Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Trump $6.2 TRILLION Fight Against COVID Is Economically Responsible 

March 28, 2020

Finance is a convenient servant to the economy. Finance is not even necessary to the economy, and no economy, no money.  The six trillion dollars signed and negotiated by Trump do two things: 1) and most important, sustain and amplify the essential economy. 2) keep alive the non-essential economy, which would otherwise stop existing (… we can gently ease it out later…) 

The 2.2 Trillion Dollars Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed the US Senate 96 to zero (4 Senators were COVID or quarantined). Two days later the US Congress passed it, and Trump, who had helped to negotiate the details, signed it immediately. There were no hearing: all gt together, including Trump, who agreed to much Democratic ideas…

This was the largest financial intervention act of a state in the history of humanity.

The same day, Trump used the Defense Procurement Act, forcing General Motors to produce respirators. Trump added he may use the FPA again, as “we have a couple of little problem children… two companies which are NOT doing what they said they would be doing.  

Some anti-Trumpers screamed to high heavens that Trump was exploding the national debt, and bringing financial ruin to the US. Critics of the 6.2 trillion dollar intervention do not understand how the economy works. In particular, they do not understand the essence of the economy, which is GOVERNMENTALISM. Let me explain.

***

Big US debt procurement during World War Two was highly profitable to the US… and WORLD, economy… Let alone those who wanted to smash Nazism and other fascisms…

National debt, in a sovereign country acts, potentially, like a future tax, on those wealthy enough to have lent the money, or, potentially, as a future tax on those who received the money… I say debt is a “potential tax”, because reimbursement conditions can, and often, will vary. For example, if money is lent, but not reimbursed, it acts as gift, or theft, depending if one is on the receiving, or donating end. Europeans have acted stupid, ever since the EU was founded, as if they didn’t understand that (but the UK understood it, explaining partly its better economic performance.)

Let me add that this is not the case here; the 6.2 trillions are no augmentation of the national debt (explanation another time). 

What Trump is doing is putting the US economy on life support, while providing massive financing for research and development… and health care: 150 billion dollars for hospitals alone.

Here is an example: CDC Dr. Fauci said industrial fabrication of vaccines will be launched, even while one can’t know yet if those vaccines will work, or even if those vaccines do not launch the dreared “IMMUNE ENHANCEMENT”… that is during Phase 2 trials; that will be costly as perhaps two dozen vaccines are being developed (using sometimes extremely different methods: the Pasteur institute is using its usual method to see if its hybrid coronavirus-brucellosis is safe on mice and soon primates… While Sanofi will further push a 2017 “prototype” SARS vaccine using recombinant tech; several RNA vaccines are already in human trials, testing for basic safety…)     

A nominal increase in national debt acts as real free money for now.. And a potential, just potential, tax. I say potential, because, for a country of Argentina and if the money has been lent by foreigners, one may have to pay back part of it… But if one is the USA, one doesn’t have to pay any of one’s debt. Especially to foreigners. If foreigners don’t like it, they should feel happy to have lend so much money to such a superpower

One of the reason the European economy has stagnated is that it has insisted to inflict high taxes on citizens, instead of much more forgiving debt (which growth can erase; so debt enables and incites a sovereign country to grow faster…)

As it is, moreover, Trump’s two trillion is not necessarily a debt. And it’s actually six trillion dollars. 

Japan has a national (“Federal”) debt in excess of 200% of GDP. On March 27, it had only 49 deaths from Coronavirus, out of 1,700 cases, with a (so far) completely flattened curve, and a death rate per million not even one tenth that of the USA. In general the Japanese economy had not been doing badly with that debt… maintaining, for example a first class universal health system…. At a time when the USA is demonstrating, for the whole world to see, that a profit guided health system is a colossal disaster. Indeed, soon the USA may have much more than a million Coronavirus cases, and that will be imputable in part to not have been willing to spend more on healthcare (instead of spending on the billionaires who profit from US healthcare).  

The Federal government created two trillion dollars as direct help with CARES. To this one has to add 4 trillions of the US Federal Reserve at the disposal of banks through leverage (to start with; the Fed has said it will create whatever money is needed). None of this money is really debt. At most it means part of the US economy is getting nationalized (the average citizen becomes a shareholder).

***

Take four cases I personally know of:

Picture a 500 rooms/apartments hotel/resort without any revenue for the rest of the year. It’s a “family business”. It has employees, pays their healthcare 100%. It’s at 7,000 feet, it has large fixed cost in heating, security, maintenance. And revenue is now zero. And will stay so for many months. What to do? A bank loan! But where does the bank get the money from? The Federal Reserve, which lends it at zero interest!

Picture my climbing gym. Actually a company with a dozen climbing gyms, with course setters, maintenance, staff, and paying 100% health care. Same story as the preceding.

Third example: a research institute in AI getting its money from corporations with now zero revenue. They said they were firing all their scientists, effective in June. The Trump administration is stepping in.   

Fourth example: Several science museums I know. There is money for them in the two trillions. Trump himself explained the Kennedy Center for the Arts needed 25 millions to pay salaries, maintenance (the Dems wanted 35 millions initially). 

***

Trump is using MASSIVE GOVERNMENTALISM. Smart.

What is important is that expertise not be lost. OK, a bit of expertise lost in completely useless parts of the economy will be OK… But futuristically essential services should be maintained. For example in teaching, research, industrial base. 

The mightiest states are always living with fiat money. The Inca were using knots on ropes. The very fact a state can impose fiat money is an expression of its power. As it is, there is going to be a hole of one third of GDP, because one third of all transactions in one year will not happen. So the state making it so that it will appear these transactions did happen… Even if they didn’t. 

Debt, left unpaid, means some people with excess capital may be cheated on. But debt, left unpaid, can save an economy. What is it not to like? I always said that Trump, as his chronology and behavior indicates, was truly a real Democrat (aka a “populist”… despised by the haves). TARP, organized by Obama, was truly a Transfer of Assets to Rich People. Whereas CARES has tight oversight, and pays the average family (which TARP didn’t do). CARES is the right thing to do. The alternative was a depression worse than 1929.

This virus crisis is an excellent occasion to find out how the economy works. First, one can see that 90% of the economy, or so, is useless. One can also see that the essential part of the economy, including scientific research, advanced, life saving technology, is underfinanced.

In Italy, some medical workers get paid less than $1,000 a month. Yes, less than a thousand dollars, and now the opportunity to die. But then they were honored by watching on TV brainless muscle guys paid more than one hundred million a year, just to hit a ball with their foot.

Ironically enough, the USA, and the world, is lucky that the US President is a specialist of saving (his won!) value through bankruptcy (ironically yours truly saw this, at the time, as corruption… Meanwhile, though, we have seen much bigger corruption than that…

CARES is bringing in money, as needed. Trump is ordering around General Motors, as, unfortunately, needed. This is a war. War can be good.  Universal health care systems in Europe were created thanks to the shock of World War Two. Coronavirus is the bellicose occasion we needed to reorganize the world economy in a more essential way.

Patrice Ayme 

.

 

Say: WEAT, Wealth Economic Activation Tax. Rather Than: “Wealth Tax”.

November 18, 2019

Applauded in US, Reviled in China:

To justify the mass deportation of maybe as much as a million Chinese (Muslim) Uighurs, the Beijing authorities observed:  “Did they commit a crime? No… It is just that their thinking has been infected by unhealthy thoughts… Freedom is only possible when this ‘virus’ in their thinking is eradicated and they are in good health.

Well, in the West, it is unnecessary to hold such a discourse: the submissives don’t even know the names of their masters… basically the media owners, all wealthy beyond belief. (By the way, the link above is to the New York Times. The real hero is the high level insider in China who leaked the documents. Amusingly, the greatest leaker has been Edward Snowden, who revealed US spy agencies spied on all US citizens with the complicity, conscious or not, of the tech monopolies. Snowden is reviled by the US establishment, the Chinese leaker has already obtained sainthood…)

***

Plutocrats are not just greedy: they want to put us in chains, because they like us to suffer: 

(This is the little point Rousseau overlooked, earning the scorn of De Sade.) To put us in chains, plutocrats confiscate much of the capital of the economy. (Not just because they want ever more capital, as Marx erroneously believed, but because they are… sadistic). To counteract the evil designs of those addicts of the Dark Side (however unconscious they claim to be), I advocate WEAT. 

In the last few weeks, the conspiracy against Warren has born fruit: she is not first in the polls, even in Iowa, the first state to vote, where Mr. Buttsomegig, apparently one of those pseudo-democrat from the school of pseudo-progress, is now leading. As I explained long ago, the impeachment targets Warren, not Trump. (Nobody seems to understand this.)

Hyper wealth reduces access to property, economy, and democracy for most people. Even health care gets confiscated: plutocrats organize health care as a source of profit. Patients who pay less, get less. I just ordered glasses. I have very high astigmatism. There were ten levels of quality of the lenses, the prices varied from one to five. The lowest level guaranteed a very reduced field of view. The most expensive, made by French Essilor, used special lenses, recut by computer driven laser. Not everybody can afford $500 lenses. If not, much less good vision, with consequences on driving, walking, etc. 

The failure of Obamacare, Reaganism for health care, shows up in the graph of life expectancy. Obama is the life expectancy inflection curve guy…

Obamacare acknowledged the necessity of organizing society around plutocratic profit (a Reagan moral imperative). Thus it compensated for those able to afford ‘less” by bringing in taxpayer money; however Obamacare didn’t change the basic picture, although it confused the issue… dental and eye care was still out of the picture… So was the little detail that Medicare is just 80%…

So the rise of plutocracy, Obamacare, Transferring Assets to Rich People, has corresponded to a lowering of life expectancy. 

