Posts Tagged ‘Sanders’

VP Sanders: Only Way For Clinton To Become President

July 14, 2016

Each time Trump is called a “populist”, he trumps Clinton some more. Not that I am exactly going to cry. The only way that the corrupt hilarious entity of the female persuasion, Clinton, could mollify my hostility would be if she selected Bernie Sanders as Vice-President. Some will sneer the VP has no power. However, he, or she, does. This is why President Roosevelt had to get rid of his all too “populist” VP before his fourth election to the Presidency.

Indeed, the VP cannot be at war with the President. Thus, Hillary Clinton would have to negotiate enough with Bernie Sanders for him to accept the VP job.

She will not do so. Her character is clear. So are the polls.

So Clinton will not become president. She will not become president, because she is establishment, and We The People has had enough with the establishment. Too much dancing with Wall Street. 

I Dance, Thus I Am A Star, To Enlighten & Improve You, Little Loosers

I Dance, Thus I Am A Star, To Enlighten & Improve You, Little Losers

In the West, the cheap trick to distract people with war is a bit too long in the tooth.

Going to war for the south of the South China Sea something that Chinese President Xi seems hell-bent to make us believe he will do, has been done before. Remember Hitler, backed by American plutocrats, playing chicken with France about Poland. France did not back down, even after Hitler officially allied himself with Stalin.

Xi underestimates the alliances the West has in the south South China Sea: alliances that bind, both ways. The sale of the most advanced submarines in the world, made by France, to Australia, with full US backing, is something Xi should meditate more. Actually, the Maoris, and other New Zealand troops opened the “Bastille Day” (14 Juillet 2016). This is revealing: under president Mitterrand, 30 years ago, New Zealand and Australia were in a state of cold, sometimes even explosive, war about the French “””colonies””” in the Pacific. (The crime of the French being not to have annihilated most of the aborigines, I suppose: half of the population of New Caledonia is aboriginal, whereas it’s rather 5% in Australia….) 

Maoris On the Champ Elysees, Paris, 14/07/2016, Opening the 14 July Military Parade

Maoris On the Champ Elysees, Paris, 14/07/2016, Opening the 14 July Military Parade

But now reason has set in… France and the US are the two great powers of the Pacific, and clearly who protects most of the other countries there, from possible hegemonic distractions…

Contemplate Bush and Blair with their Iraq distraction. It is finally nearly known Iraq was just a red herring. The Economist has finally embraced my position that war criminals Bush and Blair are the main authors of present day “Islamist” terrorism (9/11 was a product of the CIA nurturing Bin Laden, and then of incredible laxity, from hubris, of the US defenses: compare with France or Israel, who handled air terrorism before…)

If You Make Total War To People, People Will Make Total War To You

If You Make Total War To People, People Will Make Total War To You

as finally embraced my position that war criminals Bush and Blair are the main author of present day terrorism (9/11 was a product of the CIA nurturing Bin Laden, and then incredible laxity, from hubris, of the US defenses: compare with France or Israel, who handled air terrorism before…)  

So, no more establishment. Thus no more Clinton. As simple as that.

As with Brexit, the Politically Correct are cruising for a bruisin. We The People have had enough to be directed from afar, led by the obscure side of the force.

Call me a “Populist”. But please remember that the American Revolution (even more than the French one) Started as a “We The People”, a “populist” revolution.

Sanders is Clinton’s only hope. Not as a campaigner. Anybody can campaign. As a VP.

Patrice Ayme’


Voting Clinton Is Voting Trump

April 18, 2016

Why choosing Clinton as democratic candidate guarantees the election of Trump? There are two main reasons. The first is that Donald Trump is going to defeat Hillary Clinton. Trump, however, would be defeated by Bernie Sanders (and he knows it, hence the virulence of Trump’s attacks against Sanders).

Why would Trump defeat hillary Clinton? Just look at Hillary Clinton’s tax returns, if nothing else. In 2014, she made more than 24 million dollars, in 2015, more than twenty-seven millions. Who would not love to earn three million dollars more, from a year to the next? How did Hillary make this money? Through influence peddling, and the promise of more to come. By contrast, Bernie Sanders made less than 1% of what Clinton made.

Private (Including Corporate) Investment Versus Corporate Profits. Under Clinton-Obama-Establishment Rule, The Gap Between Monopoly Profits And Lack Of Investment In The Economy, Has Never Been So Wide. Can’t Accuse Bush, Reagan, and The Great bad Wolf Out There. The Wolf Has Been Obama’s Policy

Private (Including Corporate) Investment Versus Corporate Profits. Under Clinton-Obama-Establishment Rule, The Gap Between Monopoly Profits And Lack Of Investment In The Economy, Has Never Been So Wide. Can’t Accuse Bush, Reagan, and The Great bad Wolf Out There. The Wolf Has Been Obama’s Policy

Some will say Trump makes more than Clinton. Yes, but it’s the nature of their jobs, which differ. Donald Trump is going to accuse Clinton of corruption. Because that’s all what her immense fortune is about. When asked why he lived so modestly, ex-President Truman pointed out that, doing otherwise, using influence peddling, “would demean the office of the presidency”. And Truman was no shrinking violet: among other things, he dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (shortening considerably, by a psycho-political shock effect, a war that killed much more than 10,000 persons a day).

Trump also has favored single-payer, and, or, socialized medicine, in many declarations, for decades. He extolled the Canadian (single-payer) or Scottish (socialized) systems in the past, Hillary has declared that the richest country in the world could not afford either (differently from all other rich countries, and many, not so rich).

So Trump is going to run to the LEFT of Hillary. This is all the clearer as Trump declared, also many times that his friends in the financial industry should pay taxes at the same rate as anybody else (in particular Trump accused his friends, the hedge fund managers New York is crawling with, of getting an unfair break with “carried interest”).

Hillary, like Ted Cruz, is financed by the likes of Goldman-Sachs.

At this point, Trump is running fully on the right against the Goldman Sachs puppet who says things won’t be right “until the body of Christ rises agian”. I said in December Cruz was the true candidate of the plutocrats, and, indeed, here we are.

I used to consider, very long ago, Trump as the poster boy of what was wrong with the US banking system (long story). However, in the meantime, the Clintons got to power, and unleash the banks onto the world. The Clintons made finance so domineering that “Shadow Banks” sprouted all over.

And what of Obama, in all this. Paul Krugman himself, a strident Hillary partisan, admits, in his latest editorial, that Obama increased the powers of monopoly (in a similar vein, the New York Times admitted that Obama lowered the tax rates of the 400 richest US taxpayers by 20%, in 2009. Ironically, when I used to notice that, as it happened, I was taxed with racism, and the NYT censored my comments; this mentality of censorship of an inconvenient reality explains why said inconvenience was allowed to grow).


Anxious To Please Progressives, Krugman Suddenly Gets It:

In “Robber Baron Recession”, the hard core Hillary supporter opines that:

“ In recent years many economists, including people like Larry Summers and yours truly, have come to the conclusion that growing monopoly power is a big problem for the U.S. economy — and not just because it raises profits at the expense of wages. Verizon-type stories, in which lack of competition reduces the incentive to invest, may contribute to persistent economic weakness.

The argument begins with a seeming paradox about overall corporate behavior. You see, profits are at near-record highs, thanks to a substantial decline in the percentage of G.D.P. going to workers. You might think that these high profits imply high rates of return to investment. But corporations themselves clearly don’t see it that way: their investment in plant, equipment, and technology (as opposed to mergers and acquisitions) hasn’t taken off, even though they can raise money, whether by issuing bonds or by selling stocks, more cheaply than ever before.

How can this paradox be resolved? Well, suppose that those high corporate profits don’t represent returns on investment, but instead mainly reflect growing monopoly power. In that case many corporations would be in the position I just described: able to milk their businesses for cash, but with little reason to spend money on expanding capacity or improving service. The result would be what we see: an economy with high profits but low investment, even in the face of very low interest rates and high stock prices.”

I have, of course been saying this for years. I even saw in the root phenomenon of all this, the plutocratic phenomenon, the cause of the Fall of The Roman Republic, and thus, ultimately, of the Roman Empire.

Basically elites profit from the established order, and thus work against changing it, at all cost. Technology itself is disruptive (and, a fortiori, science), so they are limited as much as possible (while claiming to not being doing so).

So, in 2014, Paul Krugman wrote that growing importance of monopoly rents is producing a disconnect between profits and production. Is that new? No. Actually the word “rentier” was the number one class distinction in Nineteenth Century France. There was the “rentier” class, and the “working class”.

What we have here, though, is rentier monopolies. So the extent of the phenomenon is new.


“And such an economy wouldn’t just be one in which workers don’t share the benefits of rising productivity; it would also tend to have trouble achieving or sustaining full employment.”

What Krugman should have said here was: “quality employment”. There is plenty of employment in the USA, as there are in many a slave society. There USED to be quality employment.

Krugman: “… when investment is weak despite low interest rates, the Federal Reserve will too often find its efforts to fight recessions coming up short. So lack of competition can contribute to “secular stagnation” — that awkwardly-named but serious condition in which an economy tends to be depressed much or even most of the time, feeling prosperous only when spending is boosted by unsustainable asset or credit bubbles. If that sounds to you like the story of the U.S. economy since the 1990s, join the club.”

There are, then, good reasons to believe that reduced competition and increased monopoly power are very bad for the economy. But do we have direct evidence that such a decline in competition has actually happened? Yes, say a number of recent studies, including one just released by the White House. For example, in many industries the combined market share of the top four firms, a traditional measure used in many antitrust studies, has gone up over time.

The obvious next question is why competition has declined. The answer can be summed up in two words: Ronald Reagan.

For Reagan didn’t just cut taxes and deregulate banks; his administration also turned sharply away from the longstanding U.S. tradition of reining in companies that become too dominant in their industries. A new doctrine, emphasizing the supposed efficiency gains from corporate consolidation, led to what those who have studied the issue often describe as the virtual end of antitrust enforcement.”


Krugman Then Dropped A Bombshell: Bad Obama

Obama, if anything, made monopoly powers greater than ever. A deer in the headlights is the charitable explanation. Here is Krugman again, suddenly coming over to the side of those who want justice, and wealth for all:

“… the Obama administration — preoccupied with the aftermath of financial crisis and the struggle with bitterly hostile Republicans — has only recently been in a position to grapple with competition policy.

Still, better late than never. On Friday the White House issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use whatever authority they have to “promote competition.” What this means in practice isn’t clear, at least to me. But it may mark a turning point in governing philosophy, which could have large consequences if Democrats hold the presidency.

For we aren’t just living in a second Gilded Age, we’re also living in a second robber baron era.”

So Obama was the Robber Baron-In-Chief, I presume? (I am very sorry… Barry, please, tell us it ain’t so…)


Brazil’s Standards Higher Than The US For Corruption?

The president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has been impeached. The charge? Not personal enrichment, but cheating with the numbers of the Brazilian economy when she ran again for office (and was re-elected president). Hillary Clinton is an even bigger cheater, in the category of lying with the numbers of the government. But nobody knows about it, because nobody has called her lies.

Hillary, following Obama, pretends that the banks reimbursed 800 billions of TARP money. That’s technically correct. But a lie nevertheless. The Treasury was reimbursed TARP, modulo a Quantitative Easing program of many trillions which dwarfed TARP.  The Federal Reserve, another branch of government, bought Treasury Bonds, and Mortgage Securities from the banks at inflated prices (that what QE is).

Rousseff did not profit materially personally (whereas many of her accusers, about half of them, are under judicial examination for corruption!) The Clintons did, tremendously profit from the institutions they unleashed on the world.

The preceding reasonings are not too difficult: even New York democrats should be able to follow them, and even discover them, on their own.

Conclusion? All too many well-to-do New York democrats secretly, subconsciously, want to have Trump elected president.

And what is the “candidacy” most supported financially so far in these elections? Arguably the anti-Trump campaign paid by nominal Republican “PACs”’. Indeed, the Obama administration gave oodles of public money to plutocrats (in direct gifts, or taxes not perceived, or monopolies powers encouraged). Those plutocrats at the government teat want to keep it that way: that’s why their candidate is Clinton, not Trump (Cruz would be even better, because he is only a multimillionaire; not at the head of a 200 million dollar fortune as the Clintons are).

Trump has a long track record of suing the government, thus a rather adverse relationship with said government. And, whereas the likes of Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates, etc. can buy simple multimillionaires, they cannot buy a multibillionaire financed by real estate such as Trump. So they detest him, and this is why the anti-Trump movement is the most financed.

I worked for Obama two years before his first election. I recognize (now!) it would have been smarter to have Clinton as president, first, before Obama (Obama was promising, but proved too naïve). I recommended Clinton for Secretary of State. I recognize it is high time to have a woman president. I even appreciate many of Hillary’s smarts, and of her neocon ways.

However, it’s disturbing to see so many democrats have embraced obsessively sheer plutocratic propaganda, against Trump, or against Sanders. Indeed, crafty propaganda accusing Trump to be a “demagogue” or “populist” has been used to smear Sanders, in the guise of smearing Trump.

So here we are: New York democrats have a real choice. If they vote Sanders, they vote for the needed revolution (at least, the revolution in perception which has to precede the revolution in legislation). If New York democrats vote for Clinton, they vote for New Pork.

Patrice Ayme’

US Plutocrats: Delaware, Not Panama

April 8, 2016

I long said that the USA was the world’s number one tax haven, followed by Great Britain. And this is exactly why these two countries are the seat of global plutocracy. (London boasts that it is the world’s number one financial place, ahead of New York.) The New York Times in “Need to Hide Some Income? You Don’t Have to Go to Panama”, April 8, 2016:

“For wealthy Americans looking to veil their assets and shield some of their income from taxation, there is no need to go to Panama or any other offshore tax haven. It’s easy to establish a shell corporation right here at home.

“In Wyoming, Nevada and Delaware, it’s possible to create these shell corporations with virtually no questions asked,” said Matthew Gardner, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.

In some places, it can be more difficult to get a fishing license than to register a shell company. And it doesn’t cost much more.”

Delaware Is The World’s Pluto Center. 285,000 Companies Are Registered In That Delaware Building Alone.

Delaware Is The World’s Pluto Center. 285,000 Companies Are Registered In That Delaware Building Alone.

Delaware allows companies to shift the seat of their business and their profits to Delaware, where, conveniently, there is no tax.

Speaking of the Panama Papers, “This is just one firm [Panamanian Mossack Fonseca law firm] in one place,” said Gabriel Zucman, an economist and the author of “The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens,” “So it cannot be representative of what’s happening as a whole in the world.”

“But Mr. Zucman, who estimates that about 8 percent of the world’s financial wealth — more than $7.6 trillion — is hidden in offshore accounts, said another reason was that it is so simple to create anonymous shell companies within the United States.

Wealthy individuals and businesses that want to mask their ownership can conveniently do so in the United States, and then stash those assets abroad.

Yet while the United States demands that financial institutions in other countries share information about Americans with accounts overseas, its reciprocation efforts fall short, critics say.

“You see a ton of wealth in tax havens in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands that is owned by shell companies that are incorporated in Panama or in Delaware,” he said. “The bulk of this wealth does not seem to be duly declared on tax returns.”

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in “Delaware: An Onshore Tax Haven” observed that the state’s obscurity, combining with a loophole in its tax code “makes it a magnet for people looking to create anonymous shell companies, which individuals and corporations can use to evade an inestimable amount in federal and foreign taxes.”


Not to think the New York Times