Pakistan , despite that country's history of dictatorial rule and aggression.
Alienating India was a profoundly unwise policy. So, too, has been Washington's longstanding
obsession with weakening and isolating Iran and North Korea. Those two countries have almost
nothing in common, ideologically, politically, geographically, or economically. One is a weird
East Asian regime based on dynastic Stalinism, while the other is a reactionary Middle East
Muslim theocracy. Without the incentive that unrelenting U.S. hostility provides, there is
little reason to believe that Tehran and Pyongyang would be allies. But Washington's vehemently
anti-nuclear policy towards both regimes, and the brutal economic sanctions that followed, have
helped cement a de facto alliance between two very strange bedfellows.
Iranian and North Korean leaders have apparently reached the logical conclusion that the
best way to discourage U.S. leaders from considering forcible regime change towards either of
their countries was to cooperate in strengthening their respective nuclear and missile
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.
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).
"I never thought I'd be saying this, but if the Soviet Union still existed, the United States
would not dare to do what it is doing now" – said to me by an anti-Communist Romanian
who had fled Romania when it was still Communist ruled. We were attending a demonstration
against the Clinton air war which was the final death blow to Yugoslavia.
The emergence of a powerful anti-American world coalition is a good thing; US world
hegemony has been good neither for the US nor for the world. The main danger is that the US,
seeing its power slip away, will resort to all out war, even nuclear war. I pray that the US
rulers are at least sane even if they are quite evil and over-bearing.
Current US foreign policy, set by the White House and Commander-in-Chief, reflects the beliefs
of the Deplorables who put Trump into office: sadly, most of these dupes believe the myth of
American Exceptionalism [copyright Sarah Palin]. The nexus of confusing social media and
reality TV with genuine reality, and 1950s Hollywood jingoism, has them waiting for a crisis
[possibly a gay Star Wars/Kardashian-type monster] that can only be saved before the final
commercial by their 'Hero'.
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?
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.
"... Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders. ..."
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.
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?
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.
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.
Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining
in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders.
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.
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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"... Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair. ..."
"... Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have called "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers" in the language of trade economists and lawyers. ..."
Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to
foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot
accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair.
CAMBRIDGE – The world economy desperately needs a plan for "peaceful coexistence" between the United States and China. Both sides
need to accept the other's right to develop under its own terms. The US must not try to reshape the Chinese economy in its image
of a capitalist market economy, and China must recognize America's concerns regarding employment and technology leakages, and accept
the occasional limits on access to US markets implied by these concerns.
The term "peaceful coexistence" evokes the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev understood
that the communist doctrine of eternal conflict between socialist and capitalist systems had outlived its usefulness. The US and
other Western countries would not be ripe for communist revolutions anytime soon, and they were unlikely to dislodge the Communist
regimes in the Soviet bloc. Communist and capitalist regimes had to live side by side.
Peaceful coexistence during the Cold War may not have looked pretty; there was plenty of friction, with each side sponsoring its
own set of proxies in a battle for global influence. But it was successful in preventing direct military conflict between two superpowers
armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons. Similarly, peaceful economic coexistence between the US and China is the only way
to prevent costly trade wars between the world's two economic giants
Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have
called "hyper-globalism," under
which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies
or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without
such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers"
in the language of trade economists and lawyers.
Thus, the main US complaint against China is that Chinese industrial policies make it difficult for US companies to do business
there. Credit subsidies keep state companies afloat and allow them to overproduce. Intellectual property rules make it easier for
copyrights and patents to be overridden and new technologies to be copied by competitors. Technology-transfer requirements force
foreign investors into joint ventures with domestic firms. Restrictive regulations prevent US financial firms from serving Chinese
customers. President Donald Trump is apparently ready to carry out his threat of slapping additional punitive tariffs on $200 billion
of Chinese exports if China does not yield to US demands in these areas.
For its part, China has little patience for arguments that its exports have been responsible for significant whiplash in US labor
markets or that some of its firms are stealing technological secrets. It would like the US to remain open to Chinese exports and
investment. Yet China's own opening to world trade was carefully managed and sequenced, to avoid adverse impacts on employment and
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.
"... "The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said. ..."
"... "The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted. ..."
"... "They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues," he said. ..."
"... "In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states." ..."
"... Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence. ..."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared today that the Western, liberal model of society is dying, and a new world order
is taking its place.
Lavrov made the comments at his annual meeting with students and professors at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, reported
Russian state news agency TASS.
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this
is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
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
"... Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance. ..."
"... Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.) ..."
"... Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings. ..."
"... There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined. ..."
"... It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives ..."
"... As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. " ..."
"... Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation. ..."
"... Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better. ..."
"... We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more" ..."
"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a
speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress
at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned
Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged
on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions
of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again.
They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back
on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close
the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given
Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico
a " one-year warning
" before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish
a twenty-five percent
tariff on cars
entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened
before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985,
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.
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 .
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them
all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel
Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program
is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard,
I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing
up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes
me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even
admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue
to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How
do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides
itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving
their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all
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 ?
Switching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's
campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC
has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the
first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination
will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided
by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support
candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have
a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more
on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
Since the 1971 floating of the US dollar onto the global markets, and 1973 creation of the
Petro dollar, the world has experienced a consistent collapse of productive manufacturing jobs,
infrastructure investment, long term planning on the one hand and a simultaneous increase of
de-regulation, short term speculation, financial services, and low wage retail jobs. During
this post 1971 process of decline, debt slavery became a norm both in developed countries and
developing sector nations alike, while outsourcing caused the castration of national
sovereignty and an ever greater reliance on "cheap labor" and "cheap resources" from abroad. It
was even called the
"controlled disintegration" policy of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1978 as he
was preparing to raise interest rates to levels that made it impossible for a majority of small
and medium agro-industrial enterprises to compete against corporate monoliths. The most
concrete model of this collapse was unveiled to the world in 1996 by the late American
economist Lyndon LaRouche known as the Triple Curve Collapse Function.
Some have called this collapse "a failure of globalization". Executive Intelligence Review's
Dennis Small has
repeatedly stated over many years that this is characterization is false. Globalization
should rather be seen as a complete success- in that when looked at from a top down
perspective, it becomes increasingly clear that the architects of this policy achieved exactly
what they set out to do. That intention was to impose an artificial closed/zero-sum game
paradigm upon a species whose distinguishing characteristic is its creative reason and capacity
constantly grow and self-perfect both on the surface of the earth and beyond. A primary figure
in the oligarchy's tool box of sociopathic agents who shaped this program for depopulation and
zero sum thinking over the years is a Canadian-born operative by the name of Maurice Strong.
Although having died in 2015, Strong's life and legacy are worth revisiting as it provides the
modern reader a powerful, albeit ugly insight into the methods and actions of the British-Deep
State agenda that so mis-shaped world history through the latter half of the 20 th
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."
"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.
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. ..."
"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.
"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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset. Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have a functioning society in the modern, technological world? ..."
"... From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations -- particularly the US. ..."
The European multinational is following a trend started by Boeing, which
recently opened a new completion plant in China. On the face of it, the decision by the two
companies (which dominate the civilian aviation market) makes sense: build where your biggest
customer lives, especially as China does not yet have a fully homegrown civil aviation industry
ready to compete globally. The benefits are many, including the goodwill and esteem of the
country that would be buying these planes. In the long term, however, that might prove to be a
costly miscalculation. Based on its recent history ( here and
here ), it
won't take long for China to catch up and largely displace both companies domestically in
Beijing's home aviation market, as well as seizing a large chunk of the corporate duopoly's
global market share. Airbus and Boeing could therefore be making short-term decisions with
negative long-term consequences for their future profitability.
Given China's formidable economic advancement, none of this should come as a surprise to
either Airbus or Boeing. Nor should it shock Western governments. The problem is that everybody
has historically been guided by the naïve assumption that simply admitting China to
organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) would induce Beijing to, in
the words of Philip Pan , "eventually bend to what were considered the established rules of
modernization: Prosperity would fuel popular demands for political freedom and bring China into
the fold of democratic nations. Or the Chinese economy would falter under the weight of
authoritarian rule and bureaucratic rot." China has unquestionably modernized, but its
politically illiberal, dirigiste polity has, if anything, massively
moved in the opposite direction, strengthened by that very modernization process that has done
anything but falter. Furthermore, the country has many aims and goals that are antithetical to
the long-term prosperity of Western companies and economies (as the European Union is
beginning to recognize ).
Boeing and Airbus might simply become the latest Western sacrificial lambs. Beijing has
explicitly targeted wide-bodied aircrafts as one of its 10 new priority sectors for import
substitution in its " Made in China
2025 " document, so whatever short-term gains Airbus and Boeing receive in terms of
securing additional orders from China could well be undermined longer-term. The resultant
technology transfers and lower labor costs will almost certainly give Beijing a quantum leap
toward competing directly and ultimately displacing both companies. Given the merger with
McDonnell Douglas, Boeing will continue its march toward effectively becoming a branch of the
U.S. Department of Defense, as its civilian market share crashes, but Airbus doesn't really
have the luxury of a military alternative, given the relative paucity of European defense
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.
Designating this as another strategic sector for growth in the 1990s, Chinese solar
companies, with the explicit backstop of the state, ultimately raised enough funding via
debt to build sufficient solar capacity for the world three times over.
I'm confused. Why should it matter that they raised funding via debt? It kinda reads like
Auerback feels this should shock us, or make us think China is "cheating" or somesuch. But
iirc there's a nice book by Mazzucato that proves something that Chomsky's been saying since
forever about the US (federal) govt. Now to be sure, the US govt tends to mainly simply give
away money, rather than extending loans, but..
Fiat economies have solidly proved that debt is just noise. Unless politicians use it as a
cudgel to kill good fiscal governance. I am confused about the use of the term "socializing
losses" here because what really seems to be happening is China is creating social value.
When our corporations are coddled and their externalized costs and losses are socialized we,
the tax payers, are the ones who suffer the austerity in order to keep the dollar "strong"
and etc. I'll never forgive this country for allowing our corporations to murder American
labor in the 80s and hot-foot it off to China to make their profit. Now that was definitely
socializing losses – in fact it was socializing losses in advance. I don't think we
will ever recover from that little episode of free marketeering. China might be scary because
they are so very powerful, pragmatic and adaptable. But they are no more "illiberal" than we
are. It's time to set some standards.
Just to point out that Airbus has had an assembly plant in Tianjin in China since 2010. I
recall reading a few years ago that Airbus found costs were so high because of a shortage of
the right workers it would actually have been cheaper to make them in France. Airbus also
assemble aircraft in the US for precisely the same reason – to get a manufacturing
'foothold' in important markets to prevent mercantilist retaliation.
But as the article says, many a manufacturer has found to their cost that the Chinese
simply don't play fair, they will extract every bit of information they can from those plants
and use it for their new Comac aircraft (which so far are not very impressive, nobody wants
to buy them).
You may consider that chinese don't play fair, it also migth be considered that Airbus
strategy is just another way of economic colonization and to prevent the surge of new
competitors maintaining the duopoly. Is it fair?
Given the recent drift of political geostrategy leaded by the US in which anything is
"fair" to defend particular interests, my opinion is that China interest on developing their
own airplane industry is not only fair but very reasonable. One wonders when the US will put
in place another arbitrary ban.
I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset.
Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have
a functioning society in the modern, technological world?
The argument that globalization has not failed is tested by growing social tensions and
inequality around the world. A return to mercantilism, or a version thereof seems logical.
Thriving internal markets linked to strong alliances seem to offer a path into the future
that is workable. Peaceful nations trading among themselves. Over time, resource issues can
be worked out peacefully. The competition will be over functioning economies, not world
domination. But to get there, nations have to have both security and technical ability.
Should the Chinese or the Russians be trusted to bring about a positive transformation in
world society? Time will tell. I would hope so.
From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity
for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations --
particularly the US.
If a functioning world government is not possible, than the next best thing would be
functioning national governments that set standards and economic policy that benefited the
majority of citizens, not just the elite. It seems the truly intelligent, and wise ones see
this.
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.
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.
US forced UK to break and give up jet turbine, Radar, and many other technologies.
Philips, Dutch under Nazi occupation, had all it's patents abrogated and USA assets seized
and never returned. WW 2 made USA a world power not just from being isolated from war but
because USA stole everything and everyone of any value.
Blame the United States for many things, but realize that technology like radar and jet
turbines were extremely important during the Second World War.
During a major war everything is open to theft, or even just being given away, by everyone
as merely surviving becomes more important than any other concern by the various states.
There are also the large businesses that often, very illegally and even treasonously,
continue to do business with their country's enemies. Those businesses just get nasty words
usually and keep their profits (of course).
Examples of both are the Polish and French work on the German Enigma encryption system
given to the British, the Soviet theft and reverse engineering of American technology, IBM's
leasing and maintaining its punchcard machines (census records used in Holocaust) Ford's
manufacturing and maintaining its vehicles and Standard Oil's running its refineries in, and
shipping when possible oil, into Europe for the Nazis, the Nazis stold from everyone
(technology in armored vehicles, artillery, radar, radio) likewise the Japanese who also got
technology from the Nazis. And everyone stold from the Germans.
The only reason the United States got to take full use of what it got was because it's
universities, businesses, and factories were all intact afterwards.
Nobody wants to buy them now but in a few years they will just like cars from S. Korea
were looked upon as inferior to Japanese ones but now they they're deemed to be just as good
and better value for the money.
When I worked there, it seemed that Boeing was always on the cutting edge of bad corporate
ideas. So it's baffling to me that it's taken them so long to have their guts carved out by
China. I mean, the peer pressure at the corporate country club I infer is rather intense. But
I appreciate it as my pension from them is now in a seaparate autonomous account. That is no
guarantee it will be truly insulated but it helps.
I have worked in the electronics industry in Northern California for many years and
watched the outsourcing of manufacturing and some design overseas.
I believe that many in the industry have realized that moving manufacturing and design
overseas has helped to create some very worthy competitors.
Some years ago, I was told of a company that wanted a low end product for an existing
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."
People will get with the program, as one technician who was being laid off about 20
years ago related to me. "They told me I could leave that day, or get more pay by training
my overseas replacement for two weeks."
This has been happening in the United States since the 80s. I am surprised we have
workers, knowledge, or equipment left to be stolen, sold, given away, or thrown away for our
Blessed Elites' God Mamon.
I expect the Chinese to be fools as, for a very old civilization, they are surprisingly
parochial and shortsighted, but seeing my fellow Americans throwing everyone else, including
most Americans, into the compost pile because "greed, for lack of a better word, is good"
makes me want to drink.
Once you impoverish and enrage the population of a nation as large as the United States
what does anyone expect to happen? To everyone else?
This was made possible by keeping the decision secret from the targeted technician(s)
until the last moment before implementation. If the company had told these technicians
several years ahead of time that " in several years time we will give you the choice of
leaving immediately or working for two weeks to train the overseas replacement we will
replace you with" . . . . that the technician(s) in question would have saved up two weeks
worth of living expenses so as to be able to surprise the company with their own last-second
refusal to train the replacement for two weeks pay when the time came.
Which is why the company never told these technicians about this "train your replacement"
plan several years in advance. I sincerely hope this technician was able to withhold certain
key information from his trainee. Even better would be if he had been able to give his new
trainee certain subtle dis-information and dis-training would which lead to downstream decay
in the foreign replacements' performance sometime after the replacement was made. Hopefully
to the detriment of the company which pulled that stunt.
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.
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.
Auerback's entirely right on this. But I disagree completely: Boeing and Airbus
should sign suicide pacts. The capitalists are selling China the rope to hang them
with – and please, China, do hang them! While you're at it, keep developing the green
tech the species needs to survive.
"Considering" a move overseas sounds like an indirect way of asking for more special
treatment in the two companies' respective home markets. Which they will probably need
– the market for airliners might be overextended even without the Boeing fiasco.
It is not "Boeing" and "Airbus" as such which are making these decisions. It is actual
human executive persons inside offices in buildings called "Boeing" and "Airbus" who are
making these decisions.
In the current Forced Free Trade environment, if those executives making those decisions
will make more personal money with in order to retire richer with by relocating the bussiness
to China, they will relocate the bussiness to China. If it goes extinct after they have taken
their personal money and run; it is no longer their problem to care about. So they won't care
about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One assumes that the CEOs of these companies making these decisions actually care about
the future of the company, the future of their country. They don't. They care about getting
rich. They live in a different world than the rest of us. End of story.
China is doing what Japan did with automobiles and consumer electronics after WW2.
Toyota was once warehouse with a dormitory, and the workers found out if they were going to
work today by looking out the window to see if there was smoke coming from the warehouse
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.
"Yes my local clothing store closed down long ago, but they never had my size pants
anyway. Walmart does, Costco does, and for far less $."
You must be both not so old and not so tall. I'm both. Nike used to make XL t-shirts that
fit me, but now its XXLs are too small. I have one Nike t-shirt from at least thirty years
ago and it fits perfectly, so my body isn't what changed.
And if you don't realize that Walmart quality is far below what one would have found in US
clothing stores thirty years ago, there's nothing more to say.
Walmart and Amazon sell the same socks, t shirts, and pants.
And so does Hanes if you order direct online.
I don't think any of them are made in USA.
I used to buy fine cotton t shirts made in L.A (CA)
They are no longer in business because they cost $20, and Hanes now sells for $5 online.
Walmart quality varies, so do their prices.
I know what I want, and am glad to buy it for less anywhere that sells it.
Most of the CEOs don't care about the worker that works for them.
They largely see them as something to exploit so that they can get their big stock options
bonus. Boeing is no different, nor is Airbus.
From the CEO's point of view, they outsource, they transfer technology, and for a few
years, the profits will be good. Then when the full extent of the failure becomes apparent,
they will be gone anyways, having cashed in on their stock options and a new CEO will be
there to take the fall.
It's the MBA culture run amok and it has been responsible for a large amount of the damage
done to the middle classes of the Western world. They are creating future competitors and
destroying their own communities.
A while back, Eamonn Fingleton noted this problem – only for Japan.
The Chinese have long wanted to develop their own domestic aerospace industry. An example
of one area that China needs to master is the jet turbine blade manufacturing. It's an
extremely difficult part of making a competent aircraft, as higher inlet temperatures mean
more efficient aircraft.
The difference is that China takes a more long term view of what is in the best interest
of their nation, however flawed and corrupt the CCP may be. The US ruling oligarchs are a
naked kleptocracy that milk their population.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends upon the definition of "modernized." China will
always be the preeminent communist country, but Deng and others realized that China could
earn big bucks by playing a capitalist game, as long as Chinese businessmen do not interfere
with the government.
Airbus and Boeing are merely the latest suckers to believe that China will ever change.
Der Spiegel noted years ago that Chinese engineers were videotaped in the middle of the night
taking measurements of Germany's Transrapid train. Today China has the best technology from
all major train manufacturers, with short-sighted entities such as the state of California
seriously considering buying Chinese trains (before the new governor canceled the project, of
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.
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.
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
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
.
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.
"... Why Brexit gained a majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the British nation to please the City of London pirates. ..."
"... To an outsider it seemed that the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU. ..."
"... One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60 years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia. ..."
Theresa May has said she "sincerely hopes" the UK will leave the EU with a deal and she
is still "working on" ensuring Parliament's agreement.
Arriving in Brussels, she said that she had "personal regret" over her request to
delay Brexit, but said it will allow time for MPs to make a "final choice".
At the EU summit the PM spoke to the other 27 leaders to try to get their backing for
a delay beyond 29 March.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said Mrs May spoke to EU leaders for 90
minutes and was asked several times what her contingency plans were if she lost the third
"meaningful vote" on her deal in Parliament.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that if MPs vote down Mrs May's EU
withdrawal agreement next week, the UK will leave without a deal.
May asked the EU to move the hard coded March 29 Brexit date to June 30. She may be
given May 23, the day of EU elections, as a compromise but only if her deal passes the
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.
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?
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.
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.
Emily, you are on the money there.
We the great unwashed are not happy with our representatives in Parliament who seem to
think that this is a normal Law where they were elected to vote on their conscience. It is
not, there are voting to implement a clear instruction to action Brexit.
When we voted there was no discussion of staying half in like May's deal, we wanted out
regardless of any chaos as forecast in Project Fear at the time.
A problem we have is that the entire MSM is behind May's deal. There is no, no
discussion on the benefits of a clean break.
If we clean Brexit then those countries with their nose in the EU trough will have to
agree between themselves who gets what share of the cuts as the £1B a month cashflow
that the UK gives them stops, starting immediately. That they don't seem to have started
those discussions yet leads me to believe that they have no intention of allowing a clean
break. We should expect that there will be some kind of last minute offer by the EU.
It would take a lot more courage than has been showed to date by them for MPs, whose
votes are public, to go against the Brexit Referendum and kill Brexit. Bluntly, many of
them, of all Parties, would be signing their own job resignations.
Good god, this Brexit soap opera never ends, does it? It just keeps dragging on,
endlessly....another vote...another extension...another meeting with Brussels heads, etc.
And it's so fucking confusing! First they have the referendum to do the total
Brexit–and it passes! But instead of doing what the voter's voted for, the PMs and
MPs keep fucking about, trying to undo the vote results....soft Brexit w/cheese....med soft
Brexit with trade bennies....no hard Brexit pleeze.
Holy fuck, the entire thing is
quintessentially British! No humans on the planet surface quibble, nit-pick and natter on
like the Brits. They are the hands-down masters of hen-peckery. Nobody comes close. This
whole Brexit fiasco is a fine example of their character. Don't get me wrong I really like
the Brits in general for their gregariousness and tendency to party and drink excessively.
But back to Brexit: they should do the hard Brexit. Seriously. Just get the fuck out of the
EU. It's what the majority of Brits want.
They don't want the refugees.. they obviously
don't want to be a team player and follow all the EU requirements and laws. So bite the
bullet and get OUT. Life goes on, give it a go with no EU association. And so what if N.
Ireland goes with Ireland? It should anyways!
They took it from them way back when. If
Scotland leaves, good for them. And Wales too! We're witnessing the incredible shrinking
UK, and it is indeed a most satisfying spectacle :-)
It is inconceivable now that there would be an extension, that there would be a revoking by
May of article 50, or simply that there would not be a no deal crash-out.
I draw a comparison between Ukraine's folly delusion that they can join the EU and ditch
Russia and live well, with the UK's folly that they can leave the EU and have other
options. It reminds me of the quip we used to hear as we visited the UK from Europe:
"There's fog over the Channel. The Continent is isolated."
The UK has to deal with Europe. A WTO deal is also a deal, be it a very bad one which will
set in motion lots of tariff-tit-for-tat punishing. Europe is just the bigger entity; it
does not need the UK. The UK has the EU as its main trading partner - but not only that;
all of its trade pacts with other countries have been through the EU. Not only do they have
to, in the end, negotiate a deal with the EU from scratch; they have to do so also with all
the other countries.
It's folly; most of it is based on psychology of loss of sovereignty and pure racism.
Ukraine has to deal with Russia. It chose not to, to exacerbate relations; it is now
suffering the consequences. The UK's fate is likely not as abject as Ukraine's was and is;
however it will likely also fall apart. Will London's financial centre identity also fall
apart? Not likely - but it will become even more of a money-laundering hole than it was to
date. Look for less values, not more; less transparency, more bribery, as the London trade
crowd tries to preserve their life quality.
Look for even more of death knell absurdities by MI6 - the chemical sagas in Syria and
Skripal are but a way to somehow squeeze some kind of foreign policy NATO lead position out
for the UK while in actual fact their leverage into the EU has dissipated. I applaud the
demise of the British aristocracy; it will be for Corbyn to rebuild the country and likely
to do so with much more of a mandate after this debacle has been spinning the trough for
months.
Globalization, fake interdependency really just abject dependency, food insecurity,
abdication of sovereignty, double standards for who is and isn't allowed to run corporate
welfare states and set up barriers and dump, yup, globalization's got it all.
As every British faction is demonstrating with their dithering and equivocations, their
attitude toward the EU is: Can't live with it, can't live without it.
(Well, the fake "left" are just can't-live-without-it, since they abdicated what was
supposed to be their anti-globalization role from day one of the Brexit saga.)
Brexit sure has made a lot of people who talk a good game show their cards. I was
cheering it on from day one, because the EU needs to be broken up completely and here's a
start. The break-up of the UK also would be a fine thing.
Poor Britannia,,, From world power to Globalist Serfs. Yes the sun never set on the Empire.
Now the only sun they see is what the EU allows. Their demographics so messed up they'll be
a 3rd world country soon if not already. The stiff upper lip Brit is now limp,,, in every
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!
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.
"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.
Eurocrats probably have scant needs to be super nice to EU. Politically, various countries
have some wishes, so as long as they follow that their lower parts remain fully clothed.
Practically, Brits are hard to please, preoccupied with winning some points against each
other. And realistically, can anything really bad happen to them? In the worst case, surely
US military will ferry some humanitarian help, perhaps dumping it at Irish border.
Britain in recent years has offered the most vivid example of genuinely disastrous
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.
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.
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.
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.
In his tweets, Corbyn says he's laid out Labour's alternative plan which is described in
the short vid at the link above. Elsewhere I saw a figure citing 63% of Britons voted for
Brexit, which is consistent with what Craig Murray's said about the voting share between
Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland--all of whom cast majorities for Remain.
Corbyn's in a pickle since he's trying to abide the will of Britain's voting public
despite knowing Remain is better for the overall British interest. Why Brexit gained a
majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the
British nation to please the City of London pirates.
May appears to favor the hard fall out
of spite for the opposing constituency, which many see as her channeling Thatcher's ghost.
And the only reason May's government remains is through the Blairite 5th column's treason.
IMO, Corbyn's terms are probably acceptable to the EU; but the EU doesn't want to see him
in charge of England as his domestic plan goes against EU neoliberalism.
The ball's back in Parliament's court, so we'll need to await events there.
I have one honest question about Brexit. Why is the following quote true?
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be
catastrophic for Britain's economy.
I have been trying for months to understand the mechanism by which this catastrophe will
occur, and I cannot find an explanation anywhere. I find only people asserting that it will
be so. They may be right, but its not clear to me why.
From a naive point of view, consider that other countries trade with the EU and don't
suffer from a catastrophe. So why can't the UK?
NZ trades with the EU and as far as I can tell they're not living in "utter chaos".
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
I am not a Brit. I was interested to read Emily's comment. To an outsider it seemed that
the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is
working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not
want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a
bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU.
Leaving the EU and relying on WTO rules for trade would be messy, but mostly because no
plans have been made, even with 2 years to carry them out. How is a private company in the
UK going to make provision for the future, when they have no idea what that future would
be? To end up in a state where the only remaining option is a complete break, with no
planning is criminal incompetence. (Aside: May's ridiculous Skripal fiasco was a pretty
good demonstration to the outside World of her low ability.)
One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was
possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60
years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if
they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia.
I'm surprised there's no mention of the 22nd May as the date of the extension deadline ...
really? ... the day before the EU elections? Clearly designed as a cynical safeguard
against a flood of euroskeptics entering the EU political scene.
Here's hoping it backfires horrendously on the EU.
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
__________________________________________
It's one of those self-inflating, self-confirming propositions; if there's a critical
mass of Chicken Littles chirping with hysterical terror, the chaos becomes a fait
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 ?"
Such deluded analysis. If the EU tried to play on internal divisions to destroy a nuclear
armed power it would just bring defeat and absolute destruction on itself (ie the
German-French oligarchy) just like in the 20th century. The EU isn't a cohesive entity
outside the German-French oligarchy. France could be out of the German choke hold any day.
Italy is close to moving out of the EU control. The ex-Socialists states in the East will
take any German money, or trade deal that benefits them, but would as soon turn on Germany
on a geo-strategic level. London, with US help, will take on any attempt at German
continental empire building like anytime in the last centuries. Germany allying with Russia
or China against the Atlantic Powers would just make it even easier to split Europe and
bring its doom.
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid.
Quite an indictment! From the very beginning I've had no idea at all about what's going
on in the UK. I hope the ordinary people there survive whatever it is that's happening, and
the fallout doesn't spread to other countries.
I May manages to pull-off a hard Brexit it will be much to her credit.
Any company not making preparations deserves the outcome.
EU is an black hole of non sovereignty.
If Ireland and Scotland an Wales should wish to seperate from England, why is that a
problem for England?
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.
George Galloway in the video I was barred from posting said the "Brexit Crash" is nothing
more than Remain Media propaganda/hyperbole. Indeed, remaining within EU prohibits
any UK government from nationalizing anything, such as renationalizing British Rail, or
from favoring any national industry over those located offshore. Why? Because the EU's a
Neoliberal project that's aimed at eliminating such socialistic attributes from ALL
European economies, and is why Benn and UK Labour opposed entering the EU from the
beginning. Galloway also talks about how Brexit created a schism within the Tories as
traditional British nationalists have also always opposed entering the EU.
Indeed, Brexit allows the current campaign by Corbyn's Labour to move forward unhindered
by EU rules and is very much to England's benefit. A Yandex search using Galloway Brexit
chaos brings up the video I mention into top place. It's only ten minutes long and very
much worth the time spent.
Leaving the EU doesn't have to be catastrophic for the UK, but leaving without a deal
necessarily would be. If the UK really does crash out with no deal next week, it instantly
becomes a third country that has no trade deals with the EU at all. Other countries that
trade with the EU do so within a framework of pre-existing agreements. The US and Japan
each have between 20 and 50 such trade agreements with the EU, for example (I can't be
bothered to look up the exact numbers). New Zealand is not in utter chaos because it has
had trade agreements with the EU since the very beginning, and so on.
No deal means no deal. It means roll-on/roll-off ferry traffic between UK and EU ports
grinds to a halt because every single lorry that could previously drive straight off the
ferry and onto the roads now has to be carefully inspected. The ports simply have no
capacity to do this because there is supposed to be freedom of movement and no inspections.
EU ports would become totally gridlocked within hours, and new ferries would be unable to
load or unload. The UK would have to stop exports to the EU completely to keep the ports
clear for incoming traffic (which could still go through uninspected because the UK could
waive its usual import checks to deal with the emergency).
This would continue, with massive economic damage, until new trade deals were agreed,
which could take months or even years. That is just one small example that I've tried to
keep simple.
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. .
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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$.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"... "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. ..."
"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:
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
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."
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'sdisingenuous
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 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 ."
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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 ..."
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.
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.'"
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.
"... Face it. Mass production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1 wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress ..."
"... Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich in minerals, timber, water, etc. ..."
"... With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc. ..."
"... The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant memory. ..."
"... Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero. ..."
War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition.
It all war, all the time and another point to remember is that there is always a war between
the .001% and the rest of us.
Another thing is that we proles, peasants and peons should give some serious thought to
having the "elite" fight their own battles, on their "own" (though mostly stolen) shekels for
once. Read More Agree: foolisholdman Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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?
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
"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.
@Erebus In the distant past
there were at least 1000 PC Board manufacturers in the US .now there are only 2 or 3. Most US
PCB houses are actually a middleman with an iphone fronting for one of the many Chinese PCB
factories. You supply the Gerber Files and the payment, of course, and your finished PC
Boards come back by air the next day.
Now here is the kicker: our US PC Board supplier is
located in Illinois and owned by you guessed it Hindus. Half the staff are also Hindus. In
general, the Chinese PCBs are of higher quality than the Hindu .er US PCBs.
Face it. Mass
production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important
industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1
wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the
diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on
year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich
in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy
(induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is.
Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence
politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild
gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
Klare discovers the US crusade against China – 8 years after the Obama/Hillary "pivot"
to East Asia sending 2/3 of the US Navy there and putting together the TPP to excluded China.
As usual he is right on top of things.
And he begins with this gem: " "The media and many politicians continue to focus on
U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016
American presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation." Huh? Does he mean the
$4700 in Google ads or the $50,000 in Facebook ads traced to some alleged Russian sources? A
Russiagater from the start.
I remember some years ago before the shale revolution Klare was warning us about "peak oil."
I think we were supposed to have run out of it by now.
Klare is a hack who cycles things that any conscious person reading the newspapers would have
known long ago.
P.s. He says that Apple is the number one cell phone. No longer. He should improve his
Google search skills or his set of assumptions which have turned him into a Russiagater.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere – from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
I don't think it's simple "Eastern" vs "Western" Europeans; my take is Protestants vs
Catholics vs Orthodox. In that order. The biggest difference is between Protestant and
Orthodox. Catholics are, sort of, in the middle.
Or, in practical terms, don't see much difference between Austrians and Slovenes.
That's for Europe.
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.
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 !!!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@Китайский
дурак 2) The riddle reads simply: democracy,
multiracialism, economic welfare (no-limit printing of currency made possible by uncontested
military "overmatch").
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.
First, you have a choke-hold on the economy and wages are depressed to near starvation
levels.
Second, Chinese will bring corruption to the nth degree by bribing whichever politician
will serve their own interests at the expense of the public.
Thirdly, those Chinese who cannot succeed in business will get into the drug trade and
China and Taiwan has created the Philippines drug war by making meth.
Fourth, there are fiery pogroms when the local population react with "burnouts" and
innocent Chinese are killed.
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.
@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.
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
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
"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.
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.
@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.
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 !
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.
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".
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.
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.
@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.
"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.
"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.
@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.
@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?
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.
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)
@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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
@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.
@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/
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.
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.
@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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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, aTomDispatch
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 isThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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!
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"... 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 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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
@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.
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.
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
"... 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. ..."
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 :
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 ..."
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.
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. ..."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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? ;)
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.
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.
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."
"... 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.
"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. "
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 are going with (1) which is the worst possible
direction. I had hope for Trump based on his stump speeches but the CIA and others saw it as
a direct threat to their geopolitical strategy regime and they engineered a coup and Trump
has folded. This is evident by his original nationalist campaign staff being replaced after
the election by neocon/neolib dead-enders. It would have been easy to cooperate with Russia
and China to integrate them into a world order of international agreements already in place
after Cold War v1. But US elites at heart are supremacists not willing to share the world
with others. There is one other big problem in the US: that its foreign policy is
substantially under the control of the UK, Israel, and Saudis (that in itself a big story). I
feel a lot like you do but see US elites putting all their efforts into a dead end.
"... It is clear that on immigration, Eastern Europe differs from the rest of the continent -- attitudes represented politically only through the populist right in the west are thoroughly mainstream in the east. ..."
For starters, he talks about demography. Like many countries in Europe, Hungary's birthrates
have plummeted. Orbán has commenced a campaign to raise them, with measures including
generous maternity and paternity leave stipends, subsidies of up to 50 euros a month per child,
tax write-offs, and housing assistance for couples that have three or more children. The
government has also sent out questionnaires asking Hungarians whether they think the solution
to Hungary's demographic crisis is stronger support for families or higher immigration. Katalin
Novak, Orbán's minister of family and youth, explained unabashedly that the purpose of
this was "to send a clear message to Brussels: the renovation of Europe is impossible without
support for families and Hungary wants neither immigration nor a modification of its
population." This sort of frankness from leaders in the wealthier West is inconceivable. At a
press gathering I recently attended, a Macron minister holding a comparable post focused most
of the conversation on the expansion of gay rights.
Of course, the other half of the demography subject is immigration. In an address during the
fall of 2016 that still resonates, Orbán proclaimed that Europe is "in mortal
danger":
The danger is "not attacking us the way wars and natural disasters do mass migration is
a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian
cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for
them is losing territory for us. Flocks of obsessed human rights defenders feel the
overwhelming urge to reprimand us . [A]llegedly we are hostile xenophobes but the truth is
that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion, of the intertwining of cultures.
Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies, or as displaced persons
fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who
have come here with the intention of changing our country, of shaping our nation in their own
image, have been met with resistance."
Faced with the Merkel Million Man Migration, Orbán ordered Hungary's army to build a
fence.
Slovakia similarly refused to take in a quota of migrants dictated by Brussels and Berlin.
The former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, wrote a short but excellent book,
Europe All Inclusive , about the migration crisis in which he charged that Europe's
western elites were supporting mass immigration explicitly to smash the remaining power of
nation states so full European unification could be achieved. Poland has likewise refused EU
demands to resettle refugees from the Mideast and North Africa.
It is clear that on immigration, Eastern Europe differs from the rest of the continent
-- attitudes represented politically only through the populist right in the west are thoroughly
mainstream in the east. This difference in political culture is so vast, it can be traced
to many sources. A similar divergence surfaced before, during the Cold War, when Eastern
Europeans stubbornly refused to allow Western European intellectuals to forget or ignore that
communism was a malign and murderous system. Today, Eastern Europeans note that they have been
already been the subjects of utopian projects to remake society according to a progressive
vision -- and they have no desire for a repeat.
Encountering Eastern European resistance to progressive dogma for the first time is a
bracing experience. I first had it during the mid-'70s, in a grad school lecture class at
Columbia. A charming and generally well-liked democratic socialist professor would take
admiring students through various sophisticated Marxist readings, leading inexorably to the
conclusion that the collapse of "late capitalism" was inevitable and to be welcomed. This
semester, there happened to be two Poles taking the class, one of whom was a woman who had been
an imprisoned dissident. They seemed to know their Marx as well as the prof did: they were
smart, they were vocal, and they were having absolutely none of it. It made for an exciting
several months, and for me a memorable demonstration that Eastern Europeans were more or less
immune to the guilt and self-hatred permeating much of the West.
Perhaps we are in for a reprise, when the people of the west learn once again from the east
what is true and essential about their own societies. Of course, there are parallels between
the communists' aspirations and the open borders diversity project. Both are genuinely
revolutionary in their desire to destroy and remake Western societies according to models that
have little viable precedent in human experience. Under this logic, the '60s and '70s can be
seen as a kind of transitional phase, during which Western socialists looked longingly towards
various Third World models -- China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua -- after they gave up on the
Soviet Union and their own proletariats as viable revolutionary agents. Now progressives hope
that social justice will bloom from the political chaos generated by demographic shifts.
Without the voices of Eastern Europe, the West might not have successfully resisted the
first progressive onslaught. Once again, it needs the voices of the east to illuminate its path
to survival.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon:
Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars.
No trade deal can dictate our relationship with China
By Lawrence H. Summers - Washington Post
As the United States and China continue to joust over trade and technology, the U.S.
policy debate contrasts two views of the primary problem.
A first view expressed often in President Trump's tweets locates the key issue in the
bilateral trade deficit that the United States chronically runs with China. On this theory of
the problem, a solution is relatively easy: The Chinese could rearrange their imports of
soybeans, fossil fuels and other products so more of them come from the United States, while
countries now supplying China could export instead to nations now importing from the United
States. This is what the Chinese keep offering since it means almost no real change in their
economy. Neither levels of employment, output or total trade deficits and surpluses are
likely to change much in either the United States or China.
A second view, held by more serious alarmists about the U.S.-China relationship, such as
U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, emphasizes problematic Chinese practices in
key technological sectors. These range from theft of U.S. technologies to requirements that
U.S. firms wishing to do business in China -- chiefly in the development of key technologies,
such as artificial intelligence -- must form joint ventures with Chinese firms, especially
those with connections to the Chinese government.
Such technological alarmists in and out of the administration hold that we can wall off
U.S. technologies with sufficiently aggressive policies so China cannot steal them, or that
we can pressure China to the point where it will give up government efforts at industrial
leadership. Neither of these prospects is realistic.
In many ways, U.S. concerns over China and technology parallel concerns over the Soviet
Union in the post-Sputnik missile gap period just before President John F. Kennedy's election
in 1960. Or over Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was often joked that "the
Cold War is over and Japan won."
When atomic weapons were our most sensitive military secret, their creation required
extensive sophisticated infrastructure. Yet the United States and Russia essentially had no
normal interchange, so we were able to maintain a lead of three or four years with respect to
both fission and fusion weapons.
Technology for artificial intelligence in development today, however, can be operated on
widely available equipment. And there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens studying
in the United States or working for U.S. companies that develop such technology. Keeping U.S.
knowledge out of Chinese hands for substantial lengths of time is impracticable short of a
massive breaking of economic ties.
Nor is it likely for the Chinese government to halt its support of technology development.
How would the United States react if other countries demanded that we close down DARPA, the
Defense Department's advanced research agency, because it represented unfair competition? Or
if trading partners argued that U.S. support for private clean-energy companies, such as the
subsidies provided by the Obama administration, was an unfair trade practice? Much of our
current information technology and communications infrastructure comes directly or indirectly
out of Bell Labs, which was financed out of the profits of a government-regulated and
-protected monopoly. Would the United States have responded constructively to demands from
other countries to dismantle the Bell system?
A focus on resisting the Chinese economic threat will likely not only be ineffective but
may also be counterproductive if it diverts private and public energy from more productive
pursuits. I remember well from the early Clinton administration that the great symbol of
efforts to constrain unfair Japanese practices was Kodak's case against Fuji, the Japanese
photographic film company that attracted massive attention from Kodak's senior management and
U.S. policymakers. Perhaps if Kodak had instead focused on the digital photography ideas its
scientists had developed, it would still be a significant company.
Where we can mobilize international support, we should, of course, push China to live up
to its trade obligations and seek to modify rules in the World Trade Organization where they
do not cover problematic practices. But in reality, our competitive success over the next
generation will depend much more on what happens in our economy and society than at any
international negotiating table.
Will our national investment in applied scientific research continue to languish to the
point where even the most brilliant young scientists cannot get their first research grants
until they are in their 40s? Will public officials who surely know better continue to allow
creationism to be taught as serious science in U.S. public schools in a century with so much
progress in life sciences? Will public policy concern itself with the strength and
competitiveness of U.S. information technology companies as well as with their marketing
practices? Will a national effort be made to improve the dismal performance of U.S. students
at every level in international comparisons of mathematical and scientific achievement?
These questions and others like them, much more than any trade negotiation, will determine
how the United States competes over the next generation. The Russian and the Japanese
challenges pushed us forward as a nation in very constructive ways. So can the Chinese
challenge if we seize the opportunity it represents.
Lawrence Summers is a professor at and past president of Harvard University.
"... Last night, President Trump reserved a few minutes of his State of the Union address to praise his tax reform law, which turned a year old last month. To promote its passage, Mr. Trump and his congressional allies promised Americans that drastically lowered corporate tax rates would bring home large sums of capital that had been stashed overseas and finance a surge of domestic investment. ..."
"... Why would any multinational corporation pay America's 21 percent tax rate when it could pay the new "global minimum" rate of 10.5 percent on profits shifted to tax havens, particularly when there are few restrictions on how money can be moved around a company and its foreign subsidiaries? ..."
"... For starters, the law's repatriation deal did prompt a brief surge in offshore profits returning to the United States. But the total sum returned so far is well below the trillions many proponents predicted, and a large chunk of the returned funds have been used for record-breaking stock buybacks, which don't help workers and generate little real economic activity. ..."
"... Bottom line: the Trump tax cut is a giveaway to corporations that doesn't promote investment here ..."
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the new
"global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
By Brad Setser
Last night, President Trump reserved a few minutes of his State of the Union address
to praise his tax reform law, which turned a year old last month. To promote its passage, Mr.
Trump and his congressional allies promised Americans that drastically lowered corporate tax
rates would bring home large sums of capital that had been stashed overseas and finance a
surge of domestic investment.
"For too long, our tax code has incentivized companies to leave our country in search of
lower tax rates," he said, pitching voters in the fall of 2017. "My administration rejects
the offshoring model, and we have embraced a brand-new model. It's called the American
model."
The White House argued they wanted a system that "encourages companies to stay in America,
grow in America, spend in America, and hire in America." Yet the bill he signed into law
includes a sweetheart deal that allows companies that shift their profits abroad to pay tax
at a rate well below the already-reduced corporate income tax -- an incentive shift that
completely contradicts his stated goal.
Why would any multinational corporation pay America's 21 percent tax rate when it
could pay the new "global minimum" rate of 10.5 percent on profits shifted to tax havens,
particularly when there are few restrictions on how money can be moved around a company and
its foreign subsidiaries?
These wonky concerns were largely brushed aside amid the political brawl. But now that a
full year has passed since the tax bill became law, we have hard numbers we can evaluate.
For starters, the law's repatriation deal did prompt a brief surge in offshore profits
returning to the United States. But the total sum returned so far is well below the trillions
many proponents predicted, and a large chunk of the returned funds have been used for
record-breaking stock buybacks, which don't help workers and generate little real economic
activity.
And despite Mr. Trump's proud rhetoric regarding tax reform during his State of the Union
address, there is no wide pattern of companies bringing back jobs or profits from abroad. The
global distribution of corporations' offshore profits -- our best measure of their tax
avoidance gymnastics -- hasn't budged from the prevailing trend.
Well over half the profits that American companies report earning abroad are still booked
in only a few low-tax nations -- places that, of course, are not actually home to the
customers, workers and taxpayers facilitating most of their business. A multinational
corporation can route its global sales through Ireland, pay royalties to its Dutch subsidiary
and then funnel income to its Bermudian subsidiary -- taking advantage of Bermuda's corporate
tax rate of zero.
Where American Profits Hide
[Graph]
No major technology company has jettisoned the finely tuned tax structures that allow a
large share of its global profits to be booked offshore. Nor have major pharmaceutical
companies stopped producing many of their most profitable drugs in Ireland. And Pepsi, to
name just one major manufacturer, still makes the concentrate for its soda in Singapore, also
a haven.
Eliminating the complex series of loopholes that encourage offshoring was a major talking
point in the run-up to the 2017 tax bill, but most of them are still in place. The craftiest
and largest corporations can still legally whittle down their effective tax rate into the
single digits. (In fact, the new law encourages firms to move "tangible assets" -- like
factories -- offshore).
Overall, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amounted to a technocratic sleight of hand -- a scheme
set to shift an even greater share of the federal tax burden onto the shoulders of American
families. According to the Treasury Department's tally for fiscal year 2018, corporate income
tax receipts fell by 31 percent, an unprecedented year-over-year drop in a time of economic
growth (presumably a time when profits and government revenue should rise in tandem).
These damning results, to be sure, don't make for a good defense of what came before the
new law. In theory under the old system, American-based firms still owed the government a cut
of their global profits. In practice, large firms could indefinitely defer paying this tax
until the funds could be repatriated -- usually when granted a tax holiday by a friendly
administration.
Over a generation, this political dance was paired with rules that made it relatively easy
for firms to transfer their most prized intellectual property -- say, the rights to popular
software or the particular mix of ingredients for a hot new drug -- to their offshore
subsidiaries. Taken together, they created a tax nirvana of sorts for multinational
corporations, particularly in intellectual-property-intensive industries like tech and
pharmaceuticals. But it wasn't enough.
For their next trick, the companies worked with their political allies to favorably frame
the 2017 tax debate. When he was the House speaker, Paul Ryan was fond of talking about $3
trillion in "trapped" profits abroad. But those profits weren't actually, physically, sitting
in a few tax havens.
Dwarf Economies, Giant American Profits
[Graph]
They were largely invested in United States bank accounts, securities and bonds issued by
the Treasury or other companies headquartered in the States. As Adam Looney -- a Brookings
Institution fellow and former Treasury Department official -- has explained, companies that
needed to finance a new domestic investment could simply issue a bond effectively backed by
its offshore cash. (For instance, Apple could bring its "trapped" funds onshore by selling a
bond to Pfizer's offshore account, or vice versa.)
Put plainly, they got the best of both worlds: Uncle Sam could tax only a small slice of
their books while they traded with one another based on the size of the entire pie.
The scale of the tax shifting has become so immense that some economists believe curbing
it could raise reported G.D.P. by well over a percentage point -- something Mr. Trump, who's
been absorbed by opportunities to brag about the economy, should notionally welcome.
President Trump's economic advisers and the key architects of the bill on Capitol Hill
must have known their reform wasn't going to end business incentives that hurt American
workers. Honest reform would have meant closing corporate loopholes -- a move they originally
promised to make.
Should the opportunity present itself, perhaps to the next president, there are a couple
of viable options for a fundamental tax overhaul that wouldn't require reinstating the 35
percent corporate tax rate.
One of several possibilities is to return to a system of global taxation without the
deferrals that enabled empty repatriations. That would mean profits sneakily booked tax-free
in Bermuda would be taxed every year at 21 percent. Profits booked in Ireland -- or other
low-tax nations -- would be taxed at the difference between Ireland's rate and America's
rate.
It's an approach that would protect small and midsize American companies while cracking
down on bad corporate actors with enough fancy accountants and lawyers to rig the game to
their advantage. And it would be far better than the fake tax reform passed a year ago.
This is very good from the essential Brad Setser, our leading expert on international
trade and money flows. Bottom line: the Trump tax cut is a giveaway to corporations that
doesn't promote investment here 1/
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the
new "global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
2:14 PM - 6 Feb 2019
@Brad_Setser also gets at something I've been trying to explain: corporate cash "overseas"
isn't really a stash of money that can be brought home, it's an accounting fiction that lets
them avoid taxes, with no real consequences for investment 2/
And this chart, showing the predominance of tax avoidance in overseas "investment", is a
classic 3/
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a bad, superficial politician,
Republican Obama so to speak, so he may take this advice from his entourage. Trump proved to be a puppet of MIC and
Israel, his tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down
substantially. Now
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position
somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything,
it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes
on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they're too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax
on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central
to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. ..."
"... Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families. ..."
"... As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable. ..."
"... In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated: ..."
"... All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well. ..."
"... The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen. ..."
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism
BY MEAGAN DAY
... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And
he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the
public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's
70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly
run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie
Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be
Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism
from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President
Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when
they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire
with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages.
People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot
afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism
for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom.
This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically
means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive
reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant
economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by
democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means
that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average
working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank
or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy
as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now
makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring
up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism
was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent
chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist
class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums
about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different
perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic
and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being
of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute
the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the
Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I
promised to fight for, faster than anyone else. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off
food stamps. The United States economy is growing almost twice as fast today as when I took
office, and we are considered far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world.
Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African-American, Hispanic-American
and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.
Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low. More people are
working now than at any time in our history -- 157 million.
We passed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child tax credit.
We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranches, and family
farms.
We eliminated the very unpopular Obamacare individual mandate penalty -- and to give
critically ill patients access to life-saving cures, we passed right to try.
My Administration has cut more regulations in a short time than any other administration
during its entire tenure. Companies are coming back to our country in large numbers thanks to
historic reductions in taxes and regulations.
We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one
producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a
net exporter of energy.
After 24 months of rapid progress, our economy is the envy of the world, our military is the
most powerful on earth, and America is winning each and every day. Members of Congress: the
State of our Union is strong. Our country is vibrant and our economy is thriving like never
before.
On Friday, it was announced that we added another 304,000 jobs last month alone -- almost
double what was expected. An economic miracle is taking place in the United States -- and the
only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan
investigations.
If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It
just doesn't work that way!
... ... ...
Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America's crumbling
infrastructure.
I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill -- and I am eager to work
with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including
investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a
necessity.
The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare
and prescription drugs -- and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.
Already, as a result of my Administration's efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their
single largest decline in 46 years.
But we must do more. It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other
countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair,
and together we can stop it.
... ... ...
he final part of my agenda is to protect America's National Security.
Over the last 2 years, we have begun to fully rebuild the United States Military -- with
$700 billion last year and $716 billion this year. We are also getting other nations to pay
their fair share. For years, the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO -- but
now we have secured a $100 billion increase in defense spending from NATO allies.
As part of our military build-up, the United States is developing a state-of-the-art Missile
Defense System.
Under my Administration, we will never apologize for advancing America's interests.
For example, decades ago the United States entered into a treaty with Russia in which we
agreed to limit and reduce our missile capabilities. While we followed the agreement to the
letter, Russia repeatedly violated its terms. That is why I announced that the United States is
officially withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty.
Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't
-- in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.
As part of a bold new diplomacy, we continue our historic push for peace on the Korean
Peninsula. Our hostages have come home, nuclear testing has stopped, and there has not been a
missile launch in 15 months. If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would
right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea with potentially millions of
people killed. Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good
one. And Chairman Kim and I will meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam.
Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of
Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido.
... ... ...
Our approach is based on principled realism -- not discredited theories that have failed for
decades to yield progress. For this reason, my Administration recognized the true capital of
Israel -- and proudly opened the American Embassy in Jerusalem.
Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In
Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000
Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.
As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless
wars.
When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria. Today,
we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty
killers.
Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our
brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.
I have also accelerated our negotiations to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan. Our
troops have fought with unmatched valor -- and thanks to their bravery, we are now able to
pursue a political solution to this long and bloody conflict.
In Afghanistan, my Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan
groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to
reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. We do not know whether we will
achieve an agreement -- but we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at
least try for peace.
... ... ...
My Administration has acted decisively to confront the world's leading state sponsor of
terror: the radical regime in Iran.
To ensure this corrupt dictatorship never acquires nuclear weapons, I withdrew the United
States from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And last fall, we put in place the toughest
sanctions ever imposed on a country.
"... My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945 have now become like the people we fought. ..."
The launch of INSTEX -- "Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges" -- by France, Germany, and the UK
this week
to allow "legitimate trade" with Iran, or rather effectively sidestep US sanctions and bypass SWIFT after Washington was able
to pressure the Belgium-based financial messaging service to cut off the access of Iranian banks last year, may be too little too
late to salvage the Iran nuclear deal .
Tehran will only immediately press that more than just the current "limited humanitarian" and medical goods can be purchased on
the system, in accordance with fulfilling the EU's end of the 2015 JCPOA -- something which EU officials have promised while saying
INSTEX will be "expansive" -- while European companies will likely continue to stay away for fear of retribution from Washington,
which has stated it's "closely following" reports of the payment vehicle while reiterating attempts to sidestep sanctions will "risk
severe consequences" .
As a couple of prominent Iranian academics
told Al Jazeera this week: "If [the mechanism] will permanently be restricted to solely humanitarian trade, it will be apparent
that Europe will have failed to live up to its end of the bargain for Iran ," said political analyst Mohammad Ali Shabani. And another,
Foad Izadi, professor at the University of Tehran, echoed what is a common sentiment among Iran's leaders: "I don't think the EU
is either willing or able to stand up to Trump's threat," and continued, "The EU is not taking the nuclear deal seriously and it's
not taking any action to prove to Iran otherwise... People are running out of patience."
But Iranian leadership
welcomed the new mechanism as merely a small first step: "It is a first step taken by the European side... We hope it will cover
all goods and items," Iranian Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi told state TV, referencing EU promises to stick to its end of the nuclear deal.
The European side also acknowledged it as a precondition to keeping the nuclear deal alive, which EU leaders sea as vital to their
security and strategic interests : "We're making clear that we didn't just talk about keeping the nuclear deal with Iran alive, but
now we're creating a possibility to conduct business transactions," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters on
Thursday . "This is a precondition for us to meet the obligations we entered into in order to demand from Iran that it doesn't
begin military uranium enrichment," Maas said.
What is INSTEX?
A "special purpose vehicle" that will allow European businesses to trade with Iran, despite strict US sanctions.
According to media reports, INSTEX will be based in Paris and will be managed by German banking expert Per Fischer, a former
manager at Commerzbank. The UK will head the supervisory board.
The European side intends to use the channel initially only to sell food, medicine and medical devices in Iran. However,
it will be possible to expand it in the future. --
DW.com
Technically US sanctions allow some limited humanitarian trade and limited goods; however the White House's "maximum pressure"
campaign on Iran has still scared away European giants like Seimens, Maersk, Total, Daimler, Peugeot, Renault, and others.
This brings up the central question of whether skittish European countries will actually return to doing business with Iran, the
entire purpose on which the new mechanism rests. The dilemma was summarized at the start of this week by outspoken Iran hawk Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who told the AP
"The choice is whether to do business with Iran or the United States." He warned, "I hope our European allies choose wisely."
Thus far a number of analysts and observers have remained far less optimistic than the European sponsors of INSTEX. One particular
interview with geopolitical analyst and journalist Luc Rivet, cited in Russian media, outlines
the likelihood for failure of the new payment
vehicle : "I don't know what companies will make use of that mechanism to sell to Iran," Rivet said, noting that countries still
consider it "dangerous" to be caught working with Iran.
Addressing the current restriction of INSTEX facilitating medical and pharmaceutical goods transactions, he continued:
Who produces this equipment? You think that Siemens will sell to Iran? Never, because they sell to America many other things
as well And Siemens is afraid of losing the American market.
No matter if a handful of companies resume or continue business with Iran he explained that an "incredible number of companies"
won't. He added: "It's much easier for Chinese and Russian companies to make deals with Iran. The Europeans are scared in an incredible
way. The companies are afraid by ricochet of being in the eye of the storm with the Americans."
He concluded, "That's very dangerous for European companies," and repeated, "I don't know anybody who will dare to go with this
Instex system."
And the New York Times in asking the same question --
But Will Anyone Use
It? -- concludes similarly that "given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few --
if any -- are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington's wrath."
However, the test will be whether or not a steady trickle of small companies gives way to bigger companies. The NYT report
continues :
But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with
Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning,
the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation .
But much could also depend on just how fierce the White House reaction will be. If the past months' Trump administration rhetoric
is any indicator, it will keep large companies scared and on the sidelines.
Europe has had double the tariffs on American cars than we had for theirs. It's time for us to quadruple the tariff on European
cars, to make up for the tariff imbalance that Europe has taken advantage of for decades.
Before World War II the question was, "Who will stand up to the demands of Germany?" Now the question is, "Who will stand up
to the demands of the United States?" It is clear that as far as means and methods are concerned Washington flies the swastika.
History has come full circle.
The following quote from J. R. R. Tolkien makes the point, "Always after a defeat and a respite," says Gandalf, "the shadow
takes another shape and grows again." The irony of our times is that the shadow has moved from Germany to the US.
Consternation and craven refusal to confront the reality of our times is again in vogue. We are walking towards madness crying,
"Let the other fellow fix this!"
My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945
have now become like the people we fought.
"... Sections of the Chinese regime responded belligerently to the accusations. An editorial in the state-owned Global Times ..."
"... The editorial asked: "Assuming China is so powerful that it has stolen technological information for over a decade that is supposedly worth over a trillion in intellectual property, as the US has indicated, then how is it that China still lags behind the US in so many fields, from chips to electric vehicles, and even aviation engines?" ..."
Further escalating its economic and strategic offensive to block China from ever
challenging its post-World War II hegemony, the US government yesterday unveiled its fifth
set of economic espionage charges against Chinese individuals since September.
As part of an internationally-coordinated operation, the US Justice Department on Thursday
published indictments of two Chinese men who had allegedly accessed confidential commercial
data from US government agencies and corporate computers in 12 countries for more than a
decade.
The announcement represents a major intensification of the US ruling class's confrontation
against China, amid a constant build-up of unsubstantiated allegations against Beijing by
both the Republican and Democrat wings of Washington's political establishment.
Via salacious allegations of "hacking" on a "vast scale," every effort is being made by
the ruling elite and its media mouthpieces to whip up anti-China hysteria.
The indictment's release was clearly politically timed. It was accompanied by a global
campaign by the US and its allies, accusing the Chinese government of an illegal cyber theft
operation to damage their economies and supplant the US as the world's "leading
superpower."
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen
immediately issued a statement accusing China of directing "a very real threat to the
economic competitiveness of companies in the United States and around the globe."
Within hours, US allies around the world put out matching statements, joined by
declarations of confected alarm by their own cyber-warfare and hacking agencies.
The Washington Post called it "an unprecedented mass effort to call out China for
its alleged malign acts." The coordination "represents a growing consensus that Beijing is
flouting international norms in its bid to become the world's predominant economic and
technological power."
The Australian government, the closest ally of the US in the Indo-Pacific region, was in
the forefront. Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton
explicitly accused the Chinese government and its Ministry of State Security (MSS) of being
responsible for "a global campaign of cyber-enabled commercial intellectual property
theft."
Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, called the Chinese
cyber campaign "shocking and outrageous." Such pronouncements, quickly emblazoned in media
headlines around the world, destroy any possibility of anything resembling a fair trial if
the two men, named as Zhu Hua and Zhang Shilong, are ever detained by US agencies and brought
before a court.
The charges themselves are vaguely defined. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan accused the
men of conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
Zhu and Zhang acted "in association with" the MSS, as part of a hacking squad supposedly
named "APT1o" or "Stone Panda," the indictment said.
FBI Director Christopher Wray called a news conference to issue another inflammatory
statement against China. Pointing to the real motivations behind the indictments, he
declared: "China's goal, simply put, is to replace the US as the world's leading superpower,
and they're using illegal methods to get there."
Coming from the head of the US internal intelligence agency, this further indicates the
kinds of discussions and planning underway within the highest echelons of the US political
and military-intelligence apparatus to prepare the country, ideologically and militarily, for
war against China.
Washington is determined to block President Xi Jinping's "Made in China 2025" program that
aims to ensure China is globally competitive in hi-tech sectors such as robotics and chip
manufacture, as well as Beijing's massive infrastructure plans, known as the Belt and Road
Initiative, to link China with Europe across Eurasia.
The US ruling class regards these Chinese ambitions as existential threats because, if
successful, they would undermine the strategic position of US imperialism globally, and the
economic dominance of key American corporations.
Yesterday's announcement seemed timed to fuel tensions between Washington and Beijing,
after the unprecedented December 1 arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of
Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, in Canada at the request of the US.
Last weekend, US Vice President Mike Pence again accused China of "intellectual property
theft." These provocations came just weeks after the US and Chinese administrations agreed to
talks aimed at resolving the tariff and trade war launched by US President Donald Trump.
The Trump administration is demanding structural changes to China's state-led economic
model, greater Chinese purchases of American farm and industrial products and a halt to
"coercive" joint-venture licensing terms. These demands would severely undermine the "Made in
China 2025" program.
Since September, US authorities have brought forward five sets of espionage allegations.
In late October, the Justice Department unsealed charges against 10 alleged Chinese spies
accused of conspiring to steal sensitive commercial secrets from US and European
companies.
Earlier in October, the US government disclosed another unprecedented operation, designed
to produce a show trial in America. It revealed that a Chinese citizen, accused of being an
intelligence official, had been arrested in Belgium and extradited on charges of
conspiring to commit "economic espionage" and steal trade secrets.
The extradition was announced days after the Pentagon released a 146-page document, titled
"Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States," which made clear Washington is preparing for a total war
effort against both China and Russia.
Trump, Pence and Wray then all declared China to be the greatest threat to America's
economic and military security. Trump accused China of interfering in the US mid-term
elections in a bid to remove him from office. In a speech, Pence said Beijing was directing
"its bureaucrats and businesses to obtain American intellectual property -- the foundation of
our economic leadership -- by any means necessary."
Whatever the truth of the spying allegations against Chinese citizens -- and that cannot
be assumed -- any such operations would hardly compare with the massive global intrigue,
hacking, regime-change and military operations directed by the US agencies, including the
National Security Agency (NSA) and its "Five Eyes" partners.
These have been exposed thoroughly by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. Leaked documents published by
WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA has developed "more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans,
viruses and other 'weaponized' malware," allowing it to seize control of devices, including
Apple iPhones, Google's Android operating system, devices running Microsoft Windows, smart
TVs and possibly the control of cars and trucks.
In an attempt to broaden its offensive against China, the US government said that along
with the US and its Five Eyes partners, such as Britain, Canada and Australia, the countries
targeted by the alleged Chinese plot included France, Germany, Japan, Sweden and
Switzerland.
Chinese hackers allegedly penetrated managed services providers (MSPs) that provide
cybersecurity and information technology services to government agencies and major firms.
Finance, telecommunications, consumer electronics and medical companies were among those said
to be targeted, along with military and US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
laboratories.
Sections of the Chinese regime responded belligerently to the accusations. An editorial in
the state-owned Global Times branded them "hysterical" and a warning sign of a
"comprehensive" US attack on China.
The editorial asked: "Assuming China is so powerful that it has stolen technological
information for over a decade that is supposedly worth over a trillion in intellectual
property, as the US has indicated, then how is it that China still lags behind the US in so
many fields, from chips to electric vehicles, and even aviation engines?"
The Global Times declared that "instead of adhering to a low-profile strategy,
China must face these provocations and do more to safeguard national interests."
The promotion of Chinese economic and militarist nationalism by a mouthpiece of the
Beijing regime is just as reactionary as the nationalist xenophobia being stoked by the
ruling elite of American imperialism and its allies. The answer to the evermore open danger
of war is a unified struggle by the international working class to end the outmoded
capitalist profit system and nation-state divisions and establish a socialist society.
ANY rational person would think : a nation like USA TODAY which can name a different ENEMY
every other week is clearly SICK, led by sociopaths. China ? Russia, Iran, North Korea ?
Venezuela ? ( all fail to live up to the high moral standards of " OUR democracy " ?)
How are any of these countries a greater threat to YOU than the local Democratic or
Republican party hacks ?
If YOU think that so many people hate you , would it not make sense to ask if there is
perhaps something wrong with YOU ?
Since the US successfully convinced Canada to arrest Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the
telecoms giant's founder, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other US officials have insisted that
the Huawei issue is "separate" from trade talks with China. But it's becoming increasingly clear
that that's not really the case, and that the Chinese certainly don't agree.
On Monday, the US
filed a series of indictments against Huawei and Meng on allegations ranging from technology theft,
to obstruction of justice to bank fraud, the latest step in the US's push to drive the telecoms
giant and 5G leader out of Western markets - a campaign that has already yielded some success,
given that New Zealand and Australia have already banned Huawei equipment and European countries
including Germany and the Netherlands are considering similar steps.
But in its response to the charges, which likely foreshadow an outright ban from US markets for
Huawei and fellow Chinese telecoms giant ZTE, a spokesman in Beijing denied the charges against
Huawei and blamed them on political motivations, the
BBC
reported. The denial from Beijing is
ironic, considering that Huawei has countered accusations levied by the US that it cooperates with
Chinese by insisting that it is independent from the state.
At a briefing in Beijing, government spokesperson Geng Shuang said there were
"political motivations"
behind US attempts to
"smear and suppress certain
Chinese companies."
"We urge them to treat Chinese enterprises in a fair and just way."
The spokesman added that allegations of technology theft had already been settled back in 2014
during a civil case brought by T-Mobile, which had accused Huawei engineers of stealing 'Tappy', a
robot designed by the company to mimicked the movements of human fingers to test phones.
All told, the US laid out 23 charges against the company. During a press conference, FBI
Director Wray said Huawei posed a dual threat against the US - both economic and national
security-related.
In a statement from the company, Huawei said it was "disappointed to learn of the charges
brought against the company today," and added that it didn't commit "any of the asserted
violations" and that it "is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms Meng."
Here's the full statement, courtesy of Bloomberg:
"Huawei is disappointed to learn of the charges brought against the company today.
After Ms. Meng's arrest, the Company sought an opportunity to discuss the Eastern District of
New York investigation with the Justice Department, but the request was rejected without
explanation.
The allegations in the Western District of Washington trade secret
indictment were already the subject of a civil suit that was settled by the parties after a
Seattle jury found neither damages nor willful and malicious conduct on the trade secret claim.
The Company denies that it or its subsidiary or affiliate have committed any of the asserted
violations of U.S. law set forth in each of the indictments, is not aware of any wrongdoing by
Ms. Meng, and believes the U.S. courts will ultimately reach the same conclusion."
Hu Xijin, the editor of the English-language Communist Party mouthpiece the Global Times
insinuated that the US's crackdown on Huawei has been motivated by the inability of US companies'
to compete with Huawei's 5G network technology...
The charges against Huawei follow a series of indictments brought by the DOJ against alleged
hackers and others accused of aiding Chinese intelligence services. Meanwhile, the US is expected
to formally lodge an extradition request for Meng by the end of the month.
Meanwhile, Huawei's CFO "should not be a hostage" in Sino-U.S. relations, her lawyer said on
Tuesday, after the United States announced criminal charges against herself and the Chinese firm
just days before crunch trade talks with Beijing.
Meng's lawyer Reid Weingarten, partner at Steptoe & Johnson, pointed to "complex" Sino-U.S.
relations. "
Our client, Sabrina Meng, should not be a pawn or a hostage in this
relationship.
Ms. Meng is an ethical and honorable businesswoman who has never spent a
second of her life plotting to violate any U.S. law, including the Iranian sanctions."
Though IP theft is one of the main allegations against Huawei, and also represents one of the
biggest sticking points in the ongoing trade spat with Beijing, we imagine that this won't in any
way impact the "very, very important" trade talks taking place in Washington this week.
With the US reportedly preparing to formally request the extradition of Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou following a series of indictments against Meng and the telecoms giant that her father
founded, her lawyers are stepping up their rhetoric, accusing the US of "hostage-taking" and
using Meng as a political "pawn".
According to
Reuters , Meng's lawyer said Tuesday that the Huawei's CFO "should not be a hostage" to
Sino-US relations. The remarks come ahead of trade talks between President Trump and a coterie
of his senior trade officials, with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He leading a delegation on the
Chinese side.
Her lawyer Reid Weingarten, partner at Steptoe & Johnson, pointed to "complex"
Sino-U.S. relations. "Our client, Sabrina Meng, should not be a pawn or a hostage in this
relationship. Ms. Meng is an ethical and honorable businesswoman who has never spent a second
of her life plotting to violate any U.S. law, including the Iranian sanctions." Huawei said
it had sought to discuss the charges with U.S. authorities "but the request was rejected
without explanation." It said it "denies that it or its subsidiary or affiliate have
committed any of the asserted violations" and "is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng."
China's foreign ministry urged the United States drop the arrest warrant and end
"unreasonable suppression" of Chinese companies. Spokesman Geng Shuang also said China had
issued stern representations to both Canada and the United States after the U.S. formally
issued its extradition request for Meng.
Now that the charges have been filed, Canadian authorities have 30 days to decide whether
they will proceed with the request and refer the case to the Supreme Court in British Columbia,
where a hearing will be held. The whole process could take weeks or months.
Despite US officials' insistence that the charges against Huawei are "wholly separate" and
won't impact the trade talks, Reuters reported that it's almost inevitable that the US's
efforts against Huawei will factor into Beijing's calculus. And given President Trump's claim
that he would be willing to intervene in the case if it means striking a trade deal with China,
Beijing may expect that he might make good on this promise.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said on Monday that the alleged criminal activity
at Huawei "goes back at least 10 years and goes all the way to the top of the company." Meng
has been accused of misleading banks about the relationship between Huawei and a subsidiary
that sought to sell goods in Iran.
"... Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently – the greatest democracy. ..."
Marks **** s Hitler, but Hitler was pretty good at *** ing Marks too. Listen to this logic: The party that Hitler belonged
to, was called National-Socialist, yet he hated communist and attacked Russia.
Communism and socialism are the same. There never was communism – that's what they were "aspiring" to become in some distant
utopian future. So Hitler attacking Russia because they were communist is like US attacking France because they are capitalists.
Total propaganda BS on the part of the Nazis – calling themselves "Socialists".
The whole last century has been spent on one major task by the west: Combat socialism. Mainly by wars, but propaganda also.
And yet, socialism refuses to die. And the idea will never die. I know, someone will say, where have you been in the last almost
30 years? Capitalism defeated socialism in the cold war. Not so fast. Capitalism may have scored a major victory but it may have
sustained a mortal self-inflicted wound of propaganda nature. In the last 100 years 3 major ways to fight socialism domestically
were discovered:
FDR approach – include little bit of socialism into capitalism, to prevent a lot of socialism (total takeover). Nazi
Germany approach – include none of socialism, but only use its name for propaganda and pretend that all is hunky-dory, and
that "socialism" is already here. US approach – include a little bit of fake socialism in order to prevent a lot of real
socialism from taking over. That's how multiculturalism came into being.
Again, I must say that the best approach was FDR's. If capitalism wants to survive – that's the way to go. Despite all the
numerous wars against socialist countries, US haven't been able to erase the idea of socialism like they were hoping for.
If you want proof of this, just look at the last US election. Along comes Bernie Sanders, just mentions the name socialism
few times – claiming himself to be one – socialist, and wins the primaries, only to be robbed by the Democratic mafia bosses who
couldn't stand the idea of "socialist" running for president – after all the US has done to destroy socialism.
By the way, I think that Bernie is a good guy, but he is probably as much socialist as Adolf used to be. It still demonstrates
the power of the socialist idea to attract people. Pretty clever propaganda ploy on Bernie's part, but there was no chance in
hell the "democrats" would let him run for president on that platform.
And he would have defeated Trump. Talking about exercise in futility – US trying to erase the idea of socialism. That's what
made them inflict the mortal wound of fake socialism on themselves and might in the end destroy them. FDR approach was the best
– little bit of socialism to prevent a lot of it.
How about " Nope ". Communism is an end ; Socialism is a means that Marx considered the most likely to
enable the end-point to be achieved. It's akin to saying that a mall (the end) and a car (the means) are "the same
thing", on the basis that a car is an efficient way to get to the mall.
To flesh it out: Communism is explicitly anarchic, and is mainly characterised by
material abundance and the fulfillment of (self-limited) wants;
no ownership of property (not by individuals or the state);
no class stratification (and hence no political organisations whatsoever);
work as a 'prime want' (not a disutility that must be compensated).
This all seems slightly silly when you write it down, so Marx recognised that there had to be a ' radical transformation
of consciousness ' whereby people didn't want what they couldn't have.
He reckoned that the best way was to entrust an enlightened clique (the ' vanguard of the proletariat ') to take control,
and to force society towards the 'end' by coercion – until such time as the end was in sight, whereupon the enlightened vanguard
would relinquish control and society would be on a glide path to utopia.
And doing that specifically requires that the 'vanguard' controls production and allocation decisions during the transition
– which he thought (wrongly) means that the means of production must be owned by the State.
Hence Socialism.
His end is correct so long as you add one adjective. A society free of artificial stratification is a desirable
end. His means were totally wrong because he was a fucking idiot (as well as being a parasitic charlatan). The State
would not relinquish control under any circumstances, and will actively undermine any mechanism that raises everyone (because
that would narrow the gap between the political class and the demos can't have that).
A society free of artificial stratification is where we will end up once technological progress gets past its next 'knee' ('
The Singularity ') it would be hastened if the parasites in the global political class are put to the sword.
I don't think you understood my argument here. You are correct. Socialism and Communism are not the same in philosophical sense.
My argument was that for all practical purposes Communism never existed – and probably never will. Only Socialism existed in one
form or another in few dozen countries.
Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss
it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently
– the greatest democracy.
The EU didn't impose austerity on the UK, its own government did. We don't have the euro, in
case you haven't noticed. The US is our top overseas buyer. If we want more of that, we'll
have to take something like TTIP or worse.
The EU was a voice for African, Caribbean and Pacific producers against US transnationals,
and offered favorable terms. We've weakened that voice.
Brexit makes us more dependent on the IMF, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup
and Morgan Stanley. They're not EU bodies.
Britain opposed EU democratisation for forty years by upholding national governments' veto
powers over proposals supported by elected MEPs.
You voted against everything you claim to uphold. Because it was a vote against
everything.
None of that's even the issue. Do you have an insight to offer beyond antipathy to the
EU?
Concerning
the partial shutdown and and the border barriers 1 - The banks, credit unions and any
other financial institutions that can lend money are missing a chance to build a lot of good
will in this situation. Good will is an item that any good business plan must take into account
even of it is impossible to quantify on paper. Good will leads to more customers. Businesses
want to acquire more customers. The 800k federal employees now on furlough have legislated
assurance that their back pay will be quickly forthcoming when the pause ends. Sooo! Make them
no interest loans in the amount of their postponed pay. You will not be sorry if you do that. I
don't know if that could be extended to contract employees since the contract that includes
their services may not insure back pay.
2 - The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a number of
sections of the border. Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the
"immorality" and uselessness of physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if
they want the present border barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever
they want and anywhere they want. California is the destination of choice of these economic
migrants. If the border barriers are taken down, there will be IMO a mass migration into what
is now the United States and especially into California from Latin American and then inevitably
from all over the world. Ask the Democrats, every day if they want the existing border barriers
taken down, Ask them! pl
The current fight over "the wall" and funding for that wall is pure politics on both sides.
We are under a partial government shutdown for the sake of a symbol. Some kind of border
barrier has been in existence since the 90s and the "Secure Border Act" of 2006 called for
close to 700 miles of double fence barriers. Both Republican and Democratic legislatures and
presidencies have maintained and added to this fencing as well as doubling the size of the
CBP. According to a December 2016 GAO report on securing the SW border, the CBP spent $2.4
billion between 2007 and 2015 to deploy tactical infrastructure (TI) - fencing, gates, roads,
bridges, lighting and drainage infrastructure distributed along the entire SW border area.
That includes 654 miles of fencing and 5,000 miles of roads.
A total of $1.7 billion was appropriated in FY17 and FY18 for new and replacement barriers
and fences. Most of those funds have been obligated to the Corp of Engineers and much of that
has been awarded to contractors. Only a small percentage (6%) has been paid out for completed
contracts. The following projects account for close to half of those funds:
- In New Mexico to replace 20 miles of fencing with bollard wall for $73 million. Contract
was awarded in February 2018. Construction started in April 2018 and was completed in
September 2018.
- In the Rio Grande Valley to build 8 miles of 18 foot bollard wall and replace existing
levee wall for $167 million to begin in February 2019.
- In Arizona to build/replace 32 miles of "primary pedestrian wall" for $324 million to
begin in April 2019.
- Near San Diego to replace 14 miles of 8-10 foot metal wall/fence with 18-30 foot tall
bollard wall system for $287 million to begin in July 2019.
Trump's current demand for $5.7 billion covers an additional 243 miles of fencing mostly
in the Rio Grande Valley. It'll probably be 2020 before a single bollard is set from that
$5.7 billion and several years after that to issue the contracts and complete the
construction. Given the shortcoming in the present border fences, that $5.7 billion would be
better spent on replacing the present barriers in the most needed areas rather constructing
new fence in less vulnerable areas. Just to maintain and replace what we have should require
close to a billion dollars a year. I say again, this current battle over $5.7 billion for
"the wall" is political posturing by both sides.
The more important demand made by Trump was the $800 million to address the humanitarian
crisis on the border. These funds would provide for improved care/processing of
refugees/asylum seekers, 2,750 more border agents and 75 more immigration judges. In my
opinion, that would be a wise expense. I think there ought to be ten times that number of new
border agents/officers to better address the refugee problem (humanitarian crisis) which will
probably remain for many years. Climate change is making drought, hurricanes, floods and
mudslides the new normal in Central America. The farming economy in this region, which
includes southern Mexico is collapsing. Local governments are dysfunctional and impotent.
These people are going to migrate or die in place.
If you want to declare a national emergency, we could use eminent domain to condemn and
buy a lot of farmland at cost from corporate agribusinesses and start a "40 acres and a mule"
program for refugee farm families and any native American family who desire a new start.
Have to agree. Trump only asked for $1.6 billion for his wall in his 2019 budget...and got
it. He then decided to have a fight, one that he was loath to have when the Republicans held
the majority in the House.
IMO Pelosi and co have also decided this is a good place to have a Waterloo. This isn't a
struggle for a wall it's a struggle for dominance. They await a tide of public opinion to
decide it.
They should shut down the whole regime. The first things to be shut down should be the myriad
of bases occupying foreign soil, particularly the bases that support the destabilization of
middle eastern countries.
Reply • Share › Twitter Facebook
I am on the left and I don't have a problem with the wall. That said, if you really want to
reduce illegal immigration exit controls would be more effective (and much more cost
effective). I went through a whole lot of trouble to get a work visa to work legally in
Poland in the late 90s - and I wouldn't have bothered if Poland didn't have exit controls.
Almost every country in the world has exit controls ... except for Canada and the US.
Oh cut it out. The wall is bullshit. If Trump was actually serious about illegal immigration
he'd be pushing E-Verify for all US businesses to determine the eligibility of employees. But
the GOP business lobby would never allow that so we get dog and pony shows like this so that
Trump can act like he really means business.
Well, at last you have made a logical point. E-verify should be made mandatory. You would
probably loose a lot of friends if it were. BTW, your many insulting comments today have
caused me after many years to ban you.
With regard to #1 I'm not holding my breath. Fundamental to the financial sector's business
model is opportunistic predation. As Michael Hudson relentlessly documents in his recently
published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze
Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , it has been this way since money was invented in the
ancient Near East over five thousand years ago. In today's world few banksters can be
expected to forego invoking the fine print terms regarding the late fees and interest rate
hikes, especially considering the fact the careers of the CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded
companies live or die by the next quarterly earnings report.
https://amzn.to/2TfN2ht
Sadly Hudson's important book is getting little traction. He could only get this published on
a print-to-order basis in spite of the fact he has about a dozen prior books to his credit.
As a PtO book it will not be stocked by chain book stores.
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober (white male)Trump voters, anyway?
As Philip Giraldi points out in a post a The Unz Review today, the Democratic establishment
isn't opposed to walls per se. It depends on who's building it and for what purpose.
Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the immorality and uselessness of
physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if they want the present border
barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever they want and anywhere
they want The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a
number of sections of the border.
In honor of Sen. Chuck 'Shomer', I vote that we call our border barrier a fence ,
just as Israel does:
Sir: While not directly on point, I knuckled under and signed up with Disqus simply to say
how much I have appreciated this committee of correspondence over the years. Seeing your post
recently about conversing with Glubb Pasha was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back.
IMO, we should sell coastal California to Mexico for $100 billion. Then use that money to
build a wall from Oregon to Brownsville, TX. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.
It sure does seem like the lenders are missing an excellent opportunity for a nearly risk
free public relations campaign as well as sales opportunities. Get these furloughed workers
in the door and give them a furlough loan and then get them interested in home loans, auto
loans...whatever they're qualified for. Should be a no-brainer.
Trump is our chief executive charged with the day to day running of the government and the
proverbial "making the trains run on time" for government functions. All these functions work
for him, not the legislative branch. His partial shutdown of the government reminds me of the
classic film Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, takes himself
hostage by holding a gun to his own head to hold off a mob angry at having a black appointed
sheriff for their town. It worked in the film. Let's hope it does not work in Washington.
Fred, just finished the book you recommended "A Disease in the Public Mind - Why We Fought
the Civil War" by Thomas Flemming. The most balanced and fair nonfiction historical book I
have read on this subject.
Also depressing because History is repeating itself. Not rhyming but repeating itself. The
modern day abolitionist is convinced of their morale superiority over the deplorables. Just
look at the Fake News regarding the Catholic School boys. One abolitionist said on Twitter
that he wish they were dead along with their parents.
I hate the agenda of the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party but I hate these modern
day abolitionist more since they desire to kill people just because they don't agree with
their transgender, open borders anarchy, and taxes on the little guy for a Climate Change
problem that doesn't exist. The Yellow Vest movement is a push back against this madness.
Instead of talking Medicare for All, jobs for everyone, prosperity, taking care of your
countryman the political narrative is on bizarre subjects due to the Elite knowing
Globalization is destroying huge sections of Western Civilization. The Yellow Vest have
destroyed 60% of the Speed Cameras deployed to catch the little guy going 5 m.p.h. over the
speed limit or running a red light that is timed to get you. It has nothing to do with safety
and everything to do with raising money off the individuals who are already struggling to
survive.
For the top 26 billionaires in the world to have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion
people in the world is barbaric. Globalization has led to drastic income inequality and the
fuse is burning.
Glad you read the book. I agree when you say " The modern day abolitionist is convinced of
their morale superiority over the deplorables." I wrote an early piece about that existential
angst of this newest generation. (Hard to believe it has already been two years.)
https://turcopolier.typepad...
I think this generation is waking up to having 'been played' by the politicians. What is
being missed in this latest effort to control the narrative is 1) Anti-Semitism in the
Women's march which led many groups, inluding the DNC, to withdraw support. 2) A turnout
that's roughly 90% lower than two years ago and a far, far cry from what was promoted. Others
in random order: Unempolyment is way down. The stock market is up almost 10% since the
shutdown began. Turmp is directing that the armed forces leave Syria (Afghanistan is probably
next) and North Korea is making further move gestures towards actual denuclearization.
What will be interesting to see, in the long run, is if the Democrats can keep the Hispanic
vote. Being godless sodomites, the new age abolitionists are making war on Catholics and, it
just so happens, that Hispanics, by and large, are serious about their Catholicism.
I don't see it. California proves otherwise. Texas and Georgia have become competitive
because of illegal immigrants having American born kids. The abolitionist say demography is
destiny and I tend to agree. Shows how racist they are. And how much they hate white people.
I see the Republican Party becoming noncompetitive to extinct over the next 20 years. And
the Democrat Party separating into 2 parties. The Progressive Wing versus the Moderate Wing.
Of course it could just all burned down before then and I wouldn't be surprised. I plan to
read your book next and have no doubt I will enjoy it. I've read the free excerpts you
provided and enjoyed them.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if future white generations in America do not emigrate to
Russia. I hate to be pessimistic but the monkey brain of man is incurable and hate runs
rampant. The modern day white abolitionist will be sideline to the trailer park but they are
too stupid to see it.
We need a new party in America that is for all colors of citizens and an economic populist
platform along with a social justice system that is vibrant.
The Democrat Party is the most vile/racist/bigoted party in the world right now. This
modern abolitionist attitude that killed many innocent Iraqi's due to no fault of their own
and believes they can dictate to countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia on how to
live because they are gender neutral is going to come back and destroy them. Either through a
home grown movement such as the Yellow Vest or worse to all of our detriment.
Sir, It may already be happening. An NPR/PBS/Marist January poll (that's not Fox/Breitbart)
shows approval of the performance of Trump among Hispanics rising from 31% to 50% since the
same poll was performed just prior to the shutdown. I can't figure out if Trump is a 10th
level Jedi master or if it's a case of the one eyed man being king in the land of the blind.
Trump says give me X number of $$s for my border wall (thought balloon over his head says "so
I can get re-elected") or I shut down the gov't. What's to keep him from doing it again if
the Dems cave this time?
On a side note: it's pretty appalling that you and your mostly Cuckoo bird commenters
think this is the way the republic should be run. So sad what happened to this blog.
We have Democrats like Sandy Ocasio-Cortez demanding the abolition of ICE. Is that one of
so-called improvements to border security the Democrats are seeking with popular backing?
If left to their devices, the Democrats would happily do away with the border altogether.
Don't take my word for it. Take the words of the two-time failed Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton. She gave a paid, private speech in Brazil where she claimed, "My
dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the
future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and
opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." That's all fine and dandy, I'm sure, but
oddly she didn't make that proclamation publicly on the campaign trail.
You are so full of shit. Dems want borders and they want border security based on real
experience, not a mnemonic device dreamed up by Roger Stone to focus candidate Trump on
immigration issues.
I think you are putting words in Pelosi's and the democrats mouths. I have heard of none of
them espousing getting rid of the border barriers. I believe they view a wall as a dumb idea
but are for other improvements for border security. This, I believe, is what the majority of
the populace want.
Pelosi and any number of other leading Dems have said that border barriers are immoral. The
logical conclusion from those statements is that ALL border barriers are immoral. If that is
their position then they should advocate removal of existing barriers. If they do not, then
they are politically self serving liars.
Tell that to the angry ranchers along the southern Texas borders who think trump's wall is a
political stunt that will ruin them economically.
There is no illegal alien southern border crisis in 2019 -- and the migrant caravan that
had so many republicans freaked out ultimately wound up in Tijuana, across the wall from San
Diego. Because that's where migrant families wind up, at official points of entry so they can
apply for asylum.
Sir;
The problem with the idea of banks building 'good will' is that the financial sector, by and
large, has moved on from old fashioned business models to an 'enrich the insiders at everyone
else's expense' model.
My local bank that I use has signs in the lobby directing workers discommoded by the shutdown
to apply at the small loan desk. I do not know what incentives are on offer, but my
unpleasant experience with the bank once before does not give me much hope of the bank acting
altruistically.
William K Black, who headed part of the Federal response to the 'Savings and Loan' crisis in
the 1980's has called this trend the building of a "criminogenic environment."
As for the wall fiasco, I would ask Chuck and Nancy; "Who do you consider as being
Americans?" Then tell them to serve that group, no one else. The last time I looked, no one
had abolished the Nation State.
Thank you for your indulgence.
But that is exactly the problem; global corporations and their lobbyists are doing their
utmost to abolish the Nation State. Nation states are a PITA, from the Globalist POV. They
make regulations, have borders impeding the rampant denuding of talent pools and worst of all
occasionally erect trade barriers to favor their domestic industries. All of this is harmful
to the corporate profits of a global business. What we are witnessing in the US and elsewhere
is the push back against this drive to maximize profits at the cost of huge sections of
national populations.
Trump may be a billionaire businessman with worldwide interests, but real estate is
different. It employs largely local labor and is not vulnerable to 'protectionist' government
policies in the same way. This is key to understanding how a billionaire like Trump can think
and act so differently to the Davos club and billionaires like Bezos.
Totally agree with you. What I can't understand about these politicians from the democratic
party or for that matter the main stream media is if we are so internationalized then why all
the this drum beating about Russia Russia since we a re all a part of the nice international
group of people. Don't they have as much stake who governs in this international brotherhood?
Then that is what they should say, rather than the prattle they are currently issuing.
Apparently, unlike me, you completed the mind reading class in high school.
My mind reading comment was actually addressed to Stuart Wood for his remark about Pelosi and
company that despite their words to the contrary, "I believe they view a wall as a dumb
idea but are for other improvements for border security."
"... A Trump wall or barrier will cost far more than believed and be likely unfinished, with large gaps like the Maginot Line. Some better way of blocking the border must be found. If not, we may end up having to wall and garrison the Canadian border as well. ..."
`Good fences make good neighbors,' wrote American poet Robert Frost. But not according to
President Donald Trump whose proposed Great Wall is supposed to protect the nation from hordes
of rabid, murderous, drug crazed rapists and unwhites from south of the border.
I'm a life-long student of military architecture, with a particular passion for modern
fortification, chief among which is France's own Great Wall, the magnificent and unfairly
reviled Maginot Line.
Given the heated debate in America over Trump's proposed barrier along the Mexican border,
it's worth looking back to the Maginot Line. It was supposed to have been France's savior after
the bloodbath of World War I.
Proposed by Deputy André Maginot in the 1920's, the Line was supposed to cover key
parts of France's frontiers with German and Italy. Due to the terrible losses of the Great War,
France did not have enough soldiers to properly defend its long frontiers. So it made sense to
erect fortifications to compensate for manpower weakness and to block surprise attacks from
next door enemy forces.
The first large Maginot fort was built in the 1920's north of Nice to protect the Cote
d'Azur from possible Italian attacks. Mussolini was demanding France return the Riviera coast
to its former Italian rulers. Work on the principal Line along the German and Luxembourg
borders began soon after. Phase one covered 260 miles from near the Rhine to Longuyon, a rail
junction south of the Belgian border.
The Line consisted of hundreds of steel and concrete machine gun and anti-tank casemates
with interlocking flanking fire. They were surrounded by upright rails designed to halt tanks
and dense belts of interwoven barbed wire covered by machine guns. Artillery casemates with
75mm, 81mm and 135mm guns covered the fort's fronts and sides.
Within and behind the Maginot Line were based an army of specialized fortress troops and
hundreds of field artillery guns. The era's most advanced electronic communications systems
meshed the defenses together. The big forts were mostly buried 90 feet underground, proof from
any projectiles of the era.
But the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate
troops to man it.
In the spring of 1940, France had deployed nearly a third of its field army behind the
Maginot Line. But then the Germans staged a brilliant breakthrough north of the Line across the
supposedly impenetrable Ardennes forest region. In 1938, a French parliamentarian named Perrier
(from the French water family) had toured the Ardennes area and warned the military that it was
very vulnerable to a German breakthrough. The generals scoffed at 'this civilian' and ignored
Perrier's warning.
Sure enough, the German armored and infantry assault came right through this Ardennes weak
point near Sedan, forcing a rapid retreat by French and British forces in the region that ended
up at Dunkerque.
ORDER IT NOW
As outflanked Allied forces pulled back from the frontier, they exposed the northern flank
of the Maginot Line. The French high command, fearing their armies around the Line would be
encircled, ordered the interval forces to retreat towards the highlands of central France. The
Line was thus denuded of its troops and artillery. These units, who were armed and trained for
static defense, had to make their way cross country on foot. Most were captured en route by
advancing German forces.
In spring 1940 the Line was unfinished with large gaps and open flanks due to budgetary
constraints caused by the 1930's depression. The Germans drove through them, wisely avoiding
most of big forts, and attacked the Line from the rear. Ironically, in 1944/45, German troops
ended up defending the Maginot Forts from the advancing US Army.
The Line worked as planned, protecting vulnerable areas. But it was never extended to the
Channel due to Belgium's high water table and reluctance to fortify behind the French ally. The
Belgians believed their powerful forts near Liege would delay the Germans until the French Army
could intervene. They were wrong.
The French public ascribed almost magical powers to the Line. It would keep them
invulnerable they believed. Building the fortifications became a national works project during
the Depression, rather like the US WPA labor program. But Adolf Hitler vowed he would go around
the Line and chop it up. He did.
A Trump wall or barrier will cost far more than believed and be likely unfinished, with
large gaps like the Maginot Line. Some better way of blocking the border must be found. If not,
we may end up having to wall and garrison the Canadian border as well.
Sir, you make an interesting point, but the comparison is not valid.
In the Maginot line case, France was being attacked by other COUNTRIES, i.e. govt. of
other countries, with tanks and soldiers.
But, the US is being attacked by individuals, these criminal alien invaders. The Mexican
govt. is not trying to invade us with troops and tanks; only the individuals with nothing but
a big mouth.
This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it. He is correct, Trump's border wall would
not withstand an attack by thousands of German troops with tanks. There is no mention of
walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the South Korean DMZ. Border
security makes sense and is a tiny fraction of the huge budget our Department of Defense
spends to protect the borders of our allies. Opponents are just naive or covert open borders
globalists.
We don't needs a wall (or high barriers) along 90% of the border because those areas are
too far from road access on Mexican side, nor do we need them along 99% of the Canadian
border. One can visit the border or just look at youtube and see that we really need a first
class barrier along 10% of the Mexican border. This will deter chaos in the easily accessible
areas by replacing an assortment of old fences wobbly that even moms with kids can hop
over.
I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated the
Maginot Line. Otherwise, he should apologize for wasting our time with this horrible article.
If he wants to discuss alternatives, like requiring e-verify, let's hear them.
How about self-funding border security. We all pay a TSA fee for every flight for
security. Why not charge $10 to cross the border by foot, or $20 per vehicle. Many American
bridges have hefty fees to cross, why not the border?
No wall is strong enough to protect against desperate people who flee from extreme violence
and poverty; yet these people are NOT an invading army but broken families; single mothers
with small kids who only seek peace and security for their children.
The problem of mass migration is not new; but the US leadership had always dealt with it
with foresight which is lacking in the Trump Administration. America wouldn't have the
problem of mass migration had the US fulfilled its own role as the world Superpower –
so, dealing with the Latin America as the neighbours who need help to restore themselves to
functioning states as opposed to walling them in their desperation.
Back in 1994, the Peso Crisis would have paralyzed Mexico as a functioning state but Bill
Clinton administration had recognized that the US must help Mexican government from total
collapse which would have resulted to flood of poor migrants to the southern borders of the
USA – as such, under the leadership of president Bill Clinton, the US, Canada and IMF
had structured a bailout loan-package to help the Mexican government to keep its economy
afloat, that has not only prevented the mass migration of poor Mexicans workers to the
southern borders of the USA but also helped the US exports to Mexico, so, helped the American
economy as well.
We need similar approach to the rest of the Latin America, we need to help these countries
to sustain and restore themselves to functioning states with relative security for families;
because no wall is strong enough to protect against total desperation.
The wall will not be effective because illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America
constitutes 5% or less of all immigration, see Ron Unz's recent article on the subject. The
real problem is legal immigration: anchor babies, diversity lottery visa, H1-B visa, chain
immigration, etc. The real problem is US immigration law, not lack of a physical barrier to
illegal immigration. If a wall worked 100% of the time (it won't) you still would have 20
times the numbers in *legal immigration* that would continue to fail to be addressed. The
Wall is a sop tossed to the masses by pandering politicians who don't have the will to
address the overarching problem of legal immigration. General George Patton summed up the
Maginot line pretty well, and it applies to the Wall: "Fixed fortifications are a monument to
the stupidity of man."
@Giuseppe The wall will be effective: at proving that America is actually capable of
stopping immigration flow. Can't do something as simple and straightforward as building the
wall, can't enforce immigration law.
The key point is that the Germans went around the Maginot Line: The wall itself worked.
My chateau is near Sedan; lovely wooded hilly place, and one would be forgiven for
thinking an armoured assault through the Ardennes would surely fail, so why waste resources
there? I hear the same sort of blather about parts of the US southern border.
This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it.
Yep.
There is no mention of walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the
South Korean DMZ.
Yep. Especially the former.
All Trump has to do, re the wall is implement Israeli solution . Gander, goose.
As for the illegal immigration, also simple: JAIL the business owners who employ them;
including one member of a household where an illegal is employed.
As for legal immigration, well one step at the time.
All this bullshit about this topic is truly funny. Funny how retards get hooked on it. Not
people with agendas, oh they know what they are doing. But an average Joe getting so excited
about the topic.
No wonder we are where we are.
I guess that's one of the usual "gullibility" games TPTBs play with the "deplorables". And
win, obviously.
So Mexicans are going to go by boat caravans to Canada, which is going to let that happen,
and then the caravans will cross the U.S.-Canadian border?
As far as Nazis in tanks coming in from Mexico, that's O.K. with me. The more Nazi
soldiers, the better. Just keeping out the hordes of unskilled poor is enough.
I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated
the Maginot Line
Right.
Even keeping the problematic, apples-to-oranges migration-to-military analogy, consider
this letter-to-editor in a Maryland local newspaper published
Jan. 14, 2019:
The Maginot Line worked; it forced the Germans to attack elsewhere. Defeat could have
been prevented, but the French failed to fully understand what a successful deterrent their
wall was. France built the Maginot Line on the border between France and Germany from
Switzerland to Belgium.
For political reasons (they didn't want to "offend" King Leopold) they stopped at
Belgium instead of extending it to the North Sea. The French relied on the Dyle River and
the Ardennes in Belgium to stop the Germans. Not extending the wall to the North Sea was
the Maginot Line's Achilles Heel and caused the French defeat.
At the outbreak of war France's border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line.
Belgium, demonstrating "The Triumph of Hope over experience," had declared itself neutral
and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France
would come via Belgium.
The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall
superiority, defeat the Germans. [Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, Jewish British Secretary of
State for War], far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system
strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).
The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that
it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do
this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.
Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included
the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.
A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was "Over which shoulder should
a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?" He also found that only 2
pillboxes had been constructed.
On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime
Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused
to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army
Council's disquiet at the state of his defences.
In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be
reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.
This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord
Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to
him as a "Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy". Michael Foot, later to become
leader of the Labour party thought of him as "a shit". Chips Chanon a prominent socialite
referred to him as "An Oily Jew".
An army song went:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.
Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France.
On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the
Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.
On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D
advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flanked
But the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate
troops to man it.
True, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the Allies to stop the
German invasion. By the way something, which part of the US's southern border is playing
Belgium in this rather dubious comparison?
@Rational The Kaiser didn't use 1,000 volts, he used 2,000 volts for his electric fence:
The Hun used a stand alone 2,000 volt power generation plant for their fence. Widespread
electric power in the USA means we could use 1:2 step down power transformers for an
electrified fence.
Did the Kaiser's fence work as planned?
"As Germany invaded neutral Belgium, Belgians began to cross the border to the Netherlands
en masse. In 1914 one million Belgian refugees were already in the Netherlands, but
throughout the war, refugees kept coming and tried to cross the border. Many wanted to escape
German occupation, others wanted to join their relatives who had already fled, and some
wanted to take part in the war and chose this detour to join the forces on the allied
front.
"Construction began in the spring of 1915 and consisted of over 200 km (125 mi) of
2,000-volt wire with a height ranging from 1.5 to about 3 m (5 to about 10 ft) spanning the
length of the Dutch-Belgian border from Aix-la-Chapelle to the River Scheldt. Within
100–500 m (110–550 yd) of the wire, anyone who was not able to officially explain
their presence was summarily executed.
"The number of victims is estimated to range between 2,000 and 3,000 people. Local
newspapers in the Southern Netherlands carried almost daily reports about people who were
'lightninged to death'.
"The wire also separated families and friends as the Dutch–Belgian border where
Dutch and Flemings (Dutch-speaking Belgians), despite living in different states, often
intermarried or otherwise socialized with each other. Funeral processions used to walk to the
fence and halt there, to give relatives and friends on the other side the opportunity to pray
and say farewell.[3]
@Gordo' Actually I agree a wall is not needed, it is willpower that is needed.
Without that a wall is useless, with it a wall is superfluous '
The wall has become a symbol -- as walls tend to be.
It's now secondary whether it actually stops anyone. If we build it, we have decided to
retake control of our borders. If we don't, we have abdicated that control.
The demand of President Donald Trump
that congress should appropriate money to build a wall securing the nation's southern border has resulted in
the longest federal government shutdown in history with no end in sight. There is considerable opposition to
the wall based on two quite different perceptions of border security. The generally "progressive" view is
that there is no border threat at all, that the thousands of migrants heading for the U.S. can be
assimilated and indeed should be allowed entry because of U.S. government policies in Central America that
have created the ruined states that the would-be immigrants have been fleeing.
There is certainly some truth to that
argument, though it suggests that the United States should essentially abandon sovereignty over its own
territory, which most Americans would reject. The alternative viewpoint, which has a much broader bipartisan
constituency, consists of those who do feel that border security is a national priority but are nevertheless
critical of building a wall, which will be expensive, possibly ineffective and environmentally damaging.
They prefer other options, to include increased spending on the border guards, more aggressive enforcement
against existing illegals and severe punishment of businesses in the U.S. that hire anyone not possessing
legal documentation. Some also have argued in favor of a national ID issued only to citizens or legal
permanent residents that would have to be produced by anyone seeking employment or government services.
Whether the wall will ever be built is
questionable, but one thing that is certain is that there is more than enough hypocrisy regarding it to go
around. Democratic Presidents including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when campaigning have called for
better border security, as have Democratic Congressional leaders who are now smelling blood and attacking
Trump for seeking to do what they have long at least theoretically sought.
Apart from that, many of the Democrats
who are currently criticizing the southern border wall on moral grounds have failed to apply the same
standard to another infamous wall, that which is being built by Israel. Israel's "separation wall" is
arguably being constructed at least in part using "aid" and charitable money provided by Washington while
also being enabled politically by the U.S. government's acquiescence to the Israeli violations of
international law. And if the moral argument for not having a wall to aid suffering refugees has any
meaning, it would be many times more so applied to the Israeli wall, which is an instrument in the
maintenance of apartheid in areas under Israeli control while also making permanent the stateless status of
the more than one million Palestinian refugees, far more in number than the would-be immigrants marching
through Mexico.
The Israeli wall is at many points larger
and more intimidating than that planned by Trump, and it is also designed to physically and economically
devastate the Palestinian population adjacent to it. Israel's wall is undeniably far more damaging than
anything being considered for placement along the U.S.-Mexican border as it operates as both a security
measure and a tool for confiscating more Arab land by including inside the barrier illegal West Bank
settlements.
There are both physical similarities and
differences relating to the two walls. Judging from prototypes, Trump currently appears to favor
prefabricated mostly metal sections with barbed wire coils on top that would be high and intimidating enough
to deter climbing over. The sections would be set in foundations sufficiently deep to deter most tunneling
and there would be sensors at intervals to alert guards to other attempts to penetrate the barrier. Israel's
wall varies in terms of structural material, including large concrete blocks 28 feet high in some areas
while other less populated stretches that are considered low security make do with multiple lines of barbed
wire and sensors. It is interesting to note that some Israeli companies have apparently expressed interest
in building the Mexico wall and, as one of the many perks Israel receives from congress includes the right
to bid on U.S. government contracts, they might well wind up as a contractors or subcontractors if the
barrier is ever actually built.
As noted above, the principal difference
between the U.S. wall and that of Israel is that the American version is all on U.S. land and is engineered
to more or less run in a straight line along the border. The Israeli version is nearly 90% built on
Palestinian land and, as it is designed to create facts on the West Bank, it does not run in a straight
line, instead closing off some areas to the Palestinians by surrounding Arab villages. It therefore keeps
people in while also keeping people out, so it is not strictly speaking a security barrier. Indeed, some
Israeli security experts have stated their belief that the wall has been only
a minor asset
in preventing violence directed by Palestinians against Israelis.
If the Israeli wall had followed the
Green Line that separated Israel proper from Palestinian land it would be only half the estimated 440 miles
long that it will now be upon completion. The extra miles are accounted for
by the deep cuts
of as much as 11 miles into the West Bank, isolating about 9% of it and completely
enclosing 25,000 Palestinian Arabs from areas nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority. One
often cited victim
of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, with a population of 45,000,
which is enclosed on all sides by a wall that in some sections measures more than 25 feet high. Qalqilyah is
only accessible through an Israeli controlled military checkpoint on the main road from the east and a
tunnel on the south side that links the town to the adjacent village of Habla.
The wall is therefore only in part a
security measure while also being a major element in the Israeli plan to gradually acquire as much of the
West Bank as possible – perhaps all of it – for Israeli settlers. It is a form of collective punishment
based on religion to make life difficult for local people and eventually drive them from their homes.
it is difficult to overstate the
humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people's access to
services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier's exact
route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction
commences. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst Palestinians about how their future lives will be
impacted The land between the Barrier and the Green Line constitutes some of the most fertile in the
West Bank. It is currently the home for 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns."
"The fence/wall, in its present
configuration, violates Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law Since the summer of
2002 the Israeli army has been destroying large areas of Palestinian agricultural land, as well as other
properties, to make way for a fence/wall which it is building in the West Bank. In addition to the large
areas of particularly fertile Palestinian farmland that have been destroyed, other larger areas have been
cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. The fence/wall is not being built between
Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian
towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other,
separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care
facilities and other essential services. This in order to facilitate passage between Israel and more than
50 illegal Israeli settlements located in the West Bank.
"
Of course, the situation has become far
worse for Palestinians since the two reports dating from 2004 and 2005. Israel has accelerated its
settlement construction and the wall has expanded and shifted to accommodate those changes, making life
impossible for the indigenous population.
Any pushback from the United States has
been rare to nonexistent, with successive administrations only occasionally mentioning that the settlements
themselves are "troubling" or a "complication" vis-à-vis a peace settlement. The first direct criticism of
the wall itself took place in 2003, when the Bush administration briefly considered reducing loan guarantees
to discourage its construction. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell
remarked
"A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. However, in the
case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others."
On May 25, 2005, Bush
repeated his concerns
, noting that "I think the wall is a problem. And I discussed this with Ariel
Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking
through the West Bank." In a letter to Sharon he stated that it "should be a security rather than political
barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues
including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact
on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."
Congress is, of course, Israeli occupied
territory so its response was directed against Powell and Bush in support of anything Israel chose to do.
Then Senator Joe Lieberman
complained
"The administration's threat to cut aid to Israel unless it stops construction of a security
fence is a heavy-handed tactic. The Israeli people have the right to defend themselves from terrorism, and a
security fence may be necessary to achieve this."
In 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton
declared her support
for the wall by claiming that the Palestinian Authority had failed to fight
terrorism. "This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian
people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism." Senator
Charles Schumer, also from New York,
added
"As long as the Palestinians send terrorists onto school buses and to nightclubs to blow up
people, Israel has no choice but to build the Security Wall."
So, for many in Washington a legal and
relatively apolitical wall by the United States to protect its border is a horrible prospect while the
Israeli version built on someone else's land with the intention to damage the local Arab population as much
as possible is perfectly fine. The reality is that America's Establishment, which is dominated by veneration
of Israel for a number of reasons, is completely hypocritical, more prepared to criticize actions taken by
the United States even when those actions are justified than they are to condemn Israeli actions that amount
to crimes against humanity. That is the reality and it is playing out in front of us right now.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is
[email protected]
.
"... Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity. ..."
"... I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people ..."
It should be pointed out that the Integrity Initiative recently claimed on Twitter that some of the documents leaked in batch
#4 were not theirs and had been misrepresented as part of the organisation.
It doesn't really matter, though: all that we know, anti-socialist shills writing propaganda on behalf of II (Nimmo, Cohen,
Reid-Ross) have confirmed their own roles, and the Twitter account was proven to have pushed out slanderous material on Jeremy
Corbyn.
Note that "misrepresented" could have referred to the inclusion of the Corbyn slide show document which was presented at but
created by the II.
This organisation and all of those part of it should be treated as enemies of the people, as they have attacked, disingenuously
and using smears,
-Yellow Vests
– Jill Stein
-Jeremy Corbyn
-George Galloway
-Seuams Milne
-German Left Party
-French Left Party
-French Communist Party
-Greek Communist Party
-Podemos
-Norwegian Red Party
-Norwegian Socialist Left Party
-Swedish Left Party
-Swedish Greens
-International Anti-NATO Groups
-Greyzone Project
-Julian Assange
-MintPressNews
Via
-Infiltrating Corbyn and Sanders campaigns
-Inserting propaganda anonymously into local media including the Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, The Times, the Guardian, and more
-Using social media to orchestrate hate and dismissal campaigns against those mentioned above
-Hosting events for collaboration between members
-Building online "clusters" to deploy and shape discourse in the media and elsewhere
By repeating or openly collaborating with:
-Ben Nimmo
-Oz Katergi
-Anne Applebaum
-Peter Pomerantsev
-Bellingcat
-Atlantic Council
-Carole Cadwalladr
-David Aaronovitch
-Center For A Stateless Society
-PropOrNot
-Alexander Reid-Ross
-Nick Cohen
-Michael Weiss
-Jamie Fly
-Jamie Kirchick
Directed by:
-Tory Government
-NATO
-Facebook
-German Multinationals
Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward
many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity.
I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least
for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people.
> Most have been breached in one manner or another, sabotaged, or gone around.
That's an extremely naïve position. The function of the wall is not to block the
access, but to slow it down and raise the cost of crossing for illegal immigrants.
As such it has some value. Also those neoliberal Dems are eager to finance foreign
wars and programs like F35 without any hesitation.
What a bunch of fools. As Tucker Carlson aptly said
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to
sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like they're playing roulette and cackling like
mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally unaware that
any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves
majestic new titles and raising their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and
desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the
ship. It would be nice to know. What was written as an allegory is starting to feel
like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the
waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to
know, and they don't want you to tell them. Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they
continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the
Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
I've grown very sceptical over the years about the whole issue of asylum. To me, the idea
that an individual can cross a border illegally without a visa, or without even a passport,
and then suddenly become quasi legal be declaring that they wish to seek asylum is a bit of a
farce. The situation becomes even more farcical when failed asylum seekers still aren't
deported. As for humanitarian and ethical obligations, I don't really buy into that either
because the demographics of the world are such that the West is at risk of losing its very
identity if it feels "obliged" to accept everyone seeking asylum and/or work from the world's
more troubled regions. I see the admission of refugees as a generous gesture, not as an
obligation.
While Tucker uses logic and facts to make his arguments, Cenk uses feelings to
support his. If anyone is still a follower of Cenk after this video, then Tucker is right, the
level of delusion in society is staggering.
Chunk really is a disingenuous slime ball. He brings up food as evidence of our
"multiculturalism", it's such a moronic example. The fundamentals of culture that Tucker was
speaking of include our beliefs enshrined in the constitution, freedom of speech, our
egalitarianism, capitalism, the English language, ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit, all of the
god-given rights we believe in, self defense, etc. It's very uniquely American and to have
millions upon millions of Hondurans or Mexicans or whatever flood in, not assimilate, and
change the language and the freedoms/god-given rights we believe in, that will displace OUR
culture with theirs.... and clearly our culture is superior, if it wasn't then they'd be the
one's with a rich country that we'd want to move to. Who gives a fuck if we like to eat tacos
or pasta you greasy slime ball. Basically if Glob of Grease was right then there would be no
such thing as assimilation.
At the risk of sounding misogynistic I have to say listening to a liberal is like listening to
a woman. No matter how wrong they are in their mind they're right. No matter how much logic
& common sense you throw their way it's never enough for them to understand. That's what it
be like watching these "debates". This is why a lot of the left when it comes to men are
considered BETA. They have the skewed mind like that of a female, men appeal more to logic than
emotional rhetoric like what Cenk was speaking from. This is why civilizations of the past have
all gone the way of the dodo bird. Because they'll allow themselves to become so diverse to the
point of collapse. It's funny too because all of the countries they beg us to allow in are some
of the most segregated countries on the planet, such as Asia.
At this point, deja vu mind-set returns to teach a powerful lesson. Having once witnessed a
major historical reversal, one knows that historical determinism isan illusion -- opium for
people on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
Machiavelli insisted that surrender is a bad idea because we never know what surprises
fortune may have in store for us. In Machiavelli's view, there are "good times" and "bad times"
in politics, and the good ruler is not one who can fend off the "bad times" so much, as one who
has accumulated enough goodwill among citizens to help him ride out those bad times.
The argument of this short book is that European Union is going through a really bad time
today, torn apart by numerous crises that damage confidence in the future of the project among
citizens across the continent. So the disintegration of the union is one of the most likely
outcomes.
For A. Roy, a writer has the responsibility to take sides overtly.
In these violent diatribes, she tears the masks of the `missionaries to redeem the wretched'
and of those preaching privatization and globalization as the one and only solution for the
whole world's economic problems.
The hypocrisy of globalization
For A. Roy, globalization has nothing to do with the eradication of poverty. It will not pull
the Third World out of the stagnant morass of illiteracy, religious bigotry or
underdevelopment. In India, 70 % of the population still has no electricity and 30 % is still
illiterate.
Globalization means crudely and cruelly `Life is Profit'. `Its realm is raw capital, its
conquest emerging markets, its prayers profits, its borders limitless, its weapons
nuclear.'
Privatization (of agriculture, seeds, water supply, electricity, power plants, commodities,
telecommunications, knowledge) consists only in the transfer of productive public assets from
the State to private interests (transnational corporations).
The globalization's economic agenda `munches through the economies of poor countries like a
cloud of locusts.' One example: by hugely subsidizing their farm industries, the rich
countries put impoverished subsistence farmers in the Third World out of business and chase
them into the cities.
The hypocrisy of the war against terrorism
For A. Roy, the rich countries are the real worshippers of the cult of violence. They
manufacture and sell almost all the world's weapons and possess the largest stockpile of
weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear).
At the head of ICAT (The Coalition Against Terror) stays a country which spends mind-boggling
military budgets to fight a few bunches of manipulated terrorists created by the hegemon
himself. It committed `the most of genocides, ethnic cleansing, and human rights violations.
It sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and supports military and
economic terrorism.' Its aim is full spectrum dominance.
But, as Paul Krugman remarked, the replacement of the Cold War issue by the (manipulated)
terrorism one as a justification for massive military spending was (and is) a very big
failure.
Arundhati Roy's bitter and angry texts are a must read for all those who want to
understand the world we live in.
Arundhati Roy bristles at being called a "writer-activist" (too much like sofa-bed, she
says), but the rest of us should be grateful that the author of "The God of Small Things" is
taking on the establishment, here and in India.
Part of Mrs. Roy's greatness is that she is not colored by the partisan debates that
influence the dialogue on issues such as globalization in America. She is an
equal-opportunity critic, taking on Clinton and Bush. Although other authors pledge no
allegiance to either side of the aisle, Roy has a fresh perspective, and has a take on
globalization that I haven't found in works by American authors.
This book is set up as a collection (a rather random collection) of several essays. The first
essay gives a wonderful perspective of globalization (ie. the expansion of American business
interests) from a foreign perspective. She examines the impact of the global economic
movement on the actual people being affected by it at the lowest level. She reveals the
influence of the privatization of the electric industry through the eyes of India's poorest
citizens.
The second essay goes in-depth into politics in India, primarily addressing the enormous
number of dams being built in the country, and the impacts (economic, environmental, social)
that they will have. Mrs. Roy explicitly recounts how Enron scammed the Indian government
into building new power generators, and how this will cost India hundreds of millions per
year while lining the pockets of American business interests.
Critics will say that "Power Politics" is devoid of hard facts and analysis, but there can be
no doubt that this book is worth a read. She may lack the economic background of Stiglitz,
but her passion and style, in addition to her ability to articulate the important issues in
the globalization debate in a readable manner, will be appreciated by anyone with an interest
in global economic expansion.
So this neoliberal stooge woke up and started advocating mixed economy. Very interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... What we see right away is that even now, with all the privatization etc. that has taken place, government at various levels employs about 15 percent of the work force – roughly half in education, another big chunk in health care, and then a combination of public services and administration. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on ..."
Maybe not everything should be privatized. There are private activities that could plausibly be made public, like utilities, which
in some cases are publicly owned already.
There
are private activities that could plausibly be made public, like utilities, which in some cases are publicly owned already. Credit
Eric Thayer for The New York Times
A mind is a terrible thing to lose, especially if the mind in question is president of the United States. But I feel like taking
a break from that subject. So let's talk about something completely different, and probably irrelevant.
I've had several interviews lately in which I was asked whether capitalism had reached a dead end, and needed to be replaced with
something else. I'm never sure what the interviewers have in mind; neither, I suspect, do they. I don't think they're talking about
central planning, which everyone considers discredited. And I haven't seen even an implausible proposal for a decentralized system
that doesn't rely on price incentives and self-interest – i.e., a market economy with private property, which most people would consider
capitalism.
So maybe I'm being dense or lacking in imagination, but it seems to be that the choice is still between markets and some kind
of public ownership, maybe with some decentralization of control, but still more or less what we used to mean by socialism. And everyone
either thinks of socialism as discredited, or pins the label on stuff – like social insurance programs – that isn't what we used
to mean by the word.
But I've been wondering, exactly how discredited is socialism, really? True, nobody now imagines that what the world needs is
the second coming of Gosplan. But have we really established that markets are the best way to do everything? Should everything be
done by the private sector? I don't think so. In fact, there are some areas, like education, where the public sector clearly does
better in most cases, and others, like health care, in which the case for private enterprise is very weak. Add such sectors up, and
they're quite big.
In other words, while Communism failed, there's still a pretty good case for a mixed economy – and public ownership/control could
be a significant, although not majority, component of that mix. My back of the envelope says that given what we know about economic
performance, you could imagine running a fairly efficient economy that is only 2/3 capitalist, 1/3 publicly owned – i.e., sort-of-kind-of
socialist.
I arrive at that number by looking at employment data
. What we see right away is that even now, with all the privatization etc. that has taken place, government at various levels
employs about 15 percent of the work force – roughly half in education, another big chunk in health care, and then a combination
of public services and administration.
Looking at private sector employment, we find that another 15 percent of the work force is employed in education, health, and
social assistance. Now, a large part of that employment is paid for by public money – think Medicare dollars spent at private hospitals.
Much of the rest is paid for by private insurers, which exist in their current role only thanks to large tax subsidies and regulation.
And there's no reason to think the private sector does these things better than the public. Private insurers don't obviously provide
a service that couldn't be provided, probably more cheaply, by national health insurance. Private hospitals aren't obviously either
better or more efficient than public. For-profit education is actually a disaster area.
So you could imagine an economy in which the bulk of education, health, and social assistance currently in the private sector
became public, with most people at least as well off as they are now.
Advertisement
Then there are other private activities that could plausibly be public. Utilities are heavily regulated, and in some cases are
publicly owned already. Private health insurance directly employs hundreds of thousands of people, with doubtful social purpose.
And I'm sure I'm missing a few others.
By and large, other areas like retail trade or manufacturing don't seem suitable for public ownership – but even there you could
see some cases. Elizabeth Warren is suggesting public manufacture of
generic drugs , which isn't
at all a stupid idea.
Put all of this together, and as I said, you could see an economy working well with something like 1/3 public ownership.
Now, this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism. In fact, it wouldn't even live up to the old slogan about government controlling
the economy's "commanding heights." This would be more like government running the boiler in the basement. Also, I see zero chance
of any of this happening in my working lifetime.
But I do think it's worth trying to think a bit beyond our current paradigm, which says that anything you could call socialist
has been an utter failure. Maybe not so much?
An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters. Paul Krugman has
been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He
won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.
@ PaulKrugman
. Dr. Krugman missed the largest communist socialist organization in the USA - the military! The live on communes called bases.
They have everything provided including clothes, housing, food and training. They get routine exercise as they prepare to defend
the country in a world with no credible threat. It is like summer camp year round. The biggest irony? This communist orgsnization
fought and trained for conflicts with communists. .
To see what the government can do to support the economy we don't need to look farther than our own borders. The government
has been crucial to the development and maintenance of many economic activities as they exist today. Much of our shiny technology
owes its existence to government investment. Government investment was crucial to the development of flat screens and touch screens.
GPS based products rely for their operation on continued government support. Mariana Mazzucato makes the point more completely
in her book "the Entrepreneurial State." We should re-examine many areas of the economy to see where the government already has
a positive impact. Where we find positive effects, we should try to extend those effects in the same and other enterprises - we
should also look to see what is not working and eliminate or curtail the negative impacts of those activities. Outdoor recreation
and tourism is another area of the economy that thrives on government support. Those activities contribute far more to the local
economy of many rural areas than what they currently rely on in extractive activities like mining, oil and gas production and
logging. Expanding outdoor activities and tourism will also require finding ways to reduce the risk of fires in many remote areas,
which will also create jobs. (anyone for raking?) So thank you Professor Krugman for highlighting the possibilities of a mixed
economy, but as you suggest, we need to broaden our imagination.
Can the state be a better capitalist? I always hear how Norway has done an amazing job of creating a sovereign wealth fund,
funded by their petroleum production taxes and fees. Last I checked, the US produces a lot of petroleum, but we don't have a sovereign
wealth fund with $165,000 per person. Do we see our severance fees and royalties in other ways or do socialist economies do a
better job in managing the funds?
Capitalism can be a bit of a boxing match. Not everything needs to be (should be?) a boxing match. A little Fri nite music
for Krug - Alison Krause doing Simon & Garfunkel https://youtu.be/hci5q3G6-FA
Dr. Krugman - Please provide concrete examples of how other nations deal with such concepts as public/private in realistic
ways that help the ordinary citizen. Bashing what we've got without profiling meaningful reforms only goes so far.
The roots of capitalism lie in how we create capital - on the basis of debt and, for the most part, by private sector banks.
It's done using fractional reserve banking - taking money created by the state (promissory notes) and lending it over and over
- by a factor of around eight times. The key - money is only created on the promise of a "profit", ie, economic growth. It's why
GDP growth is always the measure of "progress". As this system becomes ever more dysfunctional and our thoughts turn to sustainability,
it is logical we need to think about different systems of creating money. Why not by the state? 2008 is the answer to anyone who
says it won't work - private sector banks created commercial paper out of fraudulent debt - not rational, efficient, or fair by
any measure. China is an example of an economy where the state creates commercial money. It seems to be doing rather well, especially
in building infrastructure that benefits peoples lives. Of course, we criticize China for not playing by the "rules" - our rules,
of course, rules that are driving us over a cliff. I believe it's fundamental that we think of ways in which we can reduce the
amount of commercial money created for profit by private sector banks in favour of money created for the common good. A nice side
effect will be the increasing irrelevance of private-sector "wealth" - a way of scaling back inequality.
Krugman the liberal with a conscience, wouldn't go so far as to point out the many pros vs the cons of the EU social democracy
systems. That would be going too far. The Democratic Party still need to raise plenty of corporate money to run in 2020. He'll
continue with the anti Trump, anti GOP tirades. And write MAYBE not everything should be privatized as a profit center---in an
operating democracy. Americans will still be left uninformed about what they should be demanding from the govt they stand in long
lines to elect. Thus be left more vulnerable to GOP propaganda and maybe even future Trumps, now swimming up from the swamp.
So why doesn't our liberal with a conscience make concrete comparisons in real people terms with our PAST GENERATIONS when
the middle class was expanding, and with other capitalist democracies now? American past examples are all there---upward mobility,
unions, secure pensions, high tax rates on the wealthy, better regulations, infrastructure and highway building, low cost college
tuition at state universities--etc etc . .... etc. The data is all there, as would befit an economist who won a special Nobel
in economics. And who now works with an institute at City University of NY that studies income inequality. For more informative
reading instead, read Leonhardt's column--When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer. And the recent Edsall column on big money influence
in our politics. That's a topic most columnists and pundits avoid, except for 1 line occasionaly to show they're hip to it. Then
they go on to something else to stay safe and centrist in line with our warped political spectrum. As our columnists stay careful
in our FOX News/GOP/corporate political culure, we get more realistic, informative mini columns from many reader commenters instead
of the columnists. It's the reader commenters, not the columnists who up the sales of the NYTimes.
I read that Canada avoided our 08 crash because it had earlier refused to merge with US banks. Maybe that's sensible 'conservativsm'---
to conserve their more balanced banking system and economy. Bernie Sanders once had a senate hearing on health care with witnessess
from Canada and 4 other countries on how they pay for and use health care for all. Our media ignored it---I happened to catch
it on cspan. Is Krugman even aware of this? Citizens of dozens of other countries wouldn't put up even with Obamacare, which is
a vast improvement over the previous non system. But it keeps insurance profits subsidized by our taxes. Abroad, if not single
payer, then their govts regulate premium prices for their citizens with insurance mandates. If they didn't the citizens would
vote them out. This difference should rate a few columns by Krugman the economist, concerned about inequality. But he avoids these
comparisons. It's how he and the NYT are positioning themselves in our politics---humanitarian, but not too much. At least we
have reader comments to give some realistic data on other countries to Americans who are mostly kept in the dark by their media.
@Meredith I'm sorry Meredith, but your charge is unfair. I don't know how long you've been reading Krugman's column in the
NYT, but he's literally published DOZENS of them comparing our healthcare 'system' with that of other countries, before, during,
and after the implementation of Obamacare. And then there's his NYT blog, where wrote similarly but on a more advanced level.
The last thing you could say about Krugman is that he's been 'captured' by the wealthy elite. Anything but.
re: the case for a mixed economy The choice of markets or public ownership or any combination of the two is not the answer
or even the question. By the way communism has never been given a fair shot. You mentioned the key to any discussion of economics...
self-interest. Communisms downfall has always been self-interest (GREED). Greed comes in a number of guises. Military dictatorships
or the NYSE. Capitalism's dead end is its ultimate goal... One conglomeration with one CEO.
@morgan If Communism had a downfall, then it had a shot, and it failed. There's no reason to think that, as a system run by
fallible human beings, the outcome would EVER be any different. Capitalism, on the other hand, has many flavors, almost all of
which we ignore here in the USA, except the one that seeks to destroy our public institutions in the name of an extreme libertarianism
masquerading as a Utopia of 'free markets'. Whether by committee or by the wealthy, redistribution of wealth by the few has always
been a fool's game. Regulatory vigilance, constant reform, and transparent oversight, has proven itself the best partner of capitalism
in every case. There IS a middle ground with capitalism that we ignore for the extremes of either wealth, or control.
Krugman says "But have we really established that markets are the best way to do everything? Should everything be done by the
private sector? I don't think so." Gosh, don't THINK so? Krugman cautiously asks the question. He doesn't want to offend any centrist
Democratic party leaders needing campaign money, and one of them may someday pick him as Treasury Secretary. CNN's Ali Velsh who
is from Canada, stated flatly on TV that free market health care has never worked in any country. The incentives are not aligned
to provide care that was deemed a right in most modern nations in 20th Century. But not deemed a right in USA. Krugman, as a winner
of a special Nobel prize in economics, might actually compare the international GINI Score ranking of countries on their citizens'
economic moblity. Americans ranks behind other democracies---that are also capitalist countries. Othe countries like profits too,
but profits are not prioritized above all else like here. But to criticize this underlying causation is to look too left wing
liberal socialist unAmerican, etc etc. Krugman shies away. That would seem the perfect topic for a Krugman-type columnist who
titles himself a liberal with a conscience.
Hey, where's the usual easy Trump bashing that gives us all such emotional catharsis? Is Krugman realizing his anti Trump/Gop
columns aren't enough, that we actually need more? Such as questioning the basic tenets of our political culture? That it's not
only Trump that is weakening our democracy? This column is just a start---Krugman stays careful not to go too far to criticize
our warped norms.
Omg! Warrens idea of public mfgr of generic drugs "isn't a stupid idea"? Is that all you can think up to say, PK? Tell us why
it ISN'T stupid. PK wants to look like a humanitarian but still stick with the main Democratic party positions---but this party
has to vie with GOP for campaign money. And PK is seen by the Times as its prestigious 'liberal' columnist. To not look too liberal
by our warped standards, PK in effect helps to marginalize any ideas that are truly progressive and needed. They're not stupid,
but are they smart? For whom? Policies that are called progressive in the US, are centrist in other capitalist democracies---
but keep that dark. Hey, 'liberal', where's your conscience you told us about? Talk not about those who hate capitalism, but those
who want to keep it, if it is properly regulated by elected govt. Talk about how our politics are regulated by corporations --through
donor money and norm setting, esp for the media. It's obvious--our columnists are careful to stay safe within the guidelines set
up. There are many ways to influence 'free speech' without actual govt censorship. We see this daily in our news media, careful
to stay within guidelines.
Economies are human, social creations, they are not at all like solar systems, for example. As human creations, they should
serve human interests. That will not happen independent of the political system of democracy. In the US, democracy is seriously
corrupted by the power of oligarchs, so the failures of the US economy to do its job cannot be solved by purely economic re-arranging.
Assuming that power is back in the hands of people, what should we expect from an economy? Three things: 1. sufficient production
of goods and services (this is the free market's strong point), 2. fair (not necessarily equal) distribution of these (this a
the free market's weak point), and 3. jobs that satisfy workers' needs for sociability and dignity. (This is a strong point of
Marx's thought.) # 2 and 3 require an intelligent, well-functioning democracy. Framing this in old, worn out terms like capitalism
and socialism, terms undermined by decades of rhetorical conflict, is not helpful...
A perhaps implausible proposal for a decentralized system that doesn't rely in a market economy with private property (which
most people would consider capitalism): - The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism, by Benjamin Ward, published in The American
Economic Review , Vol. 48, No. 4 (Sep., 1958).
I remember seeing Dr Krugman in a Sunday TV panel discussion on US economic and tax policy. During his turn he spoke strictly
in terms of the merits as policy. His fellow panelist George Will followed him and wisely avoided expressing any opinions about
economic policy and instead made a sarcastic remark about the political chances of implementing the policy being discussed. I
like to think we can discuss policy proposals whether or not they have a chance politically to become law. The alternative might
not even appeal to George Will.
Hey, I think you are talking about China....the proportions are not quite what you suggest (1/3 public) but by incorporating
capitalism into a communist model, they are able to get the benefits of both.
Public manufacture of generic drugs... Where, without competition, would be the incentive for maintaining quality and/or efficiency?
Where would be the incentive for improvement of the drugs themselves - increased effectiveness, less side effects, etc? Orwell's
horse ("I must work harder!") was a figment of his imagination. Krugman forgets just what is the part of capitalism that brings
the most to the table, competition.
@MS Competition for what? Wealth, of course. And we're back to those whose greed will never be satisfied. Why not "cooperation"?
A competition for who can do the most good for humanity.
@MS Is MS really think that competition among the drug lords of big pharma is truly competition ? Reminds me of the book on
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations with a photo of a huge factory belching smoke on his cover. When Adam Smith wrote his book in the
late 18th century, a factory was ten people making pins.
As I understand it, most, if not all, of the attempts at creating a "socialist" economy haven't really merited the name. They've
tended to be autocratic regimes that falsely used the term "socialism" as a means of suggesting to their citizens that they would
have a more participatory government. They were cynical charades. I would love to see a true socialist element in our economy,
i.e., one that actually placed the needs of the citizens above the needs of plutocrats. Healthcare, in particular, seems to be
an ideal candidate for public ownership. Too many companies today in the field are unnecessarily driving up the cost of care for
all of us.
Krugman's thought experiment here seems to too readily accept that the questioner of "capitalism" knows what they're asking
about, deflected by wanting speculation about whatever else -- supplements? ("mixed economy") Alternatives? I've spent many years
with this issue, if I may say so. One aspect that ready critics of "capitalism" don't seem to appreciate is the difference between
capital-intensive business and capitalISM. The latter is about profit at any cost and tends to be predatory. The former is normal
business whose investors accept a reasonable margin and sustain concerns about employee quality of life, corporate citizenship,
professional ethics, etc. as part of normal business. Normal business accepts a degree of regulatory constraint for the sake of
a level playing field and reliable futures market (in an idiomatic sense), which is required for long-term investment. Libertarian
Republicans apparently regard all regulation as "Socialist," but actually socialism is just a bad theory of democratic republicanism
(small-d, small-r). If one examines the history of so-called "socialism," it's a history of desire for a democratic republic without
much sophistication about making an economy innovative, resiliant, etc.; and a bad sense of government that enables prosperity.
Questioning whether "capitalism" has run its course is an unwitting invitation to have one's sense of economics and good government
enlightened.
It's shocking that an economist finds a mixed economy has to "have a case made for it". It is very obvious that the private
sector is not going to undertake any endeavor that helps everybody and not just its own competitive advantage. And it's obvious
that regulating the private sector doesn't put them on the right road; just from running amok. Infrastructure, healthcare, education,
environment, climate change -- the private sector -- you kidding?? And of course we have the great benefits of Citizens United
to thank for assisting corporations to focus our politics upon what needs to be done. The GOP has succeeded beyond all expectations
in ruining the country by doing favors for corporations.
Socialized agriculture, socialized defense companies, socialized churches, socialized border security walls and socialized
tax cuts are what america has. Republicans are hypocrites. Without the huge government subsidies that farmers get-many many billions,
including but not limited to the 12 billion from trump after china imposed soyabean tariffs, the farmers would all be out of business
by now. Defense companies are financed by ten and even hundreds of billions of pentagon spending. They can't survive on exports
to saudi arabia alone. The pentagon gets hundreds of billions from government when there has been no war since world war 2, other
than the ones it created in vietnam and iraq. Evangelical churches, GOP enterprises. are financed by tax charity, basically by
government and they are socialist organizations. Trump wants to spend 5 billion of tax payer money for a border wall, after talking
nonsense about making mexico paying for it-it would be a socialist border wall. The 2017 gop tax cut is socialist welfare for
billionaires and corporations. It has added 1 trillion to the federal deficit. Trump and his party are the socialist party serving
the top 0.1 percent of the wealthiest.
A mixed economy is the best economic model. Capitalism is purely about profit. A purely private economy would create a society
with a handful of ultrawealthy people, a small middle class and many tens or hundreds of millions of poor people with no basic
health and education services- a system like the one that existed in the king, baron and serf era in england, and in many developing
countries. We would have a trump tower with a corrupt and criminal politician and businessman sitting in it, and homeless people
and slums surrounding the building for miles. Companies would pollute and destroy the air and water with impunity. The air in
the cities would be hard to breathe, and the water would contain poisonous chemicals. Many millions would starve, be unable to
go to school and get health services, and live in dirt and squalor. Global climate change would accelerate and the human species
would soon be extinct. All relations with friends and allies alike would be purely business transactions and russia, china and
hackers would be an much bigger threat than they are. saudi arabia can murder journalists-we will look the other way, just selling
them arms and buying their oil.A purely public economy would give us job security for life, and cheap products and services, but
they would all be poor in quality, and at the cost of higher taxes.When people want free electricity, and the local politician
wants to give it to them,the utility company goes bankrupt.There will be no innovation
For me this is one of the long awaited topics that I have been hoping Krugman would engage; Now more than ever we need discussions
of alternatives to the capitalism we have evolved to with its tacit assumption that it is the best of all possible models and
that growth is essential. Paul do you really believe that growth can be endless without environmental consequences? I would like
to see Krugman wade in on this and especially address newer discoveries of the de-growth movement embodied in stock flow consistent
modeling done by Tim Jackson (Prosperity without Growth) and others that show that virtually zero growth can be sustainable and
perhaps more stable than our current system.
There are 3 basic methods in a modern industrialized societies in which ownership of the means of production can be accomplished.
1. Ownership by a special group, called capitalists, or rentiers is apart from labor in enterprises which produce goods and services.
2. The government can own enterprise and employees like in the British Health Service can be state employees. The state can run
the enterprise at a profit or run it paid for partially or completely by the taxpayer. 3. As in Germany in Part labor can have
a voting share either complete as in a cooperative such as the Spanish Mondragon and ownership can be by the workers with a lead
worker or even Union Official managing the company. Many mixes are possible and all posibilities need to be seriously considered.
This has yet to be done in a serious or empirical fashion
What is the end game for right wingers? If everything is privatized and jobs are insecure, people will be afraid to spend.
And we'll live in a feudalistic society. Think about that before you take away working class pensions to give tax cuts to the
rich.
One of the biggest socialist enterprises in america is the federal reserve board. They poured 4.5 trillion into banks and the
economy to lower interest rates. It has turned out to be welfare for wall street and corporations. Trump and the wall street journal
editors are complaining about this socialism for corporations when they attack and criticize the fed chief. The fed needs to go
back to their main role-containing inflation. Let the stocks drop by 40 percent. The market will eventually adjust. With no place
for their money, and low bond and cd rates, the investors will go back into stocks. After all the fed money sloshing around in
the system has dried up banks and corporations will go back to paying mom and pop investors like you and me 5 percent. It will
be great for financial stability as well. People have been forced to take too much risk in the stock market for years because
of near zero interest savings and cd rates. Safe cds should pay interest rates well above inflation. Mortgage rates were low in
2008 even before the fed intervened. There was no need for the fed to pour in trillions. Fed intervention made sense till two
years ago. No longer-it is just socialism for billionaires. They should have raised interest rates much faster than they have
in the last two years and got out in a hurry. The interest rates are still too low. Mom and Pop investors are making a sacrifice
to make hedge fund managers and CEOs even wealthier.
Actually Krugman sells socialism in America short, as practiced before our Founders formally engraved it in the Constitution
with government operation of the mail. Before the term socialism was coined there were socialized sidewalks, public schools, socialized
fire departments, socialized police departments ET CETERA! with no one back then dissenting from necessary partial socialist governance.
It was only after the Civil War in the rightwing drift against socialism caused by the desires of massive private concentrated
wealth that the socialist menace began to be a thing. It isn't, it never was, tho it, socialism in practice, will continue, the
alternative being the alt-truth of for-profit governance, i.e. Medieval Feudalism sane peoples have long jettisoned as the ne
plus ultra of concentrated wealth incarnate. That's how absolute monarchs appointed themselves as heads of state, rule by the
wealthiest pirates (e.g. Donald Trump) of their time for which little-s socialism has always been the NECESSARY CORRECTIVE.
The rich people want to privatize more and make more money for themselves. Privatizing puts them beyond public scrutiny and
we wont really understand when they are failing us. We have to protect our democartic institutions and make income distribution
more equal.
Technology is about to change society in a most drastic way. Unless the transformation is properly controlled the outcome could
be disastrous. This enormous task cannot succeed without the government setting the strategy and providing the resources necessary
to implement if The Chinese government has defined the goals and is engaged in working out a process of implementation. They have
so far produced a successful version of a mixed economy. We may adopt perhaps a different mix but their example is worth to learn
from
It's an indication of how far we've fallen that an article like this has to make a case for a mixed economy. Even for Adam
Smith it was self-evident that government had a key role to play. When Smith talked the value of free markets he was not talking
about an uncontrolled private sector. He was talking about a new and better system that could be achieved if government would
stop the private sector from perverting the markets--through monopoly behavior and influence over government policy. He was FIGHTING
the kind of nonsense we have today. Krugman is actually arguing for the mainstream against the lunatic fringe. The idea that the
liberated private sector is going to solve all problems has no basis in historical fact. The strength of capitalism is its efficiency
in achieving its own ends. It will not miraculously assure the well-being of the population if government doesn't make it. It
will not defend the environment or educate the population. It will not even provide the resources for its own success. The should
be no question about the need for a mixed economy. It's the only way to get the job done.
I work for a government agency. I have worked for private enterprise in the past. In a very simplistic way, I think the main
difference between the two is that private enterprise takes in money, uses it to purchase goods and services and outputs something
with the purpose to generate more money. Public 'enterprise' takes in money, uses it to purchase goods and services and outputs
something with the purpose of improving (or if you like, maintaining) society. The issue is that money is easy to count, while
literacy and good roads are much more difficult to quantify. Also, I'm always struck by how private enterprise can do whatever
it likes because it has the freedom to completely fail. I think it's easy to use this metric to see where private enterprise is
not really appropriate. National parks, national defense, public infrastructure and so on; we don't want more money from these
things, and they can't fail like Nokia. What is really lacking is a public willing to have an extended and thoughtful discussion
on what we want as public goods, and what we think they are worth.
My real challange for Proff Krugman is to explain how an economy with zero or declining population would work it seems to me
that our capitalistic system needs an ever increasing population.
That is the big, unspoken, truth about the industrialized world that no one wants to talk about or acknowledge: material wealth
tends to lower birth rates. Like climate change, the deniers would have you believe something different, that the world is overpopulated
today and exploding tomorrow. The truth is, while global population is indeed increasing, the rate of increase is slowing down
dramatically, as people exit systemic poverty and enter into relative wealth that is a consequence of industrialization. The implication
is obvious even in our times of protectionism and manufactured xenophobia: if a market economy is to be maintained and there are
limited supplies of workers, we either need to encourage domestic birth rates, or accept the idea of immigration and worker productivity
(and just compensation) as a necessary part of transitioning to a sustainable human presence on this planet. There is no way out
of this conundrum. Just as with climate change, hard choices will need to be made--our desires, wishes, and pet ideologies won't
matter if we wish to provide a decent future for our children and their children. Else, what is this all for?
@David Staszsk : We're approaching 350 million at what seems like breakneck speed. Aren't you confusing the US with Italy,
where the birth rate is barely equal to the death rate?
@Craig Hill But it isn't. While most of the industrialized West is at or below the replacement rate (births/deaths), the US
is one of the few that doesn't have to worry (as much). Why? Our heretofore open attitude toward immigration. But, like everything
else, Trump and the GOP is destroying that advantage as well. Talk to a fruit farmer and ask them about their harvest plans. Their
loss of income due to an inability to hire labor is just the beginning.
Some industries require heavy investment that only Government can provide. How would America produce stealth fighters and aircraft
carriers, and operate them, without many tens of billions of Government spending on a handful of private companies that produce
defense products like Northrop and Boeing ? The pentagon greatly wastes money because of government throwing money at them with
no accountability whatsoever, producing 20,000 dollar toilet seats. The GOP and their supporters do all that while they deny unlucky
and disabled people food stamps. China's massive government investment in the last 40 years, in their export oriented industries,
education and defense has been a huge success for them. The US has been on the decline for 40 years now, because of it's overdependance
on private investment. The US Government needs to invest a lot more in it's people-in education, health care and by attracting
immigrants to cover labor shortages in some areas, to compete with China in the 21st century, but with the 21 trillion debt and
many GOP reactionaries(basically ignorant and some crazy and misguided people calling it 'socialism'). Private companies lead
America's innovation and create new services and jobs, but Government and it's enterprises play a crucial role. If Obama had not
intervened in 2008 GM and Ford would only be found in history books.
Why do we need government ? Companies and their shareholders only care about profit. Left to themselves rapacious and unethical
corporations adopt unfair and monopolistic practices, produce poor quality and overpriced products, and provide substandard services
and cheat consumers. Historically, they have even hired armies, and occupied and impoverished countries in the European colonial
era. Companies, when there is no regulation, heavily pollute the air and water, pouring industrial waste into the oceans and our
drinking water. Global climate change and deforestation, worsened by non-government and destructive government policies is causing
wild fires, floods, droughts and hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and higher carbon monoxide levels, and
accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Corporations, overall, do not protect us from our enemies and from hackers(except for a
few defense and software companies).Drug companies and insurance companies keep hiking the prices of even generic drugs that have
been in the market since the 1950s and 70s.Public steel, utility and telecommunication companies. and collective farms have been
a failure however.Often, there is no real accountability for Government money and services, and employees are not motivated, knowing
their jobs are secure even if they don't show up,and a lack of competition results in shoddy products and poor service. But public
schools,universities and local government provide good,low cost services.
Implausible or not, Parecon (for Participatory Economy), a proposal described in the book The Political Economy of Participatory
Economics by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, is a decentralized system that doesn't rely on price incentives and self-interest,
The perfect example of the advantages of public ownership is the Los Angeles power company. In 2001, Enron wreaked havoc (and
profited from it) in California's newly deregulated private electricity markets. The targeted manipulations sent prices skyrocketing,
and triggered rolling blackouts elsewhere throughout the state, while Los Angeles remained untouched by any of it. Prices in LA
remained stable, and power was uninterrupted. Another benefit came from Los Angeles Water & Power's independence from a profit
motive. Faced with growing power demand, instead of building a new plant (which would have ensured growing revenues to a private
power company), LA W&P paid for each household to receive a compact fluorescent bulb. The resulting reduced consumption by its
more than 1 million housing units reduced LA W&P's income, but eliminated the need for a new plant.
Thanks for motivating me to read again a clearly written clear-headed history of, and manifesto for recovering, the achievements
of our "mixed economy" - Hacker and Pierson, American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper
(2017).
@MarkerZero it is great that you appreciate Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. I very much have been influenced by them and quoted
them in my post as well. Check out Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson; Making America Great Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy"
- Foreign Affairs - May/June 2016)
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-03-21/making
-...
"Put all of this together, and as I said, you could see an economy working well with something like 1/3 public ownership. Now,
this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism." Perhaps not, but would it satisfy ""capitalists" who hate socialism? Over the
years I have had the pleasure of meeting Americans visiting in Norway who, rather that finding the socialist hell-hole they expected
to encounter, found that things they'd brand socialism worked surprisingly well here. What has often intrigued me has been their
unwillingness to apply, even as an experiment, the "Norwegian way" in their own country. Is there an inherent fear in Americans
of being proven wrong that they cannot live with? Case in point: every year in the wake of snowstorms and rainstorms hundreds
of thousands of people across America lose their power for days and weeks. Why don't they put their cables in the ground where
the wind cannot get to them? Why do they insist on paying over and over and over again to put the cables in the air? Is there
some particular capitalist "intelligence" that dictates that is better to pay $100 ten times over than to pay $500 once and be
done with it?
Our government built the interstate highway system using competitive bidding with private sector contractors. The deign specs
and overall management was the government's responsibility. A fantastic success. WW II was successfully executed by our government
overseeing the military/allies and the private economy to defeat two powerful enemies. They did for the COMMON GOOD of the world
not to maximize profits. When government works it can implement grand achievement. When corrupted by free marketeers nothing gets
done.
In fact, a mixed or (better) hybrid economy should include three sectors of unequal but flexible size: a. the private market-oriented,
profit-driven system, b. the public service-oriented and social equity-driven system, and the cooperate-associative, proximity-oriented
and non-profit system. Each answers a clear needs of human societies, each corresponds to a basic instinct of the species: the
aggressive acquisitive drive of the meat-eating killer, the stability expected by the family-breeding tribe member, the solidarity
and cooperation needed by the pack-hunter. The first is essentially dynamic, geared for progress and growth, the second is basically
static, geared for fairness and predictability, the third is adaptive and responsive to immediate needs. Their relative sizes
should be allowed to vary according to the evolution of social and political life, science and technology, and material survival
conditions -- and political rules should make sure that each survives and plays its role.
@Yves Leclerc I couldn't have said it better myself. Joyeuses fêtes, fellow Montrealer. & while we're at it, let's raise a
glass for Hydro-Quebec, our much-maligned healthcare system & the non-profits who contribute so much to making our lives easier
in our wonderful city. La Porte Jaune, I'm thinking of you.
We should make public all those things necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that, were they left to the
free market, would not be available to one and all equally. We already do that with police and fire protection and public infrastructure.
We should also add health care and education at all levels to that list, for a start.
You have to start by completely discarding the word "socialism." It aborts every potentially useful exploration of any kind
of concept. I know that's not justified, but it's the sad truth. Lots of good ideas could be aired out fairly if called by some
other names and discussed in terms that specifically denounced "socialism."
@John Call it capitalistic humanism, or humanistic capitalism. It should put needs of people before (or at least on equal footing
with) needs of profit. As we used to say in the old days....
Maybe Prof. Krugman owes an apology to Bernie Sanders, whose plan for Sinle Payer Healthcare he derided as "rainbows and puppy
dogs" during the last presidential campaign.
I found this entry by Krugman is awfully weak, but it's not too surprising. Robert Reich, for instance, has a recent short
video out about this issue of when to privatize and when not to, and it's more thought out. I hate to think this, but Krugman's
apparent weakness on this issue seems to reflect what I see is a major problem with the "big media" like the NYT. It's mostly
all Republicans all the time, even if it's total criticism of Republicans, and harsh criticism of Republicans is not the same
as developing alternative views (e.g., Rachel Maddow nonstop criticism of Republicans). You just never hear sustained coverage
about serious alternative ideas and the groups working on them. You have to go somewhere else to see that sort of news. There's
hardly any sustained investigation into what you could call progressive left views, ideas, and actions. The big media is incredibly
biased in this regard, and so it's not too surprising that Krugman, for some reason, seems so incapable of expressing alternative
ideas to privatization and capitalism.
Averous and greed are what drive capitalist economies. But there is nothing in the book of human nature that says they must
be the only characteristics that drive capitalist economies. Why not compassion and empathy?
Hey Paul, Do not cut your "life time" short. Problem with economists or whatever your called is that you can not see what's
coming because you are sworn to look through those broken glasses. Capitalism and for that matter PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY,
are two of the most ridiculous delusional concepts that selfishness has ever conned us with. I mean, really Paul, how can somebody
who is going to be dead eventually own any "THING". We can not even own our own bodies for that long. All so, this ridiculous
notion is that there is not ENOUGH therefore we have to hoard what we have... BTW Paul, there are an estimated 8,000,000 people
starving to death in just in that Nation that the Saudis want to own. Come on, Paul. It just makes sense for everyone to have
what they need regardless of what some billionaire might thik he/she "owns".
It's been my experience that markets are really good at what they do up until the point at which they are really bad. I keep
a running list of market failures, which includes but is not limited to: police departments, fire departments, public health departments,
pharmaceuticals, journalism, and education. Pharmaceuticals: The fact that we are running out of new antibiotics is a market failure
which can be solved be subsuming new drug development into public health departments (most drug development is government funded
US university backed research anyway). Journalism: The market solution to journalism is the cable news business model which prizes
infotainment, eye balls on the screen, and click bait above real journalism. Real journalism is funded by charitable donations
like paying $44 per month to The New York Times, for example. The market solution for education is that rich people get really
good schools and poor people get really bad schools. If you live in a state with a high GDP per capita you get better schools
than poorer states, for example see the state Arizona. What is the business model for education? If the thing you are producing
cannot be exchanged in a market it has no value. Even pro-free market economists recognized that light houses were considered
public goods and that by collectively allocating public resources for them they facilitated commerce and increased wealth. The
fact that most republicans ignore this today is purely spiteful.
The Second Income Plan provides a Third Path - having the advantages of capitalism while sharply reducing inequality and many
other disadvantages. It can be combined with a Universal Basic Income with no net cost to the treasury. See: SECOND INCOMES at
aesopinstitute.org Here is a path to ending concern about the stock market that makes possible greater returns. 85-90% of an individual's
funds should be invested in Treasury Bills, the safest place to put money on this planet. The remaining funds can best be invested
with modest amounts, as highly leveraged as possible, in a substantial number of high risk opportunities (ideally an Angel investment
portfolio). This is the prescription for investors by Nassim Taleb in his book - THE BLACK SWAN: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
(See page 205)
" For-profit education is actually a disaster area." The City University of New York is an obviously a prime example of the
excellence of public education if it employs a professor of your obvious ineptitude. BTW, where did you matriculate? If, by picking
any one of a dozen private, for-profit, rip-off colleges you are making a case for public education, you obviously haven't been
working with public school students lately. In my upper middle class community, the public high school, fed by a half dozen public
grade schools, is, with numerous exceptions, nevertheless graduating students who have a mediocre grade school education. And
at least a dozen of the teachers, highly paid and highly protected, couldn't pass an ordinary, private university entrance exam.
I never cease to be amazed at the astounding ineptitude of the public education system, while the private, Catholic system continues
to roll out educated citizens. (I'm not Catholic). A generalization like yours is certainly indicative of the failure of Yale
University.
@Good John Fagin That's odd. So many other countries are doing a much better job in public education. Check out the OECD PISA
results if you want to see how your argument against public education holds up.
Re:Elizabeth Warren's idea of the US government manufacturing generic drugs -it is a great idea. According to Ralph Nader most
of our antibiotics are manufactured in China. That worries me and it should worry you.
Let's face it, healthcare is undoubtedly the 800 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to a debate on the relationship between
public and private economies. Many NYT commenters want to see Medicare for All become a reality in order to cut out all the profiteering
in healthcare, and so that we would have a universal national one size fits all healthcare system. To this I say that Medicare
profiteering is rampant with waste fraud and abuse by doctors and hospitals accounting for as much as 40% of Medicare's costs.
So, if we really want to socialize healthcare, and take care of everyone, and control the costs we already have a national healthcare
system. It is called the VA. In the VA the government owns all the hospitals and all the medical staff are government employees.
We really need VA healthcare for everyone. Again, if one believes that socialism is the answer to solving our largest crisis,
healthcare, and we also believe that no one should ever profit from providing healthcare, then VA healthcare for all is the only
option.
One important rule to understand the capitalist-socialist dichotomy: Capitalism has no national allegiance; socialism is required
to adhere to political allegiances
It might be pointed out that even Adam Smith would have supported most of this. His primary thesis was that government has
to set the rules or the private sector will go off perverting the free market he so valued. He also had no illusions about the
private sector delivering education, social services, or other necessary functions. This idea that the unchained private sector
is the solution to all problems is not free market economics -- it's wildly radical nonsense. The private sector, left to its
own devices, will undermine the free market and the conditions needed for its success.
Well, my view is that "capitalism" and "socialism" (or "communism") do not exist and never could - over the longer term. The
flirtation with "communism" was (or is) a "flash in the pan" relatively speaking and pure "capitalism" would be similarly disastrous
if tried - consider the near attempt of the contemporary United States. In other words a "mixed economy" or "social democracy"
is a "no-brainer" - and I think it a major embarrassment to the humanity that any of us thought differently in this our modern
era. We are unfortunately seemingly naturally inclined to "black and white" or "all or nothing" thinking - but we can be schooled
to overcome it for our own benefit if we so allow. Much of the sad experience of the last 150 years - and particularly the last
80 - could have been avoided if one Karl Marx had not been a chauvinistic and egotistical nationalist who wanted to go down in
history as the father of a revolution in Germany that would be much bigger and better than the one in France. He wanted the "workers
of the world' to "unite" simply for his glorification I contend. We might have had no fascist reaction, no fog of cold war. And
a lot less dead in hot ones. Imagine. Much of the world now could have been an international association of interconnected and
peace-loving social democracies of highly educated, civilised and ecologically concerned citizens like Denmark and Sweden. Imagine
again. All lost because of one man's intellectual dishonesty and obstinacy.
"And I'm sure I'm missing a few others." Banking, for goodness sake. The idea is catching on, so get out of the way. For starters,
how about allowing the Post Office to do some local loan business to take away the awful people who do payday lending at very
high interest rates? Lobbyists for that lot should be thrown out.
@Bartolo Indian government just inaugurated India Post Payments bank. India Post is equivalent of USPS. Virtually every village
has a post office. Banking reaches everyone. Profits - minimal. But with limited options (savings, CDs, monthly income scheme,
pension distribution , small loans only), to ensure the private banking can continue with all the fancier products, bigger loans
etc.
Socialism isn't a failure in happier countries than ours: Sweden, Denmark, Finland, for instance. They have a mix of private
and public ownership of essential services like healthcare and education. And social services. For profit healthcare is an oxymoron.
Profit always wins over good healthcare and slicing and dicing services and procedures to squeeze every nickel and dime out of
them leads to very bad medicine.
The worst part of capitalism is extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands, further aggravated by foolish taxation policies.
Quality of education is uneven because of wide variation in local resources. Uniform federal funding of education would solve
this problem. Same applies to healthcare. Equal level of healthcare is possible only by a single payer system such as Medicare.
Public health which ranges from providing clean food, clean air, clean water, and vaccinations to garbage collection and dispositions
is a matter that is better publicly handled. Continuous reeducation of workers displaced by automation or outsourcing is another
matter that capitalism has ignored. Cremation or burial need to be publicly funded for those considered indigent when they were
alive.
The devil would be in the political mayhem that would take place as we decide what should be capitalist and what should be
socialist. Even if you base the decision on answering the question "What does every person need to live in this world?" you will
have massive disagreements. Insurance is inherently socialist - it requires everyone contribute so that the ones who need $ can
get it when the need it, on the theory that sooner or later we're all going to need it - but look at how insanely people (and
corporations) have resisted Medicare for all and even Obamacare. On the other hand, the liquor industry doesn't need to be socialist
- everybody doesn't need it and won't need it if they don't want it.
@Brookhaw Ever consider checking out how other countries do things? You can't skew the statistics forever by stacking everything
in the hands of the top 20-30% & still consider that on average, you're doing better than everybody else. The success of a few
outliers do not a functional country make & no, you don't need the oil revenue of Norway to make sure that the basic needs of
all citizens are met. It may not be easy & it's probably too late for the USA, as it takes generations of stability & hard work
to pull it off, but the most successful countries in the twenty-first century either did just that or are trying very hard to
do this well.
Socialism works if you have oil like in Norway where there's a trillion in surplus in profit. With 5 million population you
could have train service everywhere and elder care wherever you look. Wait they do have poverty. Never mind. Democratic Socialism,
neither Democratic or Socialist, could be done here. But when the deficit reaches a gazillion and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez appointee's
are running Ford and trying to select next years colors and mpg ratings why not cancel the government debt. It's not new it's
even in the - you guessed it, the Bible. Wait a second being a billionaire is so common. Who wants to be a trillionaire?
I hate capitalism. I want something better. Capitalism is greedy, completely materialistic and gives no regard for human values.
The earth and human civilization cannot survive unregulated capitalism, and capitalists don't care. Either we will create new
ways of living or catastrophic environmental collapse will bring human civilization as it exists today to an end.
This is where liberals lose me. Sure there are areas of the economy that should be run by the government. Health care definitively
is one of them (or at the very least a public option) But advocating socialism as opposed to social democracy is a NO NO. Last
country that when full blast socialism was Venezuela 20 years ago and look at the results. Many other disastrous examples abound,
Cuba any one?
Capitalism's strength is wealth creation in the hands of the few, who then use this wealth to further enhance their wealth
via control of governmental policy - all of which is contrary to the needs of the many. People who think a lot deeper than Krugman
question whether it makes sense to talk about democracy in a capitalist society - and there are academic studies that support
this. See: https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy
/
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Regarding socialism, the concept implies bottom-up control of policy which has only been achieved briefly, on very small scale
in societies and in history of which most are unaware. Dominant capitalist societies have attacked countries economically and
militarily that have tried a socialist model. Whether these would have eventually adopted a bottom-up power structure is unclear.
I agree with Paul Krugman, generally. But the issue respecting 1/3rd socialism and 2/3rds capitalism is that the socialist
sector would be the servant of the capitalist sector that would suck the life blood (tax revenues) needed to sustain a productive
health and education sector. One only need look at the military-industrial complex (MIC) to support my observation. The DoD spends
"Huge" taxpayer funds to support global military dominance. How much of that (socialist) military budget is contrived by capitalist
politician-lobbyists and over-spent with the blessing of the (socialist) military establishment that is recharacterized as "profit"
is anyone's guess. The socialist Defence Budget, and privatized NASA budget, fall outside the normal bounds of markets as the
buyers of these goods and services tend to be sovereign governments and sovereign corporations - TBTF. Eventually, retiring military
leaders that sanction budget directives that enrich capitalist corporations that make these military 'assets', end up post-retirement
as directors or officers of the MIC - i.e. Dick Chaney did well swinging socialist government business toward his business interests.
I accept Krugman's estimation that a minor portion of government-associated business can cut-out the middleman and become more
transparent and cost-effective producer of social goods and services - but only if there is an independent board and executive
team NOT expecting "fringe benefits" doing so.
Well, let's be honest, the "socialism is failure" paradigm is based on the corrupt and totalitarian regimes of the Soviets
and Eastern Europe. Yes, they failed. We know that. But Jesus, can we advertise the successes of Socialism for a damn second!!!!
C'mon, use the old brain. It is mixed economies that have yielded the best set of results in the modern era. There is no question
about that. Can we stop with the inane arguments! A certain amount of socialism is good! Let's debate the right balance. Fine.
But I'm sick of litigating the idea that some socialism is good.
One question that I think doesn't get enough attention is: Can capitalism exist without the need for constant growth? My intuition
is that it can, but most people regard the assumption of constant growth as a law of nature.
I am happy to see someone point this out. The mantra of growth is, ironically, the one thing agreed upon by all political persuasions,
but it's actually the least sustainable approach that could be imagined. I'd like to hear how capitalism might exist without it,
but even more I'd like to hear of any long-term workable system that's compatible with a steady state rather than unlimited growth.
@Chris Winter and John Steady-state economics has been seriously proposed. There is a non-profit dedicated to its theory and
implementation: the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy,
https://steadystate.org/discover/steady-state-economy-definition
/
Every human activity needs some sort of regulation to prevent exploitation of the vulnerable. Also, those portions of incomes
so high that they can't possibly be spent need to be transferred to those who will spend them. That keeps the money circulating
so that everyone benefits. This is what is needed, not arguing about public vs. private. Every activity can be private; that's
fine. But every activity also requires oversight to prevent harm to others. Unfortunately, people will tend to misbehave if they
can get away with it.
What is ignored in this innocent debate is the finicky nature of politics. The political swings from say, Kennedy era public
spending to Reagan era private enterprise along with a degraded view of government, can wreak havoc on those dependent on "government".
I think of my friend who benefited for years on a "minority owned business" provision to get contracts for his business. He believed
it was an entitlement. Then the Bush Administration cut out that provision and he ended up living out of his car. The lesson is
always: Don't get dependent on government.
The argument against socialism is totally disingenuous and purely tactical. "Socialism" has been purposefully cast as the "other"
in financial systems, exactly the same as foreigners have been cast as the "other." Socialism has always been a part of our democratic
(not capitalistic) system. Building infrastructure, public education, public transportation, public health, public law enforcement
are all socialism. Anti-monopoly laws are socialism. One can be reasonably certain that as soon as labels are used to evaluate
policy rather than content and benefits it is a "red herring" argument to distract from opportunism by the perpetrators.
@BB It could be argued that the United States was built through socialism. The Founding Fathers enshrined a national, government-run
mail delivery system in the Constitution that united the states. President James Monroe expanded the mission of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers from building coastal forts to surveying and improving inland waterways in 1824, helping to open the western
frontier to expansion. President Abraham Lincoln and Congress provided taxpayer-funded grants and government-backed bonding as
incentives for private companies to build transcontinental railroads and telegraph lines, uniting the continent. President Franklin
Roosevelt used taxpayer funding to subsidize the expansion of electricity into rural areas, bringing large portions of the country
into the 20th century. President Dwight Eisenhower proposed a taxpayer-funded interstate highway system that made America's a
truly national economy.
I suspect the only segment which can tolerate the inefficiency of humans is the government. Private firms will always seek
the most efficient means to provide goods and services, thus the push to automate and deploy AI. There is nothing wrong with this,
for example, the time saved using self checkout with portable scanners is wonderful, of course there are displaced workers.
@Awake Private firms always seek the most efficient way to make money. The mission is to make more money than last year. To
increase shareholder value. That is the extent of it.
@Awake You apparently have never worked for a large corporation. I have worked for three different corporations that had annual
budgeting procedures that were so inefficient it was often well into March before workers had anything to do. As a contract consultant
I spent eight months on contract doing nothing while management considered which of two alternatives plans to implement. I have
worked for a corporation where the internal charge for parking within the basement of a company owned building was far higher
than the rates at commercial parking garages within a few blocks, so the manager of the department with the most company cars
moved them saving his department money but decreasing the company's bottom line. I worked for a company where it became fashionable
for executives to send documents to one another via FedEx overnight instead of via interoffice mail. Sorting took place in Memphis
instead of the basement and the documents arrived two or three hours later or if the documents were ready early enough in the
day, twenty hours later.
@Dink Singer: As you correctly note, large bureaucracies have inefficiencies regardless of whether they're publicly owned or
privately owned. The Dilbert strip shows private enterprise, after all...
From a cost efficiency standpoint, more public control of some industries is easily justified. The part of the puzzle that
hasn't been solved is innovation. Without incentives brought about by capitalism, Google search, smart phones, YouTube, tablets
not to mention thousands of applications making your phone or tablet or PC so useful, would not arrive in 100 years let alone
one generation.
@Tom from The most patient investor in R&D is the federal government. For the obvious reason that more than 90% of R&D just
proves what does not work. The CIA helped fund some of the original research that ended up being Google, and an Italian college
professor (paid for by government money) made an important breakthrough as well. Read Mariano Mazzucato's The Entrepreneurial
State.
@Tom from Chris below goes no where near far enough. The entire technological platform on which Google, smart phones, YouTube
and the rest rely would have taken at least decades longer to develop without Government action and support. There quite literally
would not have been a "Silicon Valley" without the massive government investment in aerospace and defense in the 50's and 60's.
@Chris Herbert - Exactly right. The initial spadework -- fundamental research in materials, computing, biology that has led
to technological revolutions, was funded by the government usually without any vision whatsoever of the end application. It is
this that we are in great danger of getting away from, in doing applied research with an immediate end in mind (e.g. magic bullet
drugs for cancer).
A more realistic solution that wouldn't require the consent of our lawmakers would be to set up private companies that don't
operate soley on the profit margin, and instead work to provide a good or service to the public better than the current players;
treat their employees well and not pollute, cheat, steal, etc.; and provide a reasonable rate of return for investors (7% or so),
with any extra profits being split up and reinvested, given as bonuses to workers, investors, and consumers, etc. by a predetermined
formula. Western Europe gives lie to the argument that socialism doesn't work, but anybody who has been paying attention knows
lawmakers and their handlers will not abide by it, and sabotage it first chance they got. Instead we can set up a sort of private
socialist system, to compete in areas where the profit motive doesn't provide for the best outcomes, in areas like alternative
energy, internet cooperatives, drug discovery and manufacture, insurance cooperatives, etc. Graduate schools could be set up as
such allowing people to use their school money and the assets of the school to invent new products that could be then brought
to the public under such rules. The private sector would be free to compete, but the profit motive wouldn't be the only game in
town.
I have imagined a pair of such systems. One can't exist without the other. They are called Faction-Free Democracy and Democrato-Capitalism.
They are based on the fact that our supply of money is unlimited. I have been preaching this gospel for years, including comments
on this blog. I finally wrote a book about it called "Faction-Free Democracy." You can look it up. It provides government funding
for almost everything, and models the government on the democracy of ancient Athens. Many people call it "socialism" but in fact
it is a real democracy instead of the phony one we have now, which is, according to the Framers, a republic. Yes, it is possible
to have a government modeled on Athenian democracy. Computers don't you know. We could have a world-wide democracy if we wished.
It provides a Social Security Lifetime Supplement of $36,000 per year per citizen from birth to death. Don't be scared, check
it out. To paraphrase Keynes: "The new ideas expressed here are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not
in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which are now intertwined in every corner of our minds, and do not wish to
be disturbed."
If what Prof. Krugman were to happen in the US, it would just make them a bit more similar to European nations. Nothing revolutionary
in European views, but definitevely so for the American mindset. I think it would also make the US a stronger a more cohesive
nation. But expect private interests getting in the way of that by all means.
Private individuals and self interest are of course abstractions that do not stand by themselves in reality, apart of the common
sense ideology. They are mediated by social activities (via exchange -selling my capacity to work or buying what I need in the
market). I don't produce something to consume it myself, as in earlier economies of self subsistence. The computer I'm writing
on was made by others. Therefore I depend on others' products to live in society as I am not capable of producing my own means
of subsistence. The social wealth (all the products of use) produced by the collective worker (all of those who work for a wage)
is though appropriated by private individuals. But that is only a phenomenon that exists in a society where the means of production
are individually appropriated. This happens even in China despite its "socialist" or mixed "economy." So socialism is not just
the collective ownership of production means. It is the democratic control of the same, which does not happen under the regime
of capital accumulation (even in those 'state owned enterprises'). The baptism of fire of capital was the dispossession of lands
held in common by peasants in England starting in the xv century They were freed from their means of production and forced to
work for others. This operation has been repeated since then-even in China as recent as a decade ago. Those cities, roads, and
factories were made with the work of newly "freed" labor from the soil they used to till.
Krugman says socialism is an utopia or it does not work based on the experience of the former Soviet Union or currently in
China. Both are examples of centralized economies rather than socialism where the means of production (land, factories, technologies,
etc) are democratically controlled. Indeed, this centralization has favored the concentration of wealth produced in those two
areas of the world. The Russian oligarchs and the Alibabas come from somewhere, and the state has been there to help them along.
So let's keep apart the idea of socialism as a way of producing and appropriating this product from the form of government that
either fosters or suppresses it. There is not a clear example of the former. All the existing governments have so far mostly suppressed
socialism as a mode of production despite their name. The so called mixed economies were the result of the truce between capital
and labor after ww2. After that truce ended in the 1970s with low profitability capital has taken the offensive with both neoliberalism
and globalization, which ran out of steam in 2008. We are now facing the dystopia of a capital regime in trouble and unable to
deal with catastrophic climate change, the global poverty it has produced, the millions unemployed in the global south or precariously
living in the midst of concentrated wealth like in the US, and the demoralization produced by this social malaise Economists need
to deal with this dystopia and stop living in denial.
Professor Krugman are you not looking at the data? Total federal, state and local government spending was 37.9% of GDP in 2014
( https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
). The largest shares go to my mom and my kids (thanks taxpayers!). Government expenditure is not the same as GDP but are
you saying we should shrink government by 15% (5% of GDP) or grow it? If more money flows through DC (or, for this Californian,
Sacramento), will additional lobbying for regulation delivering rents to unions and corporations be worthwhile? Lack of antitrust
enforcement is doing more for the top .1% and to the bottom 10% than anything but maybe our silly tax code. Please think and write
more about that.
I think many sectors could benefit from a greater role for cooperatives: one-member-one-vote rather than one-share-one-vote.
Also, there could be mandatory inclusion of labor and public members on corporate boards. The current private sector model is
focused on growth, rather than service or maintenance, and typically has a very short time horizon. If our goal is sustainability
over the longer term, we need a better mix of governance and finance than at present. I completely agree with Dr. Krugman about
the need for better structures to meet public purposes such as health, education, utilities, and a basic social safety net including
housing.
The positive feedback loops of so-called network effects are concentrating economic and political power into black holes of
incredible wealth. When things get too out-of-balance, society, like an ecology, disintegrates. A mixed economy can help maintain
that balance. But, as things are going, it looks increasingly like many, many people are going to suffer first until some form
of balance, social, economic and ecological, is restored.
My suggested guideline is simple. If an organizations highest priority should be to be the public it should be socialized (tax
supported). If an organizations highest priority is profit its private. A healthy mixed economy is in our future. We just have
to make it happen.
It is amazing that Paul is a bit embarrassed to say the private sector isn't able to do everything well. It is sooo clear that
most of the big problems of this Country are a consequence of government being unable to do what has to be done. Of course, the
GOP doesn't want to do anything. But infrastructure, opioid addiction, health care more generally, education, research, the arts,
foreign policy, and politics in general are not where capitalism shines. In fact, simply making a profit very often isn't a good
motivator when it makes providing goods and services simply an expense instead of an objective. Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube,
Instagram are cases in point, where the money motive has corrupted large portions of these enterprises, driving out responsibility.
The issue we need to discuss first is corruption. What else can you call the fact that our representatives are for sale to
the highest bidder? We the public are clearly not capable of being represented in that system. Thus we are not. The issue of socialism
vs capitalism is totally misrepresented by most commentators and media. If we define socialism as taxpayer funded programs for
the public we've had the mixed economy Paul suggests for many years. Social security and medicare are the most referenced but
there are many more; public schools, the post office, libraries, museums, highways and roads, water, sewage, parks, local police
and government services..... But our unrepresentatives have shifted socialism on behalf of the public to socialism for the corporations,
subsidizing many industries like oil and agriculture while vilifying socialism on behalf of the public. The military and the banking
system are the most aggregis of the socialized, consuming over half our GDP. None of this will change until we deal with the corruption
of our representatives. Paul is stating the obvious, a mixed economy currently serves both the public and private sectors, but
is under relentless pressure to go private. Public institutions like schools and prisons have already been privatized. But when
we get our representatives back we have to decide what it makes sense to socialize and privatize. My suggested guideline is simple.
@Ed...if we get our representatives back. Absent another FDR and an overhaul of the democratic party that will embrace a New
Deal, the democrats will not dominate our governments and remain beholden to the same interests that prioritize short-term gain
over even their own long-term interests.
According to my cable-internet installer, a) Ethernet has defeated all other network protocols, b) Ma Bell was broken up over
long distance, a topic no one cares about anymore, c) no one can make money delivering generic IP packets, so d) the government
should re-create a national monopoly on fiber to homes and businesses, and e) bid out the installation and operation to local
contractors. This would allow one big govt-run system (furnace) and all the installers and network operators would still have
jobs. Happy Holidays.
Protecting our natural and cultural resources will unfortunately require a degree of protectionism. But this is a more sustainable
solution for both our country AND the rest of the world. If we can favor LOCAL COMMERCE through local/municipal, county and state
governments that preferentially support local/small-scale business, our carbon footprints and carbon sequestration figures, for
examples, would improve. Federal-/national-level governance and multinational capitalism are, in concert, destroying the planet.
Fortunately, our resource-richness allows us NOT to have to compete with the world's lowest bidders, in terms of exploitation
of workers and the environment.
@carl bumba, Yes we should try to think more locally, but moneyed interests think and act in concert globally, and a local
mindset where we ignore issues that don't affect us directly leaves us all at the mercy of the globalists.
In the 1920s, the British government initiated what was in effect an experiment comparing public and private design and manufacture
of an airship. This was before improvements in airplanes made airships obviously uncompetitive. The government designed and built
one airship, the R101, while a private corporation designed and built another, the R100. The government airship was a disaster,
literally. 48 people were killed when it crashed on its first attempt at a really long flight, in October 1930. Neville Shute
Norway, an engineer who had worked on the R100, later said he believed one of the big advantages of the private airship was that
it was under the scrutiny of suspicious government safety inspectors. The engineers building the government airship were not subjected
to the same hostile scrutiny by the government--after all they were the government--so they were able to get away with things
that should not have been permitted.
Neither pure 'capitalism' nor pure 'socialism' (or whatever may lie at the other end of the spectrum) have existed for centuries.
The unregulated seeking of profits, just as a centrally controlled economy, would be disastrous in any country and we do well
to understand the benefits of a mixed economy. The political economist Charles Lindblom "once described markets as being like
fingers: nimble and dexterous. Governments, with their capacity to exercise authority, are like thumbs: powerful but lacking subtlety
and flexibility. The invisible hand is all fingers. The visible hand is all thumbs. One wouldn't want to be all thumbs, of course,
but one wouldn't want to be all fingers, either. Thumbs provide countervailing power, constraint, and adjustment to get the best
out of those nimble fingers." (Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson; Making America Great Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy" - Foreign
Affairs - May/June 2016)
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-03-21/making-america-great-again
In comparative economics courses at US universities during the 1970s, large utilities experiencing decreasing long-run average
costs (like power generation/distribution; telephone companies; certain aspects of airliners; etc) and certain other production
where firms might have large numbers of employees, were hinted-at as prime candidates for being [quasi-]publicly sourced. What
the resulting system was called seemed less important than output and cost (Pareto, Nash, other) efficiencies. In some countries,
such industries flip back and forth between private and public production (or finance) over the decades, rendering those nations
characterized as more or less socialistic or capitalistic at the time, depending on how the highest profile firms are supported
by whatever prevailing administration (or ownership group) has power. This also can do wonders for public deficits and accumulated
debt in a very short period of time.
What about the broadcasting industry? Imagine watching television with programs not being broken up by commercials. Nowadays
is seems as if half of program time is taken up with commercials. Imagine having the quality of news, public affairs, and entertainment
approaching that of the BBC. A very intelligent and competent television producer reminded me many years ago, "Television is not
an information and entertainment medium, it's an advertising medium." We almost had a total national public broadcasting system
instead of the small sliver we have today . Congress narrowly supported the private system when the issue was decided in the 1920's.
Too bad it went that way.
@Bill So true. Then maybe we shouldn't reflexively trust corporate news, like NYT, to provide us with unbiased truth. For example,
many people here seem to adopt views about "fly-over country" without ever really knowing it, firsthand. Likewise, readers' opinions
here seem to be frequently formed by comparisons between REAL people (who are not Trump supporters) and DEPICTIONS of real people
(who are Trump supporters). This is problematic.
Paul's totally on target and the timing just might be perfect. Hopefully, he and others can build on this with actual examples
of other modern countries that have made this transformation successfully and the Democratic Party could finally UNITE around
a prudent vision for the voters .. . the two key words? Prudent and UNITE.
this brilliant and important piece misses a key phrase: the natural ecology. under pure capitalism the earth & the life support
systems it provides have no monetary value. therefore they exist merely to be exploited (and destroyed) for private profit. in
the long run such a system will doom us all. in fact, you could say in the short term it's already doing just that.
The primary arbiter of the effectiveness of free markets must be the presence of effective competition. If natural forces or
regulation do not insure effective competition in a market segment then the interests of the consumer must be enforced by regulation.
If regulation does not suceed public ownership is the most obvious alternative. The common belief that, if unregulated, markets
will function to the benefit of consumers and, on a larger scale, societies, is woefully misguided.
Retirement is a major area that could benefit from public ownership and control. Think of how much 401(k) gains are lost to
the private financial services industry. Think about how much lower administrative overhead Social Security has than private financial
service industry companies. Think what an expansion of the Social Security social insurance model could do to resolve the retirement
crisis.
As a teacher of economics I am wondering the same thing. Are we at a point where economies are so large and complicated, and
prosperity is so great (though not for realized for everyone), that some new economic system is called for. Call it "creative
destruction" turned towards the economic system itself.
Just by the mention of a ratio of 2/3:1/3, Mr. Krugman illuminates his belief that, no mater what perils capitalism may bring,
it is still twice as better than an economy that is heavily controlled by a government that is by and for the people. Eventually,
we may have a government capable of leading the economy, but for now, and without any evidence, commentators like Mr. Krugman,
cynically let us know that we should mostly just stay the course and give our money to the profit seekers. here's another way
to think about this: not only could all the people working in health care be public employees, but they and the people who need
medical care (all of us) could have our care subsidized by the creators of the drugs and diagnostic tools that save us. It is
important to remember that in health care there are statistics that show specific percentages of those subjected to certain drugs
or tests are actually harmed by those drugs and tests. It seems reasonable that those manufacturers should be in partnership with
the government for (and on the hook for) costs associated with their imperfect products. That is more of a real public interest
led economy where capitalism, because it harms people (as part of its nature), is humbled by the public good to subsidize their
mistakes and support the health of the citizenry.
@rick Let's see. You want the drug companies to underwrite the cost of patients who would receive their products. I think the
drug producers would love that scheme.
The socialist-capitalist, mixed economy, discussion in America is long overdue and, contrary to Prof. Krugman's guess that
it would be "probably irrelevant", quite relevant indeed. The Chinese economy is the leading capitalist-socialist economy: "Real
GDP Growth YoY data in China is updated quarterly, available from Mar 1992 to Sep 2018, with an average rate of 9.2 %."
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/real-gdp-growth
The World Bank illustrates the difference in GDP percentage growth since 1960 for the U.S. and China. Clearly, the Chinese
will over-take U.S. economy (GDP) in a matter of decades - likely when a millennial becomes President of the U.S. and China.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=CN-US
Despite the evidence, Americans still think that the U.S. will defeat the historic odds and remain the world's leading economy
and military power that it is today. In a world of increasing militarism, the future is uncertain. With unabated sustainable growth
of GHG emissions, millennials will need to get involved in politics sooner than any prior generation: their standard of living
is at real risk, they are part of the solution. The present U.S. Trump administration's denial of the science behind global warming
and climate change is the problem.
Some areas should be free market: Any area where there is clear competition -- e.g. automobiles. Some areas should be either
government owned, or tightly regulated: Utilities fall in this category, as it is very inefficient to have competition in electricity,
water, sewer, or wired communication. Cable TV would have fit in here 20 years ago, but there are enough other alternatives that
this is no longer the case. Some areas where the industry has an impact on the common good -- businesses that pollute come to
mind -- need regulations that govern that aspect. Any business that is "too big to fail" should get bailed out once: And then
broken up into at least 3 smaller companies. Other areas of regulation: Overlapping directorships within an industry. Banks should
not be in the insurance business. Nor in the stock selling business.
Krugman fails to mention the that most of the 2/3 capilaist portion of the ecomony he talks about isn't really capitalism,
it dominated bystate sanctioned monopolies. No one really believes in a ture capilaist economy, if they did they would be arguing
for the elimination of the largest distortions to a capitalist economy in the United States; tradmarks, patent, and limited liability
corporations. these three distort from a freemarket truely capitalist economy much more than wlefare, public education, regulated
healthcare. The government regulation inflicted by these three government mandates is much greater than Obama care and welfare
ever could be.
The question of "how discredited is socialism?" is odd. "Discredited" by whom? and in what context? Ronald Reagan crisscrossed
the country on behalf of the AMA, fear-mongering about ending freedom forever because the AMA hated the idea of socialized medicine:
Medicare. Today, many Americans seem not to know that original Medicare is a government-run program (socialized insurance, not
socialized medicine) -- less expensive to run, higher quality results, better at controlling costs -- far better than the wolf-in-sheep's
clothing Medicare Advantage programs that socialize risk, privatize profits, and make mountains of money for shareholders/execs.
Polls show Americans have become far more comfortable with govt-run healthcare -- hence its importance in Nov18 ... and likely
continued importance in 2020. And, last time I checked, Warren's drug manufacture plan included more than generics -- e.g., new
drugs with insufficient profit potential -- for rare diseases, or that cure, or that will be used rarely (like new antibiotics).
I'd prefer Prof. Krugman spend more time on economic explanations -- not worrying so much about political feasibility, prognosticating,
and inflammatory labels. Maybe then he'd discuss economic, public policy -- and moral -- benefits of the NY Health Act, "Improved
Medicare for all NYers," better than any current public or private insurance. If it becomes law in 2019, the feasibility of national
single-payer will no longer be in question...just the terms.
Capitalism begins to look a lot like state socialism when there is heavy concentration in the industry, for example, only one
commercial jet manufacturer or only one military fighter jet manufacturer or High tech controlled by Amazon, Google, Apple, FaceBook.
Capitalism works when there is competition, not monopoly. We are not as purely capitalistic as we like to think.
Free education for all advanced by Bernie Sanders is a first step that is needed. This is neither a socialism nor a capitalism.
We have Medicaid to take care of poor. It is just a matter of adequately funding it. Next, setup public works program where unemployed
can work for food stamps. Provide more public housing. This guarantees the basic necessities of food, shelter, education and health
care. Pay for it by reverting to taxation of 60s. I don't know whether it is socialism or capitalism, but it certainly is a basic
function of the government to take care of its own citizens.
We're at a point where a globalized administrative and distributive system can be successfully implemented. The only thing
in the way is capitalism, and private ownership of the existing first steps, twisted to the will of the super-elite. All we need
to do is turn that system into a global, public set of utilities, whose purpose is service, not profit. When the need for capital
accumulation grows to handle macro problems, it can be managed more efficiently this way, without the massive drain of corruption
that has heretofore hobbled all such efforts. The truck is going to be to make this system responsive and coherent, and that will
involve far greater integration of existing financial systems and processes into other service organizations, to make them useful
platforms for exchange management instead of the bubble casino fantasies built for the few they are today. This is an entirely
feasible proposition, and is only impossible because of the desperate, self-serving greed of those now owning it all. Remove them,
and their ownership, as a significant first step, and the rest becomes far more obvious soon thereafter. Or, continue living in
the clouds hoping a few useless tweaks will fix a broken global capitalist order. The stay will, however, be short, and the fall
is a long distance.
The fundamental problem with the idea of a mixed economy maybe be with the politicians who are advocating for it. Consider
at this moment, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and the Brexit mess. No one has contributed less to that problem than Corbyn and the Labour
Party. Or here at home, Bernie Sanders. Nice guy whose ideas harken back to Norman Thomas -- a wonderful man and perennial candidate
for POTUS who never won. The message about a mixed economy has and has lacked a spokesperson who can make its case and get people
to vote for them.
The problem as I see it, Professor Krugman is that there ARE people who believe that Gosplan and the Great Leap Forward, or
their equivalents, are the answer. While most are in College classrooms there are an increasing number of 20-something congresspersons
among them. They are too inexperienced and uninformed even to imagine the ways in which their cherished solutions are and have
been disasters. We are currently living through a national nightmare with thuggish real estate developers in charge of things,
but coming out the other side into someone's rosy vision of the Worker's Paradise is certainly not the answer.
I would like you to include a small sliver for co-operatives. I grew up in a farm community where a a co-op was a major source
of seed etc. Later I lived in a cooperative community where both our homes and local grocery store was a co-op. These are just
a few examples of how co operatives are used to supply basic and essential components of daily life without a profit margin.I
even get a check now and then when the grocery has a "profit."
I grew up in a military family that has fought every American war in history. Healthcare for us was provided by the public,
not private. The military provided public, not private education. Is the military socialist?? No. It's a combination of socialism
and capitalism, and it works.
Advances in medicine is an area that works amazing well through a public-private hybrid. In fact, biotech and big Pharma companies
even lobby for strong public sector funding for basic medical research. Why is that? Well, basic research has been the economic
driving force of this country where all the most important scientific advances have come from. However, it makes no sense for
the private sector to fund basic research (unless they are a charity) because it is unclear whether advances will quickly generate
a profit. However, without such advances, the private sector will dry up because they won't fund this type of research. See where
this is going. On the other hand, it is easy to justify public funding of basic research because 1) it trains our next generation
of cutting edge scientists and engineers; 2) nearly all discoveries that power the next "big thing" that transforms our economy
comes from basic research; 3) many basic discoveries are quickly converted into products and companies, again, driving the economy;
4) the most competitive countries have strong basic research. Even China, which is notorious for stealing technology and violating
IP, is investing heavily in basic research. This is just a model where even the private sector says the role of the public sector
is essential. If we can accept this fact, why can't we accept the fact that there are other areas that can't be done as well in
the private sector as it can in the public sector?
Professor, you're position is actually a restatement of "Rockefeller Republicanism." Named after Nelson Rockefeller (former
Vice President and NY Governor), Rocky's version of Republicanism believed that the government that governed least, governs best,
but with a big "however." Rockefeller knew that the markets we're imperfect, did not address every American's needs or desires,
and in some cases, failed miserably. He believed government had a role in the economy, but that did not necessarily translate
into large government organizations employing large numbers of public employees. Rocky pioneered (at the time) new, innovative
ways to address market failures like the quasi-government corporation. They worked by the government setting up a publicly owned
corporation, loaning the entity tax dollars "start-up" finds, and giving it a clear, simple mission. Take the NYS Thruway Authority.
Before there was an interesting highway system, there was the Thruway Authority commissioned with construction, operation and
management of limited access high-speed roads to connect the state's major urban areas. The initial taxpayer funded investment
was repaid via tolls paid by users. Expansion and maintenance was done by floating binds on public markets to be repaid by toll
revenues. When the bonds were paid off, tolls were mandated to drop (they did). This system worked without the "for profit" incentives
of the private sector that raises costs to users. Rocky Republicanism works.
"Socialization of investment" is necessary to keep investment flowing when the private sector is in full retreat due to the
paranoia du jour. Some public needs, such as health care and housing, are too important to be left to the individual calculations
of firms with short term views and short term bottom lines.
The key to success in any form of enterprise is motivating the leaders. Corporate CEOs respond to bonuses and options; lower
level managers respond to promotions. What are the corresponding lures in public-sector enterprises? Altruism doesn't quite cut
it. Maybe China has an answer?
@Subhash Garg You may establish government-owned companies that are legally normal companies but mainly or fully national owned.
In this way, you can ensure that CEO get bonuses if they do well etc., but the difference being that the top CEO salaries will
not be 50 MUSD, but a fraction of that. Personally, I think it is possible to find someone doing a good job as a CEO for a 1 MUSD
salary.
@Subhash Garg Largely the same, good salaries and bonuses for effective employees and managers. Don't see why cutting out absent
shareholders and incestuous "rock star" CEOs wouldn't help.
None of us lives our own lives by one pure ideology or rigid set of values. Why should we insist that one economic system will
serve our needs, now, tomorrow and forever? Of course, it depends on what our goals and values are. If we believe that acquiring
great wealth is the purpose of life and work, we will have a purely capitalist system where a few achieve that goal. If we believe
that living comfortably with a modicum of security in a stable, healthy society where everyone has enough, we will want that "mixed"
system. I prefer the latter.
Krugman describes some of continental Europe. I am not saying it's good or bad, but there is something out there to see how
that kind of mixed economy works.
Private, corporate interests should be put on notice: if you can't get the job done efficiently at a reasonable cost with on-going
respect for privacy rights and without endangering large numbers of the population, someone else is going to step in. That someone
else is all of us. Instead, things now are the other way around: the Republican hidden "master plan" is to privatize as much of
government functions as possible so that massive profits can flow from the billions spend. The other view, the other side, should
be a clear threat to private enterprise and intentionally so: do it well with respect for human decency or you will be replaced.
.... When life expectancies are declining, despite our tremendous resources and wealth, a degree of protectionism is in order.
Local, small-scale interaction, both public and private - need to be promoted and supported, over the long-term. Our 'sustainability'
depends on us protecting our cultural and natural resources.
Dr. Krugman misses the most important parameter for hierarchical social organization, which is the LEVEL of interaction. The
public/private debate here contrasts ONLY federal or national-level public institutions with private sector alternatives, both
at the national-level, e.g. power and telecommunication utilities, and local businesses and contractors. Sure, "central planning"
is widely discredited (and "decentralized" programs rely on market forces). But, historically, most of these organizations were
HIERARCHICAL networks; governments were not hubs of unstructured networks, but the top of pyramids of organizational levels. Governments
that plan and operate at the LOCAL level through local, public institutions and elections, in support of local commerce and businesses,
are not so easily discredited. The Washington swamp DOES need draining (for want of a biology-grounded metaphor). Municipal, county
and (to a lesser extent) state governments need to be EXPANDED. We are the only superpower, BY FAR. We don't need to have extensive
military commitments and alliances throughout the world anymore. These are NOT required for national security. This is an excuse;
they protect our domination of the global marketplace. We don't need more national and multinational corporations. BOTH agribusiness,
corporate franchises, etc. AND federal programs are terrible for life in middle America. When life expectancies...
The criteria for public regulation/ownership should be whether the goods or services that a business provides are deemed either
unethical to withhold from all citizens, or where the deprivation of those goods or services to some citizens adversely affects
all citizens. Clearly health care and education fall into that category. Nobody would make the argument that it is ethical to
deprive a child of education or health care because the parents were too poor to afford them. But uneducated or sick citizens
is not just an ethical failure. There is significant economic damage to everyone if large segments of the population are sick
and uneducated. Besides education and health care, other businesses with a compelling public interest come to mind. Mr. Krugman
mentioned utilities (no one wants people denied access to clean water or electric power). But a free and open internet is, or
should be, an area where the public has a compelling interest. Progressives should make the case why there is a compelling public
interest to take ownership of, or regulate, these industries. Then the political climate would be more favorable to, for example,
Medicare for all.
So can Prof. Krugman explain why public is more efficient only it isn't? If a private concern can sell something for $10 with
a $1 profit, then a public concern could sell it for $9. Seems elementary to me. Public companies can use the same techniques
as private ones to determine demand. The profit motive is societal. It's not elemental.
There is no sense in having a committee of communists decide how much milk should be on the grocery store shelf. Capitalism
is golden at responding to supply and demand. Yet, basics like roads, public safety, protection of our country (military), parks,
education, healthcare, and basic protections for the young, sick, disabled and elderly should be the collective responsibility
of all our citizens mainly through our local, state and federal governments. Quality of life should be the goal of humanity. It
is also high time for Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Man.
Dr. K. Your best column since your call over a decade ago about a possible looming meltdown with your prescient observation
re " they are selling each other condos down there in Florida". I would only disagree that it should be a greater figure for government
running business, not only does this create better paying jobs for a greater number of people hopefully with benefits, but so
much of the economy today allows private interests to capitalize on public investment not only resulting from public funded infrastructure
but R and D by government entities that private interests were allowed, or lobbied into, reaping the enormous profits from. Forty
years of runaway capitalism has produced little other than extreme inequality, the time is long overdue to correct these inequities,
another thing that needs to be addressed is vulture capitalism that has seen so many mergers and acquisitions turn into little
more than grand theft done by lawyers and bankers as they buy or gain control of one company after the other, fire millions in
the name of efficiency, load it up with debt to pay themselves huge sums and dump the carcass on shareholders, fully fifty percent
of these deals are bad for the companies not to mention the lives ruined, there is in my opinion a very good case these " venture
capitalists" should be in prison. China with its central planning has done a good job in this area as well, people get to greedy
they are executed, good riddance.
@Ted OK Ted, make the case: What law did they break? "there is in my opinion a very good case these " venture capitalists"
should be in prison." I'll leave this absurd statement for another day: "Forty years of runaway capitalism has produced little
other than extreme inequality"
A paradigm that says "Anything you could call socialist has been an utter failure". Interesting thinking. Medicare. Social
Security. Failures? Hmmnn. Wall Street has been an utter failure, destroying the economy in the Great Depression and nearly doing
so Great Recession--which was saved by public programs, policies, and very public bailouts. And Wall Street doesn't do a whole
lot of good (when the bad is included) on an ongoing basis. (I can hear the right-wingers howling on that one--innovation, start-ups,
and yada, yada). Privatization of prisons and schools has been a disaster. Privately--owned utilities are generally a ripoff.
The US health insurance system is a disaster. Several western European and Scandinavian countries have done quite well with public
ownership of the healthcare system, and ownership (and real) regulation of others. It won't happen here, though, as Greed runs
the show.
"...Private insurers don't..provide a service that couldn't be provided..by national health insurance. Private hospitals aren't
obviously either better or more efficient than [their] public [counterparts] "So you could imagine..health..currently in the private
sector [becoming] public, with most people at least as well off as they are now..." [op cit] -- Yes, by all means! -- For example?
Check out what's already in place: the VA healthcare [totally government run] System, where I'm enrolled, as a veteran... -- And
do you know what I think? 1. It words, "just fine." 2. It's cost efficient, as far as I can tell. 3. And I'm not complaining at
all. 4. In fact? I'm grateful! *** "...Also, I see zero chance of any of this happening in my working lifetime..." [op cit] --
Too bad! -- Because when you consider that most of our "advanced" Neighbors have long since instituted "Socialized Medicine,"
it begs the question: 1. "What do they know, that we don't?" 2. And, "Why haven't we done likewise?" *** It's become apparent,
that Americans have a penchant, for re-living the glory days of our past -- That is, debunking "progress," in favor of ways that
have always been familiar, and still seem to work -- Want to be relegated to history's, "Junk-heap?" It's oh, so easy! Just keep
on resisting -- 1. Better ideas. 2. Obvious examples, that work(!) 3. Sound advice, from those in the know. *** "Good luck," I
say, heading into the future-- And may God help the hard-headed among us !
Three "human rights": education, health care and housing. They should be guaranteed by the government, that is us, and taken
away from the unavoidable profiteering that is implicit with private sector enterprise. It would make for better economies and
a more just society.
@Davide How can housing be guaranteed? Say all 320 million people would want to live in the Bay Area. There is not enough space
to guarantee housing here. If not, then you have winners and losers no matter what type of housing distribution you adopt like
by birth, lottery or anything else.
Very helpful. Wouldn't it be a good idea for insurance of all types - auto, home, life - to be a government run, not for profit,
sector? What added value does a private insurance company give to anyone but the owners?
The whole socialism/capitalism thing is so muddied it would be hard to get a clear eyed view to compare. So called private
entities get subsidies of varying kinds and many state owned enterprises are run more like for profit ventures. Companies have
become so used to subsidy that they often get it without even asking for it. An example of the mess is my employer- a private,
faith based hospital system. The building that houses the facility is city owned and leased to the private company in a sweetheart
deal and it also receives a subsidy in the form of a city sales tax that is used for capital expenses. In addition, the operator
gets a tax exemption as a "faith based not for profit". It also gets discounts on some supplies and other subsidies as part of
various government programs. The recent Apple expansion in Austin, Texas was announced and it comes with subsidies. The Amazon
expansion involves massive subsidy to get jobs in Virginia and New York that according to this paper were the obvious places to
put them. Billionaire team owners routinely ask the city, county or state to fund new stadiums. While we are at it, there are
even more forms of subsidy. Comcast & AT&T have copper or fiber running in my back yard without my permission or compensation.
CenterPoint Energy has a natural gas line running underground in my yard and I get no compensation for it. Entergy has an underground
power line and - you guessed it- they do not pay me a cent for it.
America actually has a gigantic state sector: the military-industrial complex. We also have a huge, and bloated bureaucracy
- not so much at the federal level - but at the state and municipal level, where nothing of real importance is done but where
we still expect to pay middle-class salaries to these low-level civil servants on the backs of working-class taxpayers. Most of
what the federal government does should remain as government work. But the state and municipal governments should be substantially
reduced: very few jobs at that level are necessary or valuable to society, and there are far-too many mid-level managers in state
and municipal government that are sucking the taxpayer dry. They take all the money that the taxpayer would like to give to the
struggling, the young, and the disabled, and they use it to pay themselves handsome salaries. That certainly should end.
@Purity of Let me make the argument that water and sewer services operated by municipalities are the most important components
of good health followed rapidly by fire safety services offered by code enforcement officers and fire departments.
@Purity Let me remind you that the majority of municipal/state employees are educators from k-graduate school. Then of course
police, jailers and sanitation. The middle managers that you are complaining about are very small item in these budgets.
You and David Brooks should get together and write a collaborative column. David advocated for a similar mix in a recent column.
Great minds thinking alike?
I have often wondered ... what would "society" be if it followed the military model: everybody has a MOS (job), food, housing,
health care, retirement ...
A large share of the commenters here seem to not remember or be aware of some of the "features" of socialism that capitalism
effectively saved us from. A key rule to remember of government, no matter how benign - you don't get a choice. You don't choose
how much to contribute (taxes), you don't choose your service provider (no competition), and you have limited ability to effect
a change (and only if you are lucky enough to live in a socialist system that is also a democracy.). Take a look at the history
of the 70s US and Britain before the market reforms in both countries...
@random I drive to work on paved roads with functional traffic lights, although they could be better synchronized, and if I
saw an accident, I could call 911and get a trained operator who would dispatch the appropriate well trained and equipped first
responders. I choose to pay for this through my votes on City Council and County Board members. If you do not want to pay for
that, take the license plate off of your vehicle and stay off the roads.
@random Anyone remember the hated HMOs from the 90's? Today, you want an MRI you get it in the morning, whether you need it
or not. Put all medical care under the g'ment, care will be rationed by time rather than dollars- you may get that MRI or joint
replacement in 4 months by the Dr. of a bureaucrat's choice. It's going to be really difficult to unwind the choice of today to
that system.
Most of your points are not really true; but especially so if you consider free migration. One of the side-effects of widespread
xenophobia is to gerrymander the world by blocking that most basic form of voting; voting with your feet.
Firemen are honored, and esteemed, by both sides of the political fence. But fire departments are socialist government in the
sense that they are there, paid by all for the good of all, because if one house burns, the fire may spread. It used to be, however,
that in the USA in the 19th century, firemen were paid by private insurance companies, and there were competing fire companies
who would not put out your fire if you had not signed with them. We are glad now that that period is over. But the situation with
health care today is identical. When will we Americans learn that the health of each of us impacts the whole. You have to put
out a house on fire even if the residents have not paid insurance, because the fire can spread (infection) and damage the whole
town (body).
So, we're looking for some kind of equilibrium with public and private control of the means of production. I think that is
going on. And, it changes with each new generation, the goal posts move. The pendulum swings between the public and private. It
is burdened by history. For me, I am not an economist I'm a LiArt guy, I am a cog in this system, and, it took me a while to accept
that. But, having accepted that, I set my own economic goals and have achieved much of it. Healthcare was a no-brainer, I paid
for and have had health insurance for myself and family all my working life. I am retired now, am comfortable, still working to
leave something of a legacy for my children. This is something to think about. What is the right mix? Everything economic requires
conscious effort. Capitalism and democracy work together and we are constantly looking for that equilibrium. I don't think it
can be reduced to a nice, neat formula. It is dynamic and everything can be fungible. Of course, there may come a time when I
won't care one whit about anything. That is when my long-term disability insurance should kick in, but, who knows, really, and
I probably will not care.
This should be a blinding statement of the obvious with historical data to demonstrate the statement's truth. Decades of Republican
propaganda exploiting the quasi-intellectual concepts of the libertarian laissez faire economics has created a mantra for "conservatives"
that is in serious need of challenge. Good on Paul Krugman for confronting Republican economic theory.
@Taxidermitist, probably because "free" is a chimera. Schools need to be maintained and upgrades. Teachers need to be paid
(a lot more then at present) and textbooks need to be printed. The cost of all these things comes from the taxes that most citizens
regularly vote against. It behooves us as a nation to provide the highest quality education at the lowest possible cost – hence
the public option is the most pragmatic, as well as the most practical. I think most people would support a public service requirement
for graduates to spend x number of years in national service (not necessarily military) in exchange for their "free" education.
"Free" is a loaded word, as well as being misleading.
Thank you Paul. Progressives must make the case that in order for Market Capitalism to be sustainable; Public sharing of Health
Care, Education, Retirement Security, and National Park Lands with Environmental Protections must be part of our Common Goods
we all need to exist. Progressives do not need to demonize Big Multinational Business. Just appeal to their own self interest
by stating that if we share the risks of Health, Ed, and Retirement, Markets will be free of areas that they inherently fail at,
and people will have more resources and time for pursuit of Free Enterprize.
@Michael W. Espy. Business pays for most non research healthcare today. Commercial insurance pays a premium so Medicare can
pay direct costs only and Medicaid pays a fraction of actual costs.
It seems to me that focusing on public or private ownership, exclusively, misses the boat. Enterprise size is the issue. Could
anything be more wasteful than the Pentagon or more socially destructive than Amazon? Small and medium sized enterprises (schools,
towns, water departments, farms, factories, retail, etc) may be less efficient than large ones in some measures, but they may
also avoid the externalities of big ones, so should be better for society on balance -- including geographic equity (i.e., they
can make it outside of the coasts). But bigness can only be controlled through regulation, which has almost no friends and is
more vilified than socialism.
The reason for privatization has always been the obscene profits available to those few at the top, not "efficiency". Even
with a 2/3 private, 1/3 public economy, the income distribution would remain vertiginously skewed on the private side, with some
making billions and other pennies. The money will be used, as ever, to buy power, posing a continuous threat to the system. Let's
get money out of politics first and then see what new economic equilibrium we settle in to.
I have always felt that we should let the government do what it does best and let the private sector do what it does best.
Mr. Krugman makes a valid case for the "mixed economy," but right-wing conservatives, who benefit the most from private ownership
that is subsidized with huge tax benefits, will howl at the thought. It's Socialism! That term has become a pejorative for anything
that smacks of the government taking over what the private sector has been doing, even when done poorly -- think providing adequate
medical care for all Americans. Just look what's happened with so-called Obamacare. A sitting President had the courage to tackle
this problem and he lost both houses of Congress. Did the Republicans who control Congress try to fix the broken system? No, they
made political hay by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times.
The utilities sector too. It makes no sense to privatize things for which there can be no meaningful competition. What we actually
find is that services and price controls are strictly controlled by public utility commissions. So what was the point of it being
a private enterprise?
Totally agree; the profit motive does not bode well for public benefit. Two points: 1) My husband was on dialysis for ten months,
and had a kidney transplant in January 2009, paid for by the government. 2) Does anyone believe that the private sector will send
a letter across the country, indeed halfway around the world (think Guam) for 55 cents? We must not let the Postal Service be
privatized! It pays for itself, and cannot be duplicated by the private sector.
We're in a mixed economy, already. Although not to the level that Krugman proposes. It's been a series of back and forth, with
the Republicans curtailing taxpayer public social investments -- only if it does not serve their purposes (or there could be potential
sizable donations as a result). It's a matter of keeping this in perspective: That is already the US economy -- we just have to
make sure it is working for the public good instead of tax dollars and national heritages (public lands and resources) supporting
private interests. Do more of this where it makes sense? Absolutely. Not in Krugman's working lifetime? Maybe not -- there's new
blood with the desire to do the monumental task of mobilizing America and the world with a New Green Deal. That's just scratching
the surface. And, they are definitely not afraid of the word socialism. Mixed economy it is and will be -- in spite of Trump and
the Republican party.
As a European I live under a system where [still] many public services are without a doubt public: healthcare, infrastructure,
education. Even utilities & public transport, although privatized, are mainly private monopolies, coming forth out of public services.
For me it's simple: you don't make a profit off the back of the sick, the poor and the children. And infrastructure is a necessary
evil that needs to be public, too. I don't mind private clinics, as long as public service offers the basics needed to keep people
healthy. Extra care, softer pillows, luxury rooms and caviar for breakfast; if you want it, pay for it. Why not? The same for
utilities (which should be public & non-profit, to my opinion) and education. If making a profit on the service hurts the economy
(which is the case with education, health care, utilities and infrastructure), then it should be a non-profit, public service.
And it doesn't hurt to have private companies doing the bidding for the subcontracts/services; as long as it's an open and transparent
process, not a corruption. Simply put: if it is essential to our well-being, for our basic needs, make it public (or subsidize
the rents, f.i.). Leaves us with the question: what is essential? - Water, electricity (gas for heating?), healthcare, education,
infrastructure, public transport. What else? - Housing? For sure. Public housing for the poorest is essential. - Internet/TV/Radio/Telephone?
Not sure. What do I miss?
@Timo van Esch, in this excellent and very complete list, you missed the courts, which in the US are a mechanism for extracting
revenue from those who can least afford it. Our prisons are overflowing with people unable to pay fines, who are being charged
rent for their incarceration. "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed," if an oft quoted part of people being
informed of their rights. What is not stated is that they will be presented with a bill for services - even from the Public Defender's
office, and charged interest and penalties for failure to pay – even additional imprisonment in a vicious circle.
@michaeltide Very interesting, I had no idea a bill followed. I guess it's safe to say that public legal service rates are
lower than than market rates! (By the way, Michael, to answer your earlier question: Trump supporters voted for Trump to be president,
to solve our current problems, NOT to be our friend, neighbor, role model or have Camelot-charm/sex appeal.)
"Now, this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism." No, Paul, it wouldn't -- as someone who hates capitalism myself, I
can corroborate your claim. But what you have set forth here is a real start, too. People who hate capitalism tend to be people
who hate the predatory, rent-seeking, deregulated and rigged capitalism practiced now, the kind that has slowly turned our country,
as the systemic level, into an anti-democratic oligo-pluto-kakistocracy with the rhetorical trappings of a legitimate republic.
Those who are arguing that greed is what demolishes both socialism and capitalism miss the salient point that capitalism (as we
know it) is exhausting itself in part because it has nearly fulfilled its own logic: the more we automate, the less money we spend
on salaried employees; the fewer salaried employees, the smaller the workforce, the bigger the bottom line, but the bigger the
underclass of unemployed and potentially unemployable poor. Marx spoke often about the "means of production"; the transformation
and partial, if not total, automation of these means seem to me inevitable, and profoundly dangerous for all but a tiny elite.
There are those of us who would back any step in the right direction. The best analogy, perhaps, is in American healthcare policy.
Those of us who lean left of Sanders believe, almost unanimously, that a single-payer system is the only one befitting a civilized
nation. But the ACA was a start, and improvement. If you're game, I'm game.
Mr. Krugman is almost as savvy re politics as he is with economics - I am sincere ... and it's high praise, of course. So,
to bandy about words like socialism and even communism - words which almost everyone agrees are "fighting words" is either horridly
insensitive or a rare lapse in judgment on his part If there WERE op-eds like is "behind what used to be called the Iron Curtain,"
they might score almost as many debating points about the failure of capitalism as Mr. Krugman strews as he basically finds nice
things to say about what he calls socialism. I disagree very strongly with him that education is an area where the "public model"
can take a bow. The Lincolnesque photo of him indicates that he probably was schooled (publicly ?) long enough ago so that oh-how-far-it's-fallen
may not be apparent to him. As a guess, he has grand children who either live in a 1% type community or attend private school.
(Not snide - just trying to fathom how he could be SO out-of-touch.) In fact, that's what's so awful about the "public model"
- people not accountable to anyone really, holding jobs for life. It surely had a lot to do with the collapse of countries like
East Germany ... and bodes ill if, say, utilities are de-privatized. OTOH, I think he is uncharacteristically tepid when it comes
to our health care vs. most other (mostly) comfortable societies. Our bang-for-the-bucks is appalling. Obamacare's lack of a "public
option" cemented a miserable status quo for anyone not rich.
we have a mixed economy now: it's good for the rich and bad for everyone else. and with President Trump's goverment shutdown,
we're on the way to realizing a long-held Republican goal: a return to slavery, starting with government employees working for
nothing right before Christmas.
Many who love the market system are either autocrats and boards of autocrats running their companies or the politicians bought
and paid for by such. The market system definitely has its place but I am not sure that it has the ability and the patience to
develop what truly reorients mankind's progression. The Greeks instauration to democracy, the Renaissance, the Moon program, the
Genome project, were not created by the market, nor was the big data revolution and A.I. which were driven by the emergence of
neural networks, birthed in universities. Neither will the market bring about the proper approach to climate change and population
control. Now, once a direction with potential is determined then the market knows how to implement it. Socialism and Market economy
are words mostly used by people in tribal camps who, for the most part, are useless in the long run. I do not think that rats
like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, or Carl Icahn and others (such as Trump) contribute anything to society. They are worse
than Clorox!
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially if the mind in question is an economist. But we are here to bury capitalism
not to praise it dear Brutus [sic]. We already have a mixed economy. Communism for bankers and the ultra-rich and capitalism for
the once great middle-class, and fascism for the poor. Do try to think a bit beyond our current predicament even if those stock
buy-back strategies didn't workout so well.
1)I really dislike how the meaning of the term "socialism" has been undermined by its repeated use as a pejorative. Any public-sector
activity the right doesn't like is labelled "socialist." Now we're stuck trying to explain what it actually is to a bunch of people
who still support the gold standard. Gah. 2)The idea of the government taking back its patents on generic drugs makes perfect
sense. I'd rather have the federal government manufacturing insulin than watch more price fixing by a cartel of private companies,
which is what we have now.
With rising profits, and declining services, there's a lot of room for Government to be competitive with the public sector.
If you scratch the surface of a large company, you will find the same inefficiency as in government, only higher salaries and
profit (some of which is guaranteed through 'government work'. Lots of good 'in-house' work has been provided by the state and
federal government in engineering, research, ship repair and consumer protection. I worked for Alaska Railroad when it was owned
by Department of Transportation, and it was pretty good. Probably a money-loser, but people liked that you could pull the string
and get off where you liked, or stop the train and get on in the bush. You had to sign a paper saying you'd take to the hills
and fight if the Russians attacked. There's nothing like that at Facebook.
The entire 20th century was a search for the balance between public and private economy in democratic societies throughout
the world. Japan, South Korea, Uruguay, Chile, Germany, Canada, Sweden -- any number of nations demonstrate different ways to
balance it all. Their experimentation is there recorded and available for anyone to study. Do you think anyone in the US government
does? While this column is welcome, America seems doomed to debate the knowledge of the middle of the last century over again,
as if it had never happened -- in economics as in all things -- why? Because History and other knowledge has been replaced by
Ideology through Paid Commercial Media, both legacy and digital. This helped accomplish the great dumbing down initiated by the
Reagan administration to cut pell grants and essentially as much education funding as possible. Replacing scholarships into a
monetized banking scam. Aided and abetted by Democrats who controlled the house and had no interest in educating the voters that
Republican Ideology wasn't based on truth. A whole generation of college professors didn't happened, or rather the more intelligent
candidates were systematically replaced by the more wealthy candidates. This process has brought reduced elite education to nothing
more than a fetishized luxury good -- credentials replacing achievement as a career goal. The triumph of nepotism then follows
logically. The telegenic filled in for leadership for both parties.
What we have to overcome, is this childish idea, capitalism would be a sort of natural law that will provide for us all! Eventually!
i.e. something like god's little brother. The problem is not so much that free markets don't work, but that some markets are not,
and will never be free e.g. health (people will pay anything for a treatment if it means life or death, and nothing if they don't
need that treatment; lower prices will not increase demand); food (people have to eat; their demand can not drop to zero); ditto
housing; and especially labour (people have to work to provide for themselves; the so called Manchester capitalism throve exactely
on that) N.B.: A free market is a market in which supply and demand float freely, coupled by the price, not a market without any
regulations! That would be a lawless market i.e. a gold digger town economy. Such markets tend not to remain free for long. Furthermore,
please remember: A free market produces an equilibrium, and that's it! The point of equilibrium might still be unacceptable for
moral reasons e.g such an equilibrium could very well be high unemployment, or a food shortage. And about privatisation: Even
microeconomic science tells us that things will become more efficient if there is competition, not just because the players are
private. A private monopolist is as bad, or even worse than a public one.
Jeff Bezos collects almost 9 million dollars an hour at his job while I make 15 dollars an hour at mine. I spend every dollar
I make to survive, which makes my economic worth zero. Bezos collects his dollars into the billions and has a gigantic economic
worth. Because I live my life without enough money it's easy for me to forget that we are not economic things and that our value
and worth cannot be summed by economic terms. I don't have any value or worth, I am not a commodity, I am not a variable or a
statistic. I am not a cog in a wheel or a rat in a race. None of us are, but our culture conditions us to accept ourselves as
consumers and nothing else. When we worry about our worth and value as people we are using incompatible terms. Bezos is not worth
more than me or anyone else. He is not more valuable than anyone else. The only difference between Bezos and myself is that his
ability to consume is off the charts and mine is minimal. If we really are economic entities then I am an earthbound worm eating
dirt while Bezos exists as a tremendous black hole consuming matter, light, and everything else. I don't want to be a black hole.
I want to create, like the burning stars, shedding heat and light as I consume what I am. It's a choice to be a black hole or
a star. Create more, consume less.
The United States of America of today has effectively two systems: capitalism - the main one -, and socialism, in the Pentagon
(which is between one tenth and one quarter of the American economy, depending on how you want to count it). The Pentagon is effectively
socialist because, given the sui generis nature of the defense sector and the advanced level of the American capitalism, it runs,
internally, a perfectly planned economy. How is it done? It receives unconditional and unlimited amounts of money-capital directly
from the USG. Yes, the "outside world" is still capitalist, and many Pentagon contracts end up fueling the capitalist part of
the country - and that's why the capitalist part of the USA is still the hegemonic one - but, in its inner logic, it is socialist.
Why the USA accepts a big chunk of its economy to be socialist? Because the use value of national security requires absolute efficiency
in terms of logistic readiness and lethal efficacy: you can't not bomb country X simply because the quantity of missiles Y would
not be on a scale sufficient large enough to meet the necessary profit rates of supplier Z. No, if you need 1 missile Y at exact
time W to achieve a military victory against country X, you bet your life the Pentagon will have it -- regardless if it is "cost
effective" from the capitalist point of view. The only other time the USA was as socialist was during FDR: this reveals the American
pragmatism towards the overall survival of capitalism.
What the late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan used by 11,000 companies, called The Second Income
Plan, deserves consideration. See SECOND INCOMES at aesopinstitute.org for a description. This is a Third Way that captures the
advantages of capitalism while overcoming many of the disadvantages.
I believe that a combination of Capitalism & Socialism can work & is already working ,like the VA, which I use & i'm completely
satisfied. Social security doesn't pay all my bills, but without it I would depend on the one day old Doughnut Company to eat.
Having said all of the above, what made America Great is incentive, motivation & creativity that is the result of Capitalism.
Socialism must be used in Education, rather then the insurance loan that put Graduates in debt for years. It should not be an
open door to higher education, but given to only those that are qualified. Universal Health care has to be Socialized, & given
only to the needy. Neither Socialism or Capitalism is the answer when used without the other, together it's not perfect but better
than alone.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
One of the most sought-after visa programs in the U.S., the H-1B, could see some significant
changes in 2019, according
to President Trump , including a potential path to citizenship for recipients of the
non-immigrant visa.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire graduate-level workers in specialty occupations, like IT,
finance, accounting, architecture, engineering, science and medicine. Any job that requires
workers to have at least a bachelor's degree falls under the H-1B for specialty
occupations.
Each year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allots about 85,000 of the
H-1B visas -- 65,000 for applicants with a bachelor's degree or equivalent, and 20,000 for
those with a master's degree or higher.
As of April 2017, when Trump signed an executive order -- "Buy American and Hire American"
-- it's become more difficult for U.S. companies to hire people via H-1B. It directs the
Department of Homeland Security to only grant the visas to the "most-skilled or highest-paid
beneficiaries."
Here's a look at the American companies (and industries) that benefited the most from the
program in 2017.
Cognizant: The IT services business had a whopping 3,194 H-1B initial petitions approved in
2017, the most of any U.S. company by almost 600.
Amazon: In 2017, the e-commerce behemoth hired 2,515 employees via
the H-1B visa program, according to data compiled by the
National Foundation for American Policy . That was about a 78 percent increase from 2016,
or 1,099 more employees.
Microsoft: Microsoft hired 1,479 workers through H-1B in 2017, the second most of U.S.
companies -- an increase in 334 employees from the year prior, or close to 29 percent.
IBM: In 2017, IBM employed about 1,231 workers through the H-1B visa program.
Intel: The California-based company employed 1,230 workers through H-1B in 2017, 200 more
workers -- or a 19 percent increase -- compared to 2016.
Google: The search engine giant had 1,213 H-1B initial petitions approved for fiscal year
2017, a 31 percent increase of about 289 from 2016.
If China Is Suffering So Much Because of Trump's Trade War, Why Is Its Surplus Up So
Much?
By Dean Baker
Donald Trump has made his tariffs against China and other countries a big part of his
agenda as president. He even went so far as to dub himself "Tariff Man" on Twitter.
The media have been quick to assume that Tariff Man is accomplishing his goals, especially
with regard to China. It is standard for news articles, like this one, to assert that China's
economy is suffering in large part because of Trump's tariffs.
In fact, through the first ten months of 2018 China's trade surplus * with the United
States on trade in goods has been $344.5 billion. This is up 11.5 percent from its surplus in
the same months last year.
The tariffs surely are having some effect, and China's surplus would almost certainly be
larger if they were not in place. But it is difficult to believe that China's $13.5 trillion
dollar economy (measured at exchange rate values) could be hurt all that much by somewhat
slower growth in its trade surplus with the United States. (For arithmetic fans, the surplus
is equal to 2.5 percent of China's GDP. We are talking about slower growth in this
surplus.)
It is worth noting that we will not be getting new trade data until the government
shutdown is over since the Census Bureau is one of the government agencies without funding
for fiscal year 2019.
I posted an NYT piece the other day
that described an automobile-headlight
manufacturer in Michigan who was struggling
to get LED bulbs from China, where they were
usually in plentiful supply, So, he was just
*trying* to stockpile some inventory.
Trump Has Promised to Bring Jobs Back. His Tariffs Threaten to Send Them Away.
By Peter S. Goodman
For EBW Electronics, the biggest hit has come through increased costs for components,
including transistors, resistors and capacitors. Across the breadth of the factory, workers
in blue lab coats slot these nibs of metal into circuit boards and then attach LED lights,
most of these items imported from China.
These components are produced at enormous scale in China. Even with tariffs on Chinese
imports, American factories have no incentive to make them, because profit margins are tiny,
and the costs are vast.
"Nobody in this country wants to make these things," said Mr. Steeby, the EBW president,
echoing a contention heard widely here.
The company has filed for exemptions from the tariffs, but has yet to hear back from the
federal government. And EBW has encountered stiff resistance in passing on the extra costs to
its customers, though it is obliged to continue delivering lights to major auto manufacturers
at agreed-upon prices, or pay fines for interfering with production.
"We're the monkey in the middle," said Mr. LeBlanc, the EBW chairman.
If Mr. Trump follows through on threats to raise tariffs to 25 percent, EBW and its 230
employees could face dire circumstances.
"At 25 percent, we are not making money," Mr. Steeby said. "There's a threat that you
cease to exist, or there's a threat that jobs move to Mexico."
In an era of anxiety over global competition, EBW has engaged Chinese suppliers to produce
a crucial commodity -- American paychecks. Now, Mr. Trump's tariffs have put jobs at
risk.
"There's no intelligence to the way this is being done," Mr. Steeby said. "The tariffs are
designed to hurt China, but they are being paid by American companies."
Of course, the Mr. Steeby, President of EBW Electronics, is without question, honest and
trustworthy. Like a boy scout, he would never lie. What he said should be taken as the gospel
truth, not a grain of salt.
I posted an NYT piece the other day
that described an automobile-headlight
manufacturer in Michigan who was struggling
to get LED bulbs from China, where they were
usually in plentiful supply, So, he was just
*trying* to stockpile some inventory.
[ There is no indication the company is stockpiling LED bulbs, and there is no indication
there is stockpiling as yet through the economy. ]
[ No, the matter is important, and I am correct and do not care to be baited.
This is no data showing that American companies are stockpiling. American companies have
long operated with minimal inventory and a change would be dramatic. ]
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
"... Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military establishment. ..."
If Syria wins the award for Country of the Year 2018, I'd hate to see who gets the Wooden
Spoon for 2018. There must be quite a few serious contenders for that prize!
Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer
disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that
constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own
collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity
Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military
establishment.
"US agents have fired tear gas over the border into Mexico at migrants trying to enter the
country illegally.
Around 150 Central Americans tried to make the crossing near the town of Tijuana to the
south of California on New Year's Day.
One US official described the migrants as a "violent mob".
It comes as the US federal government remains shut down as President Donald Trump and
Congress argue over funding for his proposed border wall." BBC
------------
The BBC does not seem to know that the US voluntarily admits over one million legal
IMMIGRANTS per year. These people are automatically on a track to full citizenship after five
years residence if they behave themselves, pay their taxes, do not commit criminal acts, etc.
They can accelerate that process if they join the US armed forces and serve honorably.
The people now seeking to force their way across the border seem to think that they are
justified in crashing across the US border with Mexico without regard to US law. To willingly
cross the US border illegally is a misdemeanor crime. The US government has a duty under the
constitution to defend the borders of the US against foreign invasion. How are foreign people
trying to crash through the border not an invasion? Tear gas? Yes, it makes you cry and choke.
The alternative is force escalating to deadly force.
The US listens to petitions for asylum from conditions that threaten life. The US does not
recognize petitions for asylum based on poor conditions of local economy or crime in countries
of origin. If the US did accept such petitions, most of the population of the planet would be
eligible for asylum in the US.
The argument is raised that the US should make Central America an earthly paradise, a
veritable Nebraska in which Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans would be content to abide.
Well, pilgrims, as I have explained here several times, the US has been trying to do that in
Latin America ever since the Kennedy Administration with minimal success. Do these little
countries wish to surrender their sovereignty to the US so that we might perform our magic of
enrichment and creation of actual democracy upon them? I think they do not. They approach our
borders waving the various flags of their wretched countries even while asking for ASYLUM from
those countries, countries that cannot run their own affairs well enough to make people want to
stay home and live the good life Latino style.
Make no mistake. If these migrants, who think nothing of using little children as human
shields, force surrender of control of immigration, there will be a tidal wave coming behind
them. pl
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
By Jeffrey D Sachs November 8, 2019
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee July 8, 2015
Trump's backing of Saudi war in Yemen is 'business decision'
Print