One interest of a wealth tax is to reduce this confiscation of much by a few. Just taking wealth and reducing the national debt would reduce economic activity, and increase the worth of wealth, thus confiscate more from the commons, and make the wealthy relatively wealthier, achieving the exact opposite effect. So using a wealth tax to reduce debt… the latter being an obsession of the wealthiest and less economically active, would serve the wealthy, not most of the population. 

Instead, one has to use a wealth tax to augment economic activity and avenues for most people to increase their worth. Some of the wealthy argues that seizing two cents of their wealth would reduce the recycling of their wealth, the recycling of these two cents, into economic activity. A way to avoid this would be to enforce the recycling of 100% of the taxed wealth into economic projects. To avoid this, one should allow no injection of taxed wealth in the general budget. Thus one could present the wealth tax not as a redistribution tax, but a Wealth Economic Activation Tax. WEAT

Thus a wealth tax will have the following beneficial effects on civilization:

  1. Economic Activation of the US wealth tax, the Wealth Economic Activation Tax will be its first effect, forcing money out of the vaults of the wealthy. Those vaults could be bonds, real estate, money losing media… So WEAT will increase what is technically known as the “speed of money”.
  2. Removing even the possibility to plot to confiscate wealth from the general economy, society and democracy will be the second effect, it will inflect the economic organization of society. In today’s society, the plutocrats have so much clout, they establish government for all to see (Davos). Once the wealth tax is in place, connivence of the government and Deep State with plutocracy will be replaced by an adversarial relationship. The Davos mindset will look for what it is: a conspiracy of criminals. 
  3. The Wealth Tax will foster progressive diminution of plutocracy, that is will save civilization from the control of the mentality which a few power obsessed, evil inhabited families impose at all levels of government, and society.  

The wealth tax is a must if we want the biosphere, and, a fortiori, civilization, to survive. The wealth tax is why the Roman Republic lasted five centuries (and arguably longer). Learn from history, to be spared the same catastrophes, just, way bigger, and radioactive too.

Patrice Ayme

Plutocratic Media Hates Wealth Tax, Censors Critics, Ignores Theft Of Intellectual Property By Monopolies. Save the Republic, Tax Pluto!

October 3, 2019

Too Much Corruption makes worlds collapse:

Forgive them, for they don’t know what they do. 2,000 year old wisdom from the crucified, completely obsolete nowadays in light of, say, Nazism. The first thing miscreants do, nowadays, is to make sure that they know nothing.

The swamp has investigated itself, and found itself clear as a mountain brook. Studying the Roman Republic shows the corruption was all over. Caesar’s main assassins, Brutus and Cassius were astoundingly corrupt. More than a decade before the assassination, Brutus and Cassius were exploiting to death (literally) Greece, Asia.

Thus now we have the world similarly teetering on the verge of collapse, in great part because of the corruption of our political leaders, who are in hock with the world plutocracy.

***

The New York wrote an article critical of the Wealth Taxes proposed by Warren:

… and now Sanders. It contained gems such as:”Progressive Democrats are advocating the most drastic shift in tax policy in over a century as they look to redistribute wealth and chip away at the economic power of the superrich with new taxes that could fundamentally reshape the United States economy…

But the idea of redistributing wealth by targeting billionaires is stirring fierce debates at the highest ranks of academia and business, with opponents arguing it would cripple economic growth, sap the motivation of entrepreneurs who aspire to be multimillionaires and set off a search for loopholes.”

… as if there were no loopholes now! The IRS code is a vast loophole, hundreds of pages long… 

What is hidden behind this graph. The wealthier the family, the more augmentation of wealth and income it got.

1,500 comments were authorized, my first and main comment was censored (as it alluded to precisely what happened, namely the Pluto media don’t like anti-Pluto comments, when those comments are not of an officially authorized type). This New York Times article had no content, except for the hare-brained cliché always evoked by plutophiles, namely that taxing wealth kills innovation. Actually it’s the other way around: plutocracy kills thinking, hence innovation. 

In an orgasm of dishonesty, an article in the NYT pretended that two university professors said the opposite of what they truly said in their original paper, by careful sampling of them… quoting others. That’s a type of dishonesty which should be publicized. Professors Sarin and Summers actually proposed to tax wealth more broadly than Warren and Sanders proposed, and thus, even MORE!… The exact opposite of what the NYT pretended. I agree with broad taxation of wealth (and there should be no cpaital gains tax on little guys, just like in Switzerland… which has a wealth tax, BTW… The Swiss economy is the best functioning in Europe.) 

Here is my comment censored (or delayed so much nobody would read it) by the plutocratic New York Times (I repeat, New York Times, pay attention, such censorship should be illegal, it breaches the US First Amendment, and you fiduciary duty as official press):

“Elitist US universities depend upon plutocratic money, and extreme inequality: this is what pays tuition and advertises them as the “best” schools on Earth. So one would expect wealthy economists therein plutocratic universities, feeding at the rich trough of plutocratic flattery, are all for extreme wealth and against taxing it

Plutocratic drift sucks society into a dark hole where not just the wealthiest individuals, but the basest, most cruel instincts, come to rule. One can already see this in media owned by plutocracy: an effect is Brexit. Wealthy British based plutocrats wanted to keep paying no or little taxes, they knew the EU’s new law that it is illegal to do so becomes effective December 31, 2019, so they made it so to create a cognitive bias against the European Union thanks to their control of British media.

People are not going to stop wanting to be even more wealthy, just because 2% of their wealth will be taken out above 50 million (if Warren proposes 2% it will probably end with 1%). Whereas right now small inventors cannot, thanks to pro-plutocratic, pro-monopolistic laws, exert their Intellectual Property rights in the USA. Instead, they have to file in the EU, or China! Indeed, they now have to prove they were economically injured by the stealing of their IP by powerful monopolies. So, right now, monopolies make it difficult for inventors to become millionaires. That is really a huge problem for the innovation system upon which a growing economy depends. This violation of IP and Patent Laws happened at the behest of present plutocracy, thus blatantly all too powerful already.

When billionaires reinvest billions in their own enterprises, they should be allowed to do so, after said enterprise have been determined to be of “public utility” (so part of Bezos wealth going to his rocket company, or energy investments of Gates, should be exempted, case by case, year by year).”

That was it. Hateful and racist comment of mine against the established order and its plutocrato-philanthropic, Trump hating class, was censored. Let me repeat with more detail: tech monopolies, that is, billionaires friendly with the NSA and Deep State, and Bush-SCOTUS-Obama-Biden, made it difficult for inventors to become millionaires (so that they, and only them and their friends and servants would become filthy rich, and inventors such as yours truly, dirt poor). The Supreme Court Of US decision of 2006 was the beginning of the end, but Obama is the guy who came out fiercely against little inventors, calling them “TROLLS” and “NON PRACTICING ENTITIES”. (He would know a troll, being the biggest of them all!) Only those who gave millions and services worth even more to the Biden-Obama families, and their puppett masters are “practicing entities” (I observed).

Just to compare, having sent my enlightened comment in the dark bowell of its Pluto conspiracy, the NYT got very excited by insipid remarks, the following one by “Ned” from Truckee being typical:

“Ned”, from Truckee, Times Pick:

“If an entrepreneur or inventor creates a huge amount of value for society, they deserve rich rewards – billions if that’s what it is. But, you can’t take it with you, and ultimately, external rewards are meaningless.

Warren and Sanders ought to refrain from vilifying the ultra-wealthy, and instead extol the virtue of those who create wealth and then return it to society, either through philanthropy or by paying workers more.”

Ned has spoken! In his gutter wisdom! And except the latter “extolled virtue” is not happening (without the threat of revolution).

***

Wealth in California augmented, but not as much for REAL INVENTORS as for plutocrats…

In truth, the REAL INVENTORS started to be shut down in 2006, and the Obama presidency finished shutting them off:

… big time, with Obama attacking IP “trolls” on TV. Ignorant semi-wits such as “Ned” don’t know little guys Intellectual Property has lost value, enormously, thanks to the pseudo-left, SCOTUS and super troll Obama. Nor does he know that most entrepreneurs are highly fungible: if Zuck didn’t exist, another 1,000 Zucks could rise. Same for Jobs, Gates, etc. All these guys exploited other individuals’ inventions. The guy who invented optical pumping, hence the laser, Kastler, got the Nobel, but that was it. Others, many others, made billions from the laser.

Under Bush (starting in 2006) and Obama, the Intellectual property system got gutted in the USA, thanks to the enormous tech companies and the Deep State’s little plan to connect them to intelligence/surveillance agencies: to prove that they had been wronged, small investors needed not just to demonstrate that they had been stolen. Now they also had to demonstrate to have been economically injured (which they couldn’t, as they made no money from their stolen inventions). Such laws were passed under the influence of tech monopolies. I am personally familiar with a case were a federal judge decided of a very important case in the morning, and then resigned and accepted five million dollars from Facebook in the afternoon (names can be provided on legal request).It was the case of a small electronic company which had won, thanks to a jury, yet its enormous legal fees from its defense were not paid by its giant attacker, thanks to the 5 million dollars judge.

Now Zuck, head of Facebook, and minder of the world, art expert banning Middle Age art, declares he will fight Senator Warren’s wealth tax OK, another time!). I declare Zuck has too much power. He is just a glorified high school drop-out, and the fact that he drops in presidential palaces, worldwide, aggravates his case… I replied to @Ned:

Ultra wealth kills the Republic. Money is power. Too much money in too few hands means too much power in too few hands.

Ultra wealth wants to gut the country of employment and and any other power from We The People (Demos-Kratia = People-power). Because removing power from We the People prevents revolution. This is exactly how the Roman Republic went down, and it was said at the time (read the Gracchi brothers). This is exactly the scheme in place today: ultra wealth has escaped taxation and law, by going overseas (“China”). Then it got so wealthy it can mold the minds of entire countries.

An example is Brexit. The plutocrat owned media in Britain wanted out of the EU for (new) tax reason. So it made it so that people would hate “Brussels”. That some people have a thousand times more power than others can be tolerated. But a million times? At some point, in Rome, the hyper wealthy started to own not just judges, but armies…

***

Obama’s guru Summers has evolved: he is now FOR taxing wealth and lobbying, BROADLY:

I read the article from Larry Summers and Natasha Sarin which the New York Times refers to. It doesn’t mainly say what the NYT claims the article mainly says, just the opposite (the article sort of says it a bit, but it’s not its main point). What professors Summers and Sarin mostly say is the opposite.

The best way to reduce power from oligarchs and plutocrats is by first broadening the tax base. Indeed. Sarin and Summers want to close tax loopholes for the rich, first. Basically the professors point out that the wealthiest and powerful can invest, tax free into all sorts of consultancies and foundations (let alone universities) which are used to influence voters, media and politicians (they give the example of the mighty NRA). If taxation doesn’t strike this system of influence peddling first, a wealth tax will have the opposite effect: the mental control oligarchs exert through these tax evading loopholes will drive public opinion against taxing the wealthiest!  

***

Summers & Sarin truly said: “We have sympathy with complaints that economic policy decision-making gives too much weight to the interests of affluent elites. But we are skeptical that large rate hikes or wealth taxes are the right way to address this problem.

First, these proposals do not get at the main ways in which the wealthy exercise influence. The whole apparatus of think tanks, research institutes, advocacy groups — organizations like the Federalist Society, which has transformed the judiciary — are supported by tax-deductible contributions that tax hikes will not discourage. Indeed, increases in tax rates or broad wealth taxation would make it cheaper in terms of forgone personal spending to support advocacy efforts or to create elite enclaves.

Second, even draconian tax hikes will not have a major impact on the ability of very wealthy Americans to be politically influential. For a few tens of million dollars, an individual or interest group can become a major political player. Even if you took away half the wealth of a billionaire, that person would still be able to invest $50 million a cycle in political activity without dipping into capital…

Third, many of the areas of special interest concern that seem most serious do not involve players who would be substantially impacted by recent tax proposals because they are not hugely wealthy. Think about the way the NRA distorts gun control debates or how community bankers resist consumer financial reform.

If the concern is with the excessive power wielded by wealthy elites, there are more effective strategies. Consideration should be given to limiting the deductibility of lobbying expenditures; restricting the ability of political organizations to have allied 50(c)(3) organizations that can receive tax-deductible contributions; and tightening the rules on donor-advised funds that enable the wealthy to get essentially all the benefits of foundations without any of the requirements to pay out resources or provide any public transparency.

***

So Summers and Sarin, far from criticizing the principle of a wealth tax as lowering the innovation and animal spirits of society, advocate a generalization of the concept of wealth, and of taxing that first, instead. They say this guarantees thrice the tax revenue, and will avoid the backlash from the wealthiest by cutting first the very organs they use to transmit their influence on society. 

***

The next day, the NYT allowed my comment (safe: nobody would read it now!) and then ran later an article saying: “A Wealth Tax Is Pro-Growth. Don’t believe the scaremongering.” (By David Leonhardt.)

Well, more importantly, only with a wealth tax We The People can afford to have a republic. The Roman Republic lasted five centuries, in full, because it had a wealth tax. And it was confiscated, when the army had enough of civil war and inequality caused by the ultra wealthy.

Patrice Ayme

 

Why Is Portugal Collapsing? From Deindustrialization and Dummification. Same As Rest of EU

September 5, 2019

The problem for Portugal, and, more and more for all European countries, more or less: what are they living from? What do they sell? What’s their job? European countries need gas, oil, and high technology: but (differently from the USA) they import all this… well, OK, France has Airbus … But France used to have much more! 

Europe has fallen asleep. The Court of Auditors in France has said that Arianespace is two years old to find a solution to the competition of SpaceX, Blue Origin (with their reusable rockets). Meanwhile, SpaceX continues its experimental efforts at a torrid pace, staggering, India is trying to land on the moon, or a Chinese robot has just made a weird discovery.

China, India and, of course, the US have fully understood that the future and independence can come only from technological dominance, so they make enormous efforts. Europe concentrates on tourism, museums, comfort and widespread mediocrity … And especially on the German industry secretly financed by small bankrupt banks financed by the German states … Unfortunately, the rest of Europe suddenly deindustrializes. ..

Population Collapse, Working Population Collapse: Thank You, Great EU Planners

All vital imports for Europe must be paid: with what money? Unlike the United States (or even Great Britain!), Europe does not create enough funding to finance industries that could create currencies for Europe to pay for what it needs.

In the fourteenth century, Portugal, then a tiny country of a million inhabitants, just released from five centuries of Muslim yoke, had the most advanced technology (maritime) in the world (and against attacked Muslims in Morocco). And now? Where is the Portuguese or even European technology? Now, technology is asking for the moon…

Historians are often baffled by the undeniable rise of the European society and economy by the Eleventh Century [2]. Soon north-west Europe had around the same demographics as the entire Roman empire (more 54 millions), and achieved greater productivity. It doesn’t take very long to find out why: Europe was stuffed of windmills, water wheels, heavy steel ploughs (to turn over fat rich soils of northern European plains), hydraulic hammers, and slow or fast ships all over, enabling trade all over, for example between Scandinavia and the Middle East, Norway and Sicily…

It’s so obvious that many non-European powers have perfectly understood the lesson. So why has Europe forgotten it? Because Europe is the revolutionary center …that mostly came from the driving engine of the early Renaissance, Western Francia, which was divided in 60 states in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. because Europe is the revolutionary center, the European media, owned by the plutocracy, has been excellent at making Europeans believe in the opposite of common sense and their self-interest. Instead, they learned to play, sing, dance and get drunk on their past…

As long as this is not understood, Europe, and Portugal in particular, will sink [3].

Patrice Ayme

[The preceding was machine translated from French original below!]

***

***

[1 ] After all transistors were mass produced, and invented, in France, in 1948, with the help of two German scientists… and not by US, as corrupt Swedish Nobel organization claims…).

***

[2] Berengar of Tours (c. 999 – 6 January 1088), in Latin Berengarius Turonensis, was an 11th-century French Christian theologian and archdeacon of Angers, a realistic scholar whose spectacular leadership of the cathedral school at Chartres set an example of intellectual inquiry. He was excommunicated for his fostering of reason, but, protected by the enlightened William of Normandy, kept on prospering and his ideas spread all over, forever after…

***

[3] Even the crazed out Boris Johnson understands perfectly well that the fate of Great Britain rests in developing more advanced technology (hence is extolling of the… JET, the Joint EUROPEAN (!) Torus…).

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

French Original:

Le problème pour le Portugal, et, de plus en plus tous les pays Européens, plus ou moins: de quoi vivent-ils? Il leur faut du gaz, du pétrole, et de la haute technologie: mais ils importent tout cela (bon d’accord la France a Airbus…).

L’Europe s’est endormie. La Cour des Comptes en France a dit qu’Arianespace a deux ans pour trouver une solution à la concurrence de SpaceX, Blue Origin (avec leurs fusées réutilisables). Pendant ce temps, SpaceX continue ses efforts expérimentaux à un rythme torride, sidérant, l’Inde essaye d’atterrir sur la Lune, ou un robot Chinois vient de faire une découverte bizarre. 

La Chine, l’Inde et, bien sur, les USA ont parfaitement compris que le futur et l’indépendance ne peuvent venir que de la domination technologique, donc ils font des efforts énormes . L’Europe se concentre sur tourisme, musées, confort et médiocrité généralisée… Et surtout sur l’industrie allemande financée en secret par des petites banques en faillite financées par les etats allemands… Malheureusement, le reste de l’Europe du coup se désindustrialise… 

Toutes les importations vitales pour l’Europe doivent être payées: avec quel argent? Differemment des USA (ou même de la Grande Bretagne!), l’Europe ne crée pas assez de financements pour financer les industries qui pourraient créer pour l’Europe des devises pour payer ce dont elle a besoin.

Au quatorzième siècle, le Portugal, alors un tout petit pays d’un million d’habitants, juste libéré de cinq siècles de joug Musulman, avait la technologie (maritime) la plus avancée au monde (et contre attaqua les Musulmans au Maroc). Et maintenant? Ou est la technologie Portugaise, ou même Européenne? Maintenant, la technologie, c’est demander la lune…

Lies All Over, Not Just Germany: We Need Reality, Not Frivolity

August 25, 2019

Our great “democratic” emperors are meeting in Biarritz, flushed with the arrogance of a small oligarchy imprinted to believe they have a moral right to tell a planet what to suffer.

Seventy-five years ago, Paris was freed, after 50 months of Nazi occupation (Nazism would not have happened to the extent it did, without help from the world oligarchy, direct ancestor of the one we enjoy). It happened a few weeks after the tragedy in Warsaw: civilian insurrection of the FFI (Forces Françaises Interieur), with the full participation of police and firefighters. On August 19. Within five days, it was done: the Second Armored French Division (Leclerc) followed by the US Fourth Infantry Division were in the capital, ahead of several Nazi divisions converging towards it. In five days, 5,000 people had died in combat in Paris.

Could it get worse, in the future?  Watch the Amazon, it was supposed to burn in the distant future, it’s burning now. Of course, some will sneer, evil operators are setting those fires, in the usual slash and burning technique, so it’s not really the greenhouse causing this… Yeah, remember humans are evil, especially when in power, as many of these slash and burn operators are in the Amazon?

The extent of fires in Siberia and the Amazon is entirely due to the drought the CO2 catastrophe has brought.

Not any better with our leaders: evil, and, or, dumb: the CO2 catastrophe was entirely avoidable. In 2019, around 11% of the world’s electricity is generated by about 450 nuclear power reactors. About 60 more reactors are under construction (but not in the West), equivalent to about 15% of world existing capacity. 4,000 nuclear reactors could be making 100% of the world electricity carbon free. However, because of the likes of Merkel, it has become a platitude that CO2 is better than nuclear.

To make things worse, while corrupt Germany is burning coal massively, other countries have sacrificed themselves to reduce their CO2 emissions. France, once one of the world’s largest CO2 emitters, now emits half per capita of what Germany does.

Lignite mine in Germany. For scale, notice the church in the distance… Doing such a crime is one thing, pretending one is not doing it joins insanity to criminality.

So Siberia is burning, and so is the Amazon… where, so far, there has been 80% more fires than last year, 2018. The dry season ends in October…

What’s clear is that France made huge efforts in cutting down CO2 production in the last 60 years, and China exploded its CO2 production, a testimony to how much industry got implemented there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5Hjg30b_M

***

Consider France: Why So Stupid Now? (Because Stupidification Enables Plutocratization!)

That country, France, produces no indigenous energy (except for hydro power all over: any river and brook is getting dammed, never mind if it damns the ecology). The country has a prestigious intellectual and technological history, arguably, the world’s most prominent. One would expect such a country to invest massively in hydrogen, nuclear, photovoltaics, and deploy battery systems, electric and hybrid vehicles. This is what France would have done, had France the mentality it had 50 years ago.

Yet, it’s not the case: only .5% of French cars are electric or hybrid, in 2019 (half of one percent, yes!) Yet, fracking for GAS was outlawed in France (although France has one century of frackable gas, that’s apparently best being purchased from Putin in French PC opinion; and although French fracking would have been more ecologically correct than German lignite). Meanwhile France ruins itself purchasing energy all over the world… And doesn’t invest enough in the needed research and development to make its own energy (as the USA, or Russia do).

France has much more sun than Germany, yet, French Photo Voltaic is tiny relative to German PV (no development!)

Germany preaches the religion of no indebtment to other countries… like the Borgia pope preaching abstinence to naive children… Indeed, Germany cheats with public subsidies: it has them and deny them to others. Germany has thousands of Landers banks, which are bankrupt, thus supported by local government, yet crucial to the German economy … a discrete arrangement not extended to other European countries.  bringing lots of them to near-bankruptcy, economic stagnation, and research dissolution. 

The world has a Germany problem, ecologically (thus economically). Germany gave up on nuclear power, instead of deploying, safer nuclear systems. Thus Germany replaced nuclear by lignite (dirtiest coal)… a sordid example, imitated in many countries. It is the same instinct to cling to the past, deploy nothing really new.     

Hambach Lignite Mine, Rheinland… A SMALL portion of it: it’s going to be 85 square kilometers. An ancient forest used to be there. Now it is an unbelievable 500 meters DEEP. Just that mine produces 40 million tons of lignite, a year. Germany lies about its climate effort. It’s actually devastating the world, for comparative advantage. OK, the US is worse… but the US is trying harder…’

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

Europeans are so afraid to do anything wrong, they prefer not to do anything new at all… and cling to the tried and true... In a world which makes yesterday so far away as to be useless. This is enforced by the 3% Euro deficit limit (imposed on all, yet eschewed by Germany, as I said).

[Only 12 NYT readers recommended the preceding comment of mine…]

***

Comments in the NYT were illuminative, often for the character they displayed, from down below: the following one, approved by 135 sheeple, was neither here, nor there; it just shows the party of stupid wins: 

Ernest Montague

Oakland, CA Aug. 19

@Patrice Ayme Seriously? France gets something like 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. It has 68 of them. It gets over 90% of its power from nuclear and hydro. You’re not making sense, sorry. They are the world’s largest net exporter of electricity.

[135 Recommend]

***

Notice the aggressivity: I make “no sense” Montague says. And no, he is not sorry sorry, just an arrogant twerp who doesn’t know how to read, and make Trump look like Einstein… Actually, his comment doesn’t address what I said. He is not sorry, his goal is to make a fool of me, and my sophisticate opinion. 135 readers of the NYT approve this dereliction of logic and exhibition of the Dark Side. In truth:

@Ernest Montague

France gets 40% of its power from nuclear energy, and 71% of its electricity from increasingly obsolete nuclear reactors (see the difference?) You are also confusing what France did 50 years ago, investing in new energy, before the obsession with debt, and deficits, versus what France is doing now, with a maximum 3% deficit to GDP ratio. The 58 French nuclear reactors are second generation, they were conceived and built in the 1970s, all are obsolete and somewhat dangerous (safe reactors could now be designed and built to replace them… but that’s not done). 

My point is that France has not seriously invested in energy… for 50 years. The EPR reactor has been an ill conceived disaster, symbolic of the decay of French technological investment. Tellingly, the EPR tech was purchased in Germany, not evolved in France from existing reactors.

The dearth of French investment in, say, photovoltaics, is striking in France, especially in comparison with Germany. 

[Nobody recommended my reply: readers love to kill, not learn!]

***

David in Le Marche

Italy Aug. 19

@Patrice Ayme

The quantity of wrong “information” in your comment is astounding, given the ease with which one can get reliable basic (real) information from a 20-second Google search. France is famous for the Eiffel Tower, rich cuisine, and it’s massive investment in and reliance upon nuclear energy. Oh yeah, there’s Notre Dame…. the Mona Lisa. Pretty famous country. 

Germany does still use lots of coal, but is aiming for 80% reliance on renewable energy by 2050, not good enough but better policy than the USA has, given that our president and the GOP still deny human-caused climate change.

And don’t get me started on universal German healthcare and overall quality of life compared to most countries, including ours…

27 Recommend

I replied:    

@David in Le Marche

Please read my reply to Ernest. What Paul Krugman talked about is the situation now. Notre Dame was built 8 centuries ago, and the Eiffel Tower, 132 years ago. France was indeed a very high tech country, the most very high tech country since the collapse of the Roman state, 16 centuries ago. First heavy ploughs (14 centuries ago), first hydraulic hammers (ten centuries ago), first steam engine and steam boat (Papin, 17C), first balloons, first cars (18C), first photography (black and white, color), first planes (Ader, long before Wright brothers), first discovery nuclear chain reaction (Irene Curie, 1937), first transistors mass produced (1948), first integrated circuits, discovery of optical pumping (Kastler, Nobel 1953), etc. Relativity was even discovered by Poincare, including E = mcc (1899; Einstein just repeated Poincare’s work).

However, this is now Paul was talking about, and so I am… The debt obsession is recent, hypocritical, and of recent German origin (duplicating the erroneous policies of France in the 1930s, ironically enough…)

I know France extremely well (this is written from there, miles from my birthplace). 

Reading the Internet superficially and not critically will lead to believe lots of false information and fake news, and comforting but deluded, non applicable data. Let me recommend my site instead (it’s in English). You will find there a very different view of history (different because it’s more true than traditional lies…)

***

David replied to my comment very nicely (to be continued…)

Others focused on doing what they do best, aggressive lying:

Alan

Germany Aug. 20

@Patrice Ayme:

What? Germany is reducing coal mining and the use of coal, not replacing nuclear with coal. Energy costs in Germany are considerably higher than in the USA, due to  investments in ecologically better sources. Not always successfully, for instance the photoelectric industry has suffered from larger scale and cheaper manufacturing in China. But Germany is not going back to lignite.

***

Well, Alan promoted lies: Germany depends more on lignite than on any other energy source. It’s not going back, because it’s already there. 

@Alan

Learn and meditate: In 2017, 171.2 million tonnes of lignite were mined in the whole of Germany compared to 169.8 million tonnes in 2009. Do you call this a decrease?

Lignite provides 35.3 % of energy in Germany. Highest percentage in the world, highest production in the world. How many more German misinformation do we still need?

German CO2 production has stagnated for five (5) years. Here is a heads up in the last few weeks: Michael Schäfer of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) spoke of the “disastrous results” of German environmental policy.

Opposition politician and Green Party environmental expert Lisa Badum called the latest reduction (due to warm weather) “a drop in the bucket,” demanding that the government “take a much more robust approach” to emissions reductions, including steps toward an “immediate phase-out of coal.”

Genug!

***

Several comments accused me of various forms of French, or German hating (won’t show them all). 

Kenneth Thomas

Boston Aug. 20 @Patrice Ayme France gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country). This is nothing new. France is the biggest user of nuclear power in the world. How do you not know this? That you don’t know it makes me doubt all of your factual claims.

Reply to that: I never said France was not big on nuclear power. Inventing a false statement one denounces then as a lie is an old trick to build an ad hominem disparagement, as above. Disingenuous. Thomas believes in prophets, leaders to believe, he is not about knowledge, but faith. 

***

Others opted for the pseudo-cogent approach: they want to correct “facts”, but they don’t know what “facts” are. Real facts are sincere. 

Nicolas Berger

FranceAug. 20

@Patrice Ayme

French nuclear reactors were not all built in the 1970s, the latest ones before the EPR (the so-called N4 designs) came online in the early 2000’s. French investment into nuclear power has been fairly constant since the 1960s, and it is not the case that “France has not invested in energy… for 50 years”. Please consider doing a quick internet search of your “facts” before posting incorrect information. (in this case, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)

My reply: Those N4 reactors, four of them, came online in 2000, but they were slight modifications of the old design of the 1970s, and those modifications were designed before 1984. Defects delayed them into 2000, and there are only 4 of them; so to call them 1970s design is fair, that’s what they are. They’re officially considered to be second generation… This sort of vicious comment appearing to be cogent is characteristic of disingenuous Internet manipulations. 

***

To come back to the gist of the first essay, erroneous German policies, could be done next, commenting on an arrogant and misleading comment by a German economist commenting unfavorably on Krugman’s editorial. But then I would have to repeat myself some more. Even Krugman didn’t hit the main point, namely Germany subsidizes itself, while preventing others to do the same…

We need reality, not frivolity. We live in dictatorship: a few dictate to the multitude. There is a war on truth. We can win it only by telling the truth about war. War is what all too many people love to do: it gives them meaning, analgesia. Like many of these asinine commenters at the New York Times… And of course our stupid, and, or corrupt leaders, who had the means to stop the CO2 catastrophe before it got rolling on its own, as it is presently starting to do.

Patrice Ayme

Ongoing German Lies Destroying Europe, & World: 2) Debt & Investment

August 25, 2019

In light of the Biarritz 2019 G7 Summit:

German lies have long reigned as European lies: one of the causes of Brexit. Nobody says it, so I will: the British could only feel good, because their central bank provided their economy with enough “liquidities”… Not the case in Europe, because the ECB, tied in by German (and secondarily) French plutocracies, barely provided enough money to keep hundreds of millions of Europeans alive. The British then, felt there was something right about the UK keeping its independance… and they were right.

For years, US presidents (in particular Obama and Trump) have asked the European Union to augment “consumer spending”, or “demand”. The US can’t ask loudly Europe to augment investment (except in military matters, where the USA have long asked for more EU spending) but they mean it More surprising, Europeans themselves are lackadaisical about investing… or anything else having to do with a better future….

***

We Are, Because We Lie… says the herd, and it moos, all together now. What makes a better bound than a lie?

Plutocrats and the plutocracies they depend upon, lie. Otherwise, they would not stay in power: only with lies can a few rule the billions. Those lies, initially imposed on the billions, are believed by the billions. Attacking those lies, thus, means attacking those billions.

For Estienne La Boétie (a close friend of Montaigne who was also a judge) the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Le Contr’un,” for our consent is required (La Boétie naively thought). And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn (even more naive: as soon as one strays, one’s career is destroyed, thus the power to eat, let alone influence…)

To go beyond Estienne La Boétie, and his observations on voluntary servitude, one has to realize that obedience is not as much to rulers themselves, as to lies. Systems of lies.

***

German fascism rested on lies:

The camp of those who think Germany is lying has grown a lot: Trump is in it, and now even Trump’s nemesis Paul Krugman agrees with the liar in chief on Germany. German readers may object that France also lies (and everybody knows about delusional, Brexiting UK). However German lies are convenient for French corrupt politicians, Germany (in spite of all the fascist dictators), having a reputation for seriousness.

One may even argue that Germany ended up with monsters such as the Kaiser and Hitler, precisely because it had such  a serious, quasi-scientific repute… Which the Germans were the first to believe. 

***

Lies Rule History: 

How did Germany become this fascist, racist monster, Friedrich Nietzsche stridently condemned, telling us it would bring a disaster to humanity, a full 35 years before the Zweite Reich? By telling lies. And first of all, to itself.

How come France was so unprepared to fight a world war with Germany in May 1940, after declaring war to Hitler, eight months prior? By telling lies. In this case the lies were from the French High Command, to itself. And from the French government to itself: one doesn’t launch a world war without checking first one is ready (and to be ready, France had to go to war in Spain against hitler and Mussolini)

Disasters and holocausts are often accompanied with lies, or by their mildest, yet most pervasive form, “non-saids” (“non-dits” in the original French). One such lie, or enormous “non-said” pertains to erroneous attitudes of Germany in several dimensions. Nowadays. (Instead one focused on the Greeks.) Here are some of the errors, by order of importance: immigration, ecology, and European economy activity and the attending debt problem. I will ignore the attitude to (mass) immigration (of Muslims, not all of them integrable): its main effect was Brexit. Even Krugman, following Trump, sort of, has to admit there is something rotten in Germany… As I have said for more than a decade.  

***

Want to see what lies lead to? Consider carefully the two curves in the graph below:

Degenerating, increasingly impoverished Europe. The blue EU curve, above, is similar to that of France and Germany… Except. of course, France is increasingly lagging, as German policy has been effectively advantaging Germany Uber Alles, all along, as usual… Bankrupt banking in Germany is the great secret advantage…

I have explained that those things would happen, and why, for years. Now they have. Paul Krugman (leftist Nobel star editorial of the New York Times, famous “liberal” economist) didn’t understand for years, what the problem was and now, not only does it, but his position is quite close, in practice, to… Donald Trump. (And Trump is not as far from Obama in several dimension, from MAGA, America First, to debt and championing the US economically through mercantilist policies…)

Paul Krugman in The World Has a Germany Problem

The debt obsession that ate the economy.

“…he’s [Trump] preparing to open a new front in the trade war, this time against the European Union, which he says “treats us horribly: barriers, tariffs, taxes.” 

The funny thing is that there are some aspects of European policy, especially German economic policy, that do hurt the world economy and deserve condemnation. But Trump is going after the wrong thing. Europe does not, in fact, treat us badly; its markets are about as open to U.S. products as ours are to Europe’s. (We export about three times as much to the E.U. as we do to China.)

The problem, instead, is that the Europeans, and the Germans in particular, treat themselves badly, with a ruinous obsession over public debt. And the costs of that obsession are spilling over to the world as a whole.”

***

What the European sheeple doesn’t understand is that Public Debt can be defaulted upon. The USA did this many times. It’s painful for investors. But no big deal for a truly sovereign country (thus, not Argentina… or Russia…). 

I have explained many times: Public debt is, should everything go wrong, and a default on that debt occur, a possible, partial tax. Thus European governments, by substituting tax to debt, preventing the latter by splurging in the former, engaged in the worst outcome, basically taxation equating debt going into default, while calling this over-taxation, moral and prudent.

***

And Paul Krugman to explain:

“Some background: Around 2010, politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic caught a bad case of austerity fever. Somehow they lost interest in fighting unemployment, even though it remained catastrophically high, and demanded spending cuts instead. And these spending cuts, unprecedented in a weak economy, slowed the recovery and delayed the return to full employment.”

Notice here that Krugman is criticizing Obama… now… whereas at the time he didn’t (but I did, stridently; Obama didn’t do then what Trump is doing now, namely beating the drum for a stronger economy by helping We The People directly…)

“While debt alarmism ruled both here and in Europe, however, it eventually became clear that there was a crucial difference in underlying motivation. Our deficit hawks were, in fact, hypocrites, who suddenly lost all interest in debt as soon as a Republican was in the White House. The Germans, on the other hand, really meant it.

True, Germany forced debt-troubled nations in southern Europe into punishing, society-destroying spending cuts; but it also imposed a lot of austerity on itself. Textbook economics says that governments should run deficits in times of high unemployment, but Germany basically eliminated its deficit in 2012, when euro area unemployment was more than 11 percent, and then began to run ever-growing surpluses.”

And Paul explains that “Why is this a problem? Europe suffers from a chronic shortfall in private demand: Consumers and corporations don’t seem to want to spend enough to maintain full employment…

The European Central Bank, Europe’s counterpart to the Federal Reserve, has tried to fight this chronic weakness with extremely low interest rates — in fact, it has pushed rates below zero, which economists used to think was impossible…. Indeed, much of Europe may well already be in recession, and there’s little if anything the central bank can do.

There is, however, an obvious solution: European governments, and Germany in particular, should stimulate their economies by borrowing and increasing spending. The bond market is effectively begging them to do that; in fact, it’s willing to pay Germany to borrow, by lending at negative interest. And there’s no lack of things to spend on: Germany, like America, has crumbling infrastructure desperately in need of repair. But spend they won’t.

Most of the costs of German fiscal obstinacy fall on Germany and its neighbors, but there are some spillovers to the rest of us… characterizing this as a situation in which Europe is taking advantage of America gets it all wrong, and is not helpful.

What would be helpful? Realistically, America has no ability to pressure Germany into changing its domestic policies. We might be able to provide a little moral suasion if our own leadership had any intellectual or policy credibility, but, of course, it doesn’t. There’s a sense in which the whole world has a Germany problem, but it’s up to the Germans themselves to solve it.

One thing is for sure: Starting a trade war with Europe would truly be a lose-lose proposition, even more so than our trade war with China. It’s the last thing either America or Europe needs. Which means that Trump is probably going to do it.“.

As we will see next the de-industrialization of Europe, for example France, and soaring mediocrity, is striking, and is directly related to the (plutocrat favoring) austerity… The main champion of this disaster has been the one who profited the most from it, relatively speaking, but not absolutely speaking, Germany. And its weapon of mass destruction of the neighbors, has been the attitude relative to debt and deficits: giant in the US, tiny in Europe… Whereas, in truth, Europe needs debt more than the USA does…

Germany developed and pushed that attitude, precisely because it provided it with an arrogant advantage inside Europe. But this is a childish, all too childish, game, the one which brought us world wars: intra European strife leads Europe only to ever greater degeneracy… not just relative to the rest of the world (aside from the even more degenerating Prophet land), but, more importantly relative to what is needed to preserve Earth…

Patrice Ayme

Emptying The Core Through Unemployment: the Plutocratic Way

May 30, 2019

There is no democracy, without an economy flush with employment. A society which doesn’t employ people disempowers them: they can’t even go on strike. Thus those who don’t want democracy, can destroy the economy first. That’s sneaky, and most efficient,  

This is exactly what has been happening in the last three decades, as employment and economy has been sent increasingly from the wealthiest countries to developing countries… This brought decreasing employment in those wealthiest countries. Thus it disempowered workers while empowering the investors, owners and managers who employed dirt poor workers overseas unprotected by social laws… basically slaves. The more the owners and the international elite were empowered, by this displacement of the economy overseas, the more they manipulated the ruling ideology which they controlled through the media they own and the universities they finance.

This is not the graph I was looking for, which was world trade versus inequality. However, that’s a good proxy, as patents tended to be deployed in places like China… as the economy was displaced there!

…Actually the US Supreme Court, starting in 2006, and boosted by Obama after 2008, gutted the US Patent System: it’s always the same idea: favor the giant monopolies (patents are micro, temporally limited monopolies…) and overseas production… Disempower normal US citizens…

We saw it all before, with the Roman Republic. It disappeared when its elite escaped the absolute wealth limit taxation by going overseas, and sending the economy there, while controlling the political process. This voided Rome, and later Italy, of employment, thus power. They remembered that, early in the Roman Republic, to protest the elite, the Plebs had gone on strike… forcing more equalitarian laws.

Beijing just accused Washington of “economic terrorism”. China can self develop now. Time to bring jobs back to the USA, the EU. That will bring back not just employment, but democracy.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

This was a comment to the NYT, which was approved so fast, they couldn’t possibly have read it (do I have friends?) Here is the beginning of the article:

“Trade War Starts Changing Manufacturers in Hard-to-Reverse Ways
ControlTek, which makes circuit boards in Vancouver, Wash., has begun shifting supply chains out of China and designing products that don’t require Chinese parts.

The New York Times
By Ben Casselman
May 30, 2019

PORTLAND, Ore. — When the Trump administration first imposed tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese imports in July, Andy LaFrazia figured it was just another curveball for his company.

“Everyone was saying: ‘Oh, it’s a negotiating tactic. It won’t last long,’” Mr. LaFrazia recalled.

But nearly a year later, the trade war shows no sign of cooling off. So ControlTek, the electronics manufacturer that Mr. LaFrazia runs near Portland, is taking steps to protect itself, a strategic shift that has been repeated in boardrooms and executive suites around the world in recent weeks.

ControlTek is rewriting contract language to make it easier to pass the cost of tariffs on to its customers. It is shifting supply chains out of China where possible, and redesigning products to avoid Chinese components where it isn’t. And as a tiny player in an enormous global industry, it is discovering that there is only so much it can do.

“We’re very much at the end of the whip getting thrown around,” Mr. LaFrazia said.

Despite dire warnings from economists, Mr. Trump’s trade war has so far done little to derail the decade-long recovery from the Great Recession. Economic growth has remained strong, and the unemployment rate last month hit a 50-year low.”

 

 

Debt As Tax Deferred, Or Why Public Debt For Public Interest Works Boosts The Economy

January 17, 2019

In A Way No Private Spending can replace

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BOOSTED BY PUBLIC SPENDING FROM GOVERNMENT DEBT:

IN THE LAST decade, the US has happily run massive deficits. Under Obama, deficits were often around 10% of GDP, or more. Obama deficits peaked at 15% of US GDP. Meanwhile, the US economy grew so much, it overtook the entire, growing, European GDP output (UK included). In 2017 US nominal GDP was 19 trillion dollars, just above the EU GDP (which is still higher at PPP, $23 T). US yearly GDP, charging ahead at a Chinese like clip, has passed $20 trillions as these lines are written.

The Obama spirit of deficit was happily pursued by Trump… And now the new Democratic controlled Congress, wisely enough, has not uttered a peep about this (it prefers to distract its audience with the notion of billionaire Trump as an agent of Putin).

Each three months of 2018 America’s federal government borrowed nearly $320 billion, or about 6% of quarterly GDP. The deficit was 1.5 percentage points higher than in the same quarter the year earlier, despite the fact that unemployment fell below 4% in the intervening period (and thus borrowing more was just because the Trump government is embarked on increasing spending).

The USA borrowed as much in a single quarter as it did in all of 2006, towards the peak of the previous economic cycle.

That debt Graph would look very different if one incorporated EXTINGUISHED debt

Orthodox economists have traditionally been self-assured, arrogant, and idiotic about debt. “Government spending must be paid for now or later,” wrote Robert Barro, of Harvard University, in a seminal paper published in 1989. “A cut in today’s taxes must be matched by a corresponding increase in the present value of future taxes.”

“Must”? Why? How much more idiotic can one get? Governments can default on debt, and can do it soft, or hard. They can even make default look like an act of God: consider the Russian default when the Soviets took power, in 1917, leaving millions of French investors the poorer for it (yet also leaving Russia with a much improved industrial basis and better trains).

The USA also defaulted twice during the Twentieth Century (under presidents FDR and Nixon). A way to default is devaluation of the currency, another way to sneakily default is inflation.

The late 1920s bull mania was a deliberate attempt by the US Fed and the bank of England, to extinguish debt from World War One. So was the inflation of the 1930s (Paris, against it, argued with Washington, for it; the US was right, France wrong; of course Hitler inflated beyond reason, encouraged by Washington…)

Once again, a traditional, but misleading graph: it contains violently extinguished debt

Inflation is not just a way to extinguish excessive debt: I have argued that it is a way to accelerate the economy, making it more technological.

So why would a Harvard professor say such a stupid thing? Do I need to ask? Even rhetorically? Because it pleased the US plutocratic class at the time, which probably rewarded him handsomely.

Looking around history, one can see big differences between the economy of the last four decades, and the period 1935-1975. The first period was characterized by massive expansion of economy and education (in spite of the 100 million directly killed by generalized fascism). For example air travel, universal higher education and universal health care appeared and became dominant. After that, pretty much stagnation… except for the increase of inequality.

And what do we also see since the Glorious Thirties (the 1945-1975 period when Western economies saw a wealth expansion of the 90%; after that, all the growth in income went to the 1%…)? Public spending on infrastructure, educational, or industrial, collapsed, throughout the West, thanks to the Trickle-Down plutocratic ideology.  

Reciprocally, a return to massive public spending might raise the activity, hence the returns to private investment, generating more the latter. (Calling that “populism” worked for a while as an insult, but should be now backfiring… as We The People realizes that there is nothing wrong with We The People… contrarily to what the insulting elite keeps on claiming…)

Eurocrats and their masters, the Europlutocrats, brandish the scare of public debt. However, japan with a more elderly population, is roaring back thanks to Abenomics… And a 230% of GDP public debt.

Economists out France or Germany say that Japanese public debt is a terrible thing. Why? If worse came to worst, the Japanese government would have to tell those who bought Japanese debt: ’Sorry, we can’t pay you back. At all.’ What would then have happened? A tax! Like in Europe! In other words, should the Japanese government 100% default, those wealthy enough to have lend to the Japanese government would then have to pay… a tax! They would be reduced to the status of French taxpayers, horror of all horrors!

Except, of course, in France, taxes, being mostly indirect, strike the poor and the poorest of the poor… whereas a Japanese default (which will not happen) would strike the wealthy (including a few wealthy foreigners…). The same is a fortiori true for US debt.

If the US defaulted on its debt (and it will not happen), lots of wealthy foreigners may cry… Meanwhile the US economy will have roared ahead… thanks to foreign money. What will the foreigners do, if the USA default, to get even? Invade? (No, the US military, paid by aforesaid foreigners, is too strong…) Refuse to lend some more? Not necessarily: when you can’t beat up the strong, you may as well join it. That’s exactly what happened when the US defaulted… and the USA defaults all the time…

There are many ways to default: first one can default on the interest only, or part of it.

Inflation also extinguishes debt. The CPI (the inflation measurement) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the biggest tech engine of the US and world economy, reached nearly 5% last year (2017). Such a healthy dose of inflation will absorbs lots of debt. Meanwhile, among many other things, said Bay Area fabricated for more than twelve billion dollars of electric cars in 2018…. While Apple Inc. based a few miles away, generated more than 200 billions in revenue…  

So the SF Bay Area is a perfect illustration that a roaring economy goes well with roaring inflation, thus roaring debt, etc. Looking in detail within the machinery of some major tech companies (say Oracle) show lots of debt at major points of development…

When the pace of economic (GDP) growth exceeds the rate of interest on a country’s public debt, managing indebtedness is a shrinking business: debt incurred in the past shrinks steadily as a share of GDP without any new taxes needing to be levied.

***

Public Debt Helps The Public In General, and the Poor First of All:

Some are sure to whine that debt might nonetheless rise if annual deficits are sufficiently gigantic, as they are in US America now. Even so, at prevailing interest rates and growth rates, and with deficits continuing at 5% of GDP, it would take more than a century for America’s ratio of gross public debt to GDP to reach the current Japanese level…. And then, as I pointed out, so what? A tax? A 2018 French-like situation? Overtaxation? No, not really: remember, only the wealthy lend. So debt will reduce inequality. Actually MASSIVE debt reduces inequality in two ways:  it potentially taxes the wealthy, in the future, and, in the meantime, it feeds countries and the poor (who are the first to profit from public infrastructure)…

Hypocrites will come, and suggest inflation hurts the poor… However, although inflation extinguishes debt, there are other ways to extinguish debt, and thus rampant debt doesn’t mean rampant inflation…

Olivier Blanchard, long chief economist of the IMF, pointed out that since 1870, the average nominal interest rate on one-year US government debt has been 4.6%, though the average annual growth rate of nominal GDP has been 5.3%. Growth rates have surpassed interest rates in every decade since 1950, except the 1980s…. And guess what happened in the 1980s? Plutocratization! (Much admired by all too many “democrats”, including Barry Obama…)

***

The Rise Of Evil Power, aka, Plutocracy was tied in to debt extinction:

(Perhaps unwittingly, and hopefully witlessly) Evil US president Carter launched a secret war in Afghanistan, using Muslim Fundamentalist and the Muslim Fundamentalist ISI of Pakistan… On July 3, 1979, and immediately afterwards, Reagan, helped by the evil Democratic Congress, led by fellow Irishman Tip O’Neil, launched officially trickle-down economics: instead of making everybody wealthier through public debt, Reagan and his “democratic” little helpers claimed that, the economy would do better by making the wealthiest wealthier…

Nicholas Crafts of the University of Warwick observed that the difference between growth and interest rates did more to reduce British debt loads in the 20th century than budget surpluses. Indeed, austerity-induced deflation in the 1920s frustrated attempts to pay down war debts (that was followed by the attempt of inflating out, which was too brutal, and helped bring the 1929 crash…)

Inflating out of debt was successful after World War Two. At the same time, the uppermost margin rates were pushed by Republican president Eisenhower up to 93% (nobody has accused Eisenhower to be a socialist… yet) Similar rates applied in Britain and high taxes on the wealthy also applied in throughout Europe…

In the past decade our great leaders have listened to their future benefactors, and sponsors, the wealthiest. The wealthiest want the poor ever poorer, so that wealth, power, can be worth having, ever more. So our great leaders, who are great servants of the wealthier, have done as ordered, and have stimulated public economies too little. (To make the lowest people feel good enough about themselves, while they undermined them, they have paid them with PC speech, and “identity politics”, that is, racism…)

Result? Rich countries have spent ever more time below their productive capacity than above it—at grave economic cost: while French, German, British and US  politicians explained to We The people that they cost too much, China, India and their satellites (population three billions) roared ahead, spending on the public as needed by the public. This is how Europe, its colonies and the US did it in the Nineteenth Century (and even in centuries prior, following the dominant economic theory known as “Mercantilism”)

An overdeveloped fear of public debt, invented by plutocrats, nurtured by prostituted economists, is to blame. But now a new class of “populist” leaders have appeared, who call a lot of it, for what it is. So some government economists have been ordered to acquaint themselves with reality.

***

The 3% Deficit Limit Is Killing the European Union:

And guess what? Experience suggests that governments face much looser budget constraints than once was claimed on every rooftop. So governments enjoy more freedom to support struggling economies than previously believed. Economists, happy to get orders less debasing to themselves, are taking note, that, indeed, yes, governments can borrow more…..

“Neoliberalism” is fundamentally a lie. “Neoliberalism” is a creed, a faith, and a conspiracy for the gullible. “Neoliberalism” asserts that the economy does best, when left to private enterprise. This is a lie, just there, and propaganda. Indeed it always omits a detail: how money is created.

In the “Neoliberal” creed, the (private) banks create money by lending. To whom do they lend? The wealthiest. So the wealthiest privates get more and more money, and the poor, less and less, augmenting inequality, year after year, as observed: the color of the skin of the president has nothing to do with it.

The only way to cut that vicious circle is having the Treasury create money and use said created money for public work. The Treasury can do this by creating bonds. That will spur the economy.

Should a crisis arise, a sovereign government can grab the debt and extinguish it.

In 1790, Secretary of the US Treasury Alexander Hamilton did just that: he took all the debt, from all the states, and extinguished it, by making it into Federal Debt (hint to the European Union… do the same…).

***

When Not Sovereign Debt To Foreigners Means Loss of Independence: the Case of Dauphiné

The French Crown had done exactly the same extinction of debt with the state of Dauphiné in 1349 CE. Long an independent republic in the Roman empire, that region, named after an altruistic sea mammal, found itself with crushing debts in the Fourteenth Century. In exchange Dauphiné lost its independence inside the Roman Empire, becoming instead subject to the kingdom of France, “empire in its own kingdom” (don’t ask: a consequence of the Frexit of the Tenth Century; France by then had discovered that it would be better to make one with the region east of the Rhone-Saône).

Dauphiné has a very long independent history, all the way back to before Hannibal. The Dolphin was selected as a symbol of the altruism of that Alpine quasi-republic. Differently from fellow Switzerland, debt enslaved it… But France was the superpower of the time… Switzerland solved the ownership problem by fighting its owners, the Habsburg, to death…

The kingdom of France, empire onto itself had debts, of course, but when it so pleased. Otherwise, it could always send the army to visit lenders with too much of an inappropriate attitude (as the soon to be ex-Republic of Florence found out…)

Sovereignty and debts are bound together. The EU should do as the US did in 1790 CE. Meanwhile, the present European situation is not sustainable: whereas the USA can grow debt as big as it wants, and the notion of debt doesn’t even exist in China, Europe is reducing its economic activity to profit its plutocrats.  

At least US politicians are not so treacherously corrupt, that they will stoop that low. 

***

Conclusion: Debt is tax deferred. Public debt for public interest works boosts the economy, in a way no private spending can replace. Indeed, private spending is motivated by profit, but serving the public is serving the public, not profiting from the public.

The “Neoliberal” creed, truly the power of evil, has insisted human beings know just one motivation: greed. But humanity, in full, know many other motivations, including that of serving public good. Servicing public good is more deeply anchored in human psychobiology, because, prehistorically speaking, the individual couldn’t exist without the collective (the tribe).

We need more public spending, thus, to not overtax the economy, more debt.  

Patrice Ayme

***
***

Even “The Economist” has noticed. Consider: Economists reconsider how much governments can borrowThe profession is becoming less debt-averse”

***

Dauphiné lost its independence to Paris in 1349 CE… But not its Parliament. However, in 1788 CE, one year before well known events in Paris, the French Revolution started, for real, south of Grenoble in the city of Vizille, encircled by mighty mountains. A consequence of the Revolution would be the loss of regional parliaments, including that of Grenoble…

 

Politically Correct Famous Democratic Economist Admits To Treachery of Political Leaders After 2007. Good. Yet, Why Just 2007? To Laud Plutocratic Clintonism?

November 6, 2018

It seems obvious to me that the official economic doctrine is the theoretical justification of plutocracy. Roman emperor Constantine used what he called Catholicism, his invention, to justify his increasing plutocracy. Nowadays, plutocracy is haughtily brandishing the philosophy of “economic science”. Now a famous economist looks at that, and blames everybody else. Mr. Delong is a friend and colleague of Krugman, and their ilk. We are talking here of the mainstream ideology of the self-declared “left”… Which is just stealth plutocracy: a definition of plutocracy is inequality. Inequality increased under Obama, when it reached its highest level ever (as measured by looking at the top 1%, or top .1%, etc.) Right, it’s probably getting worse under Trump… But Trump never claimed to be “left”.

***

Inequality augmented under Obama. Here is the slice 2013 until 2016. This was caused by the fact Obama helped most the bankers, hence the wealthiest…

Blame the Economists?

Nov 1, 2018 J. Bradford Delong

Ever since the 2008 financial crash and subsequent recession, economists have been pilloried for failing to foresee the crisis, and for not convincing policymakers of what needed to be done to address it. But the upheavals of the past decade were more a product of historical contingency than technocratic failure.

BERKELEY – Now that we are witnessing what looks like the historic decline of the West, it is worth asking what role economists might have played in the disasters of the past decade.”

Unsurprisingly, famous economists protect Clinton from any blame. When, in truth, Clinton demolished the New Deal most effectively. Learning from Goldman Sachs, even before he was elected president, that, if he wanted to be re-elected he would have to do as he was ordered to, by the wealthiest men, Clinton told Robert Rubin Goldman CEO:”You are telling me by reelection depends upon fuckin bnd traders?” (Nowadays, the once famous quote has disappeared from search engines: no accident.)

Brad Delong: “From the end of World War II until 2007, Western political leaders at least acted as if they were interested in achieving full employment, price stability, an acceptably fair distribution of income and wealth, and an open international order in which all countries would benefit from trade and finance”

Patrice Ayme: Not true: Clinton, a so-called “Democrat” ruined the separation of banking and speculation (installed by president Roosevelt and Congress in 1933). Instead of serving all, banks were reset to serve mostly the wealthiest. Moreover Clinton enabled so-called “financial derivatives” with total free rein. Even more serving of the wealthiest, enabling them to leverage themselves tremendously. That led to the 2008 crisis, when a bank dealing mostly in US Treasury Bonds and an insurer, AIG, got acutely bankrupt from derivatives… with nearly all other major banks, just as bad. Bush, in accord with Obama, and then Obama alone sent to the banks all the money they needed and some.

Brad De Long: “Then came 2008, when everything changed. The goal of full employment dropped off Western leaders’ radar, even though there was neither a threat of inflation nor additional benefits to be gained from increased openness. Likewise, the goal of creating an international order that serves everyone was summarily abandoned. Both objectives were sacrificed in the interest of restoring the fortunes of the super-rich, perhaps with a distant hope that the wealth would “trickle down” someday.”

PA: Right. So why do we still call individuals like Obama, “Democrat”, and act as if they were,  when all they did was to serve the wealthiest, the plutocrats (feeding them ever since)?

De Long: “Others, like me, understood that expansionary monetary policies would not be enough; but, because we had looked at global imbalances the wrong way, we missed the principal source of risk – US financial mis-regulation.”

PA: One reform is necessary: banks are there to serve We The People and the real economy serving We The People. Banks should not serve speculation to make the wealthiest wealthier. Plutocrats hate it, so so-called “economists” can’t understand its utility (to themselves!)

De Long: “Between the financial crisis of 2008 and the political crisis of 2016 came the presidency of Barack Obama. In 2004, when he was still a rising star in the Senate, Obama had warned that failing to build a “purple America” that supports the working and middle classes would lead to nativism and political breakdown.

Yet, after the crash, the Obama administration had little stomach for the medicine that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt had prescribed to address problems of such magnitude. “The country needs…bold persistent experimentation,” Roosevelt said in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression. “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

The fact that Obama failed to take aggressive action… With policymaking having been subjected to the malign influence of a rising plutocracy, economists calling for “bold persistent experimentation” were swimming against the tide – even though well-founded economic theories justified precisely that course of action.”

PA: Need one say more? Delong congratulates himself with the present state of affairs. But actually US society became much more unequal under Obama. Rising inequality brings the collapse of civilization: such is the lesson of history. One can’t get a worse result than collapse. Time to redefine “left” in light of increasing potential collapse..

That collapse didn’t happen yet is why we can still talk about it.

But never, in the history of humanity, has collapse seemed more likely, long-term. In no small measure, because of the cecity of official economy, which is more focused in increasing inequality than in realizing that this is another name for rising plutocracy.

Economists, like most of those working in the media, are just employees of the world’s wealthiest men. Directly, or indirectly through plutocratic universities. Plutocratic universities are not universal.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/plutocratic-universities-are-not-universal/

Nor is the present economic theory resting on a universal foundation: it rests only on pleasing plutocracy. Economy will become universal when it rests on energy itself, more exactly, Absolute Worth Energy.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/energy-is-the-fundamental-unit-of-economics/

Meanwhile, let those who managed the increase of inequality under Clinton, Bush and Obama blame others: that’s what they do best.

Patrice Ayme

Must A Reserve Currency Explode The Trade Balance? No! Just Look! Also: Avoiding Slavery Is No Socialism!

July 3, 2018

Established economists say that Trump doesn’t understand the nature of the dollar: its status as world reserve currency causes a trade deficit for the USA. Really? It takes one look at one graph, while knowing the USA conspired to make the dollar official world currency in 1944. (And when the French Dominique Strauss Kahn tried otherwise, as head of IMF, he soon fell to a huge sex prosecution, out of which nothing came, except the destruction of his career. That would teach all those who, like DSK, pretend to follow the exact same idea Lord Keynes had in 1944… when Keynes chaired the Bretton Woods conference!) WTF? 

I have a Facebook friend who is a fanatical anti-Trump, she retweets anti-Trump material frequently. 2 days ago she put out 2 posts (retweeting from overseas oversea junk) which were deeply offensive. One extolled a woman cop killer; the young mom he had killed was unarmed; the other compared Trump to Hitler, and emanated from Germany, supporting whom I call Merkler (for her economic war against the Greeks and others… which has killed many).

My friend didn’t know her (French) jailbreaker hero was an unarmed-woman-officer killer (because my friend doesn’t know much about Europe). Neither did my friend, who has socialist pretentions, know Merkel was a fascist exploiter hiding under a “left” immigration policy (importing slaves to better exploit the working class). My friend took down both posts (and my smart comments, unfortunately!). We are still friends. Some of the political hysteria is just misunderstanding. For example, do conventional economists misunderstand what causes the deficit? If we can’t learn to live with (some) intolerance, we aren’t tolerant.

Another friend, an economist objected to my playing dumb in economic matters. I had asserted there was no connection between reserve status and deficit (contrarily to what self-declared “liberal” economists say). To the price of starting a squirmish with dropping a thermonuclear warhead on the opposition, here is the proof:

Those Who Brought You Reagan, Brought You the Trade Deficit. Economists of the Clinton-Obama persuasion say the dollar as reserve caused the deficit. This is obviously false: the dollar has been a reserve currency for about a century, and officially since 1944. However, there was no sizable deficit before Reagan. Reagan was a tool of global plutocrats, so the deficit exploded under him, right away. He was succeeded by G. Bush, who knew all too well where real power was an re-established the balance. But then came the stooges of plutocracy, and they let the deficit fly, as their masters told them to. The idea was to weaken American US unions, workers, and citizenry.

Eugen Roden wrote:

“Even if it is hard to believe, that you Patrice don’t understand how reserve currency will necessarily create deficit, I will do my best to explain to you and to your followers in a very easy way, why [the status of the dollar as] reserve currency necessarily creates deficit in US.

Reserve currency means,  that the currency is saved in other countries, than [the] country of its origin. It can be done by private corporations or public entities,  or even private individuals, who prefer to hold the reserve currency, as media of savings, because of the trust [they have] in it, compared to the local currency.  By doing so, they create demand for the money itself, as if it would be commodity or item of value by itself. And the truth is the reserve currency is an item of value, because of the trust people all over the world put in it. This trust is result of long history of reserve currency origin country’s military dominance,  democratic political system, free competitive market economy and unchallenged right for private property and wealth. China, even with its size of economy, (a bigger economy than that of US, not in nominal but real terms) doesn’t have a reserve currency, because it couldn’t create the trust in its sincerity in most of the above mentioned issues.  Europe succeeded only partly in making the Euro a reserve currency, because of its history of because of the world wars it initiated, and their economic consequences on Europe. Even 70 years of peace was not enough to create enough trust in Europe, to make from its currency a reserve currency comparable to US dollar, which has a history of continuous respect for the values mentioned above, since its declaration of independence.

The need for reserve currency exists,  to create trust in local currencies, based on these reserves. Just as in the past precious metal reserves, like gold or silver, made the currencies trustworthy, today holding of US dollars makes local currencies trustworthy.

But then if there is demand for reserve currency,  not as media of exchange, but as value holding item, its price, or exchange value will be influenced by this demand, without the question if exists enough additional production capacity to satisfy the value of potential demand that reserve currency promises. But then the relative prices in the country of origin of reserve currency,  have to be higher than in countries who accumulate the reserve currency, that has to create surplus in trade with reserve currency origin country, to be capable to accumulate these reserves. Such a surplus can be created only if the local currency value is undervalued compared to the reserve currency. Then the other side of this surplus has to be the deficit of the reserve currency origin country.”

***

Too Much Reserve Makes You Deficient?

The argument seems partially to be that, to create a store of dollars overseas, one needs to send said dollars there, to start with: a deficit. The graph of the deficit from the Federal Reserve which I put on top shows this is not correct: a continual flow of dollars is not needed to entertain a stash. A stash is a stash, it’s not a current.

OK, so we need X amount of dollars to create an overseas dollars stash. Say that stash is $10 trillion (a large overestimate). That’s 25 years at the present rate of deficit with China alone. And the stash existed before, it started before 1945. And also 4 trillion dollars of the stash is unpaid taxes by US corporations…

Moreover, consider, say, Argentina. It has a dollar stash. However the US has long exported cars to Argentina, so how did the stash develop? Through plutocratic mechanisms involving either tax cheating (laundered Argentine currency) or US plutocrats buying vast tracts of the country (also done in Chili).

In any case, the fact that the US dollar is considered reserve doesn’t mean one needs to have a deficit! And the fact is the US has been reserve since 1944 (after cheating Lord Keynes who didn’t want the $ as reserve, and headed Bretton Woods, but documents were switched!) There was no deficit for decades! And the fact is the massive deficit with China and Germany, or Ireland are recent. And the fact is, Germany has used its bankrupt small banks to self-finance its massive export machine, even within Europe…

And the fact is, the industrial core of the USA in the Middle West, got gutted, although it had a large educated population, and lots of fossil fuel energy. I say it got gutted precisely because it was educated (and thus a risk). Unions used to be hyper powerful in the USA, now they are near nothing…

Trade is good, exporting work, exporting ALL work, is bad… Yes, Merkler, 44% unemployment in Greece thanks to YOUR policies, was a terrible thing. Yes, the Greek government was an accomplice, an accomplice of you and your ilk. But We The People of Greece was innocent.

There are legal incentives to exporting job overseas, because corporate plutocrats told politicians to pass such friendly laws: watch how wealthy the Clintons are. And now the Bamas. Bahamas Bamas: a jungle rhythm. Main offenders in trade should be punished, until they cease and desist:

  • China/Hong Kong exported to the US 3 times as much as it imported from the US.
  • Japan exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Germany exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Ireland “exported” to the US 32 times as much as France, per capita, all of it being tax evasion by US corporations.

Notice that the French Republic should not save Merkler’s skin: whereas Europe didn’t have the muster to correct the exporting and exploiting ways of Merkler’s Germany, Trump does, and Southern Europe (that includes France, which is both northern and southern…) should enjoy the shooting down of the Merkler vulture by Trump, hopefully ending the austerity which has, and is destroying Europe (see Brexit).

***

Krugman, Smelling Blood In Global Plutocratic Waters, Turning “Socialist”?

Krugman blocked and banned my comments for years, presumably because they were “socialist” (what else? I supported Sanders, Krugman dined with the devils, including Obama and Clinton, and took systematically anti-“socialist” position). But now he is changing. Suddenly, “Radical Democrats Are Pretty Reasonable“, opines Paul.

A “Socialist” newcomer young woman defeated the fourth ranking democrat in Congress in New York.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset primary victory has produced a huge amount of punditry about the supposed radicalization of the Democratic party, how it’s going to hurt the party because her positions won’t sell in the Midwest… But I haven’t seen much about the substance of the policies she advocates, which on economics are mainly Medicare for All and a federal job guarantee.

So here’s what you should know: the policy ideas are definitely bold, and you can make some substantive arguments against them. But they aren’t crazy. By contrast, the ideas of Tea Party Republicans are crazy…

Ocasio-Cortez’s positions: Medicare for all is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, but in practice probably wouldn’t mean pushing everyone into a single-payer system. Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all.”

***

A hefty minimum wage is not a question of having it more social, it’s a question of avoiding a slave society:

Medicare for all was proposed by yours truly, more than a decade ago: the idea is to open Medicare to all… As long as they pay the cost of insuring themselves. As Medicare is not for profit and is huge (economies of scale), it would be cheaper than ANY private health plan. So Medicare for All would quickly devour for profit healthcare gouging. My friend Obama meekly proposed it to his cabinet, which unanimously rejected it in favor of giving subsidies to healthcare billionaires, their sponsors (“Romneycare aka, Obamacare”).

Employment for all, as presently done in the USA is a good thing… Except if people work for free, in which case that’s called slavery. Thus, to avoid slavery, a hefty minimum wage insuring minimum living standards, in particular the capability of affording a home. In places like Oakland, California, or cities around, with all those jobs, a minimum one bedroom is $3,000 a month. That’s 36K a year. Cities around Oakland are instituting a minimum wage of $15. That boils down to 30K a year, working full-time, 2,000 hours a year: not enough to afford a roof! Thus college professors in San Jose have been observed, sleeping in cars….

$15 an hour is not socialism, it’s not even, a realistic minimum wage in the most booming part of the US. It is just an effort to avoid a slave society.

We are all socialist, just as we are all progressive. Just as we have to be somewhat conservative (to save the planet). The only question is how much. Not whether. 
Patrice Ayme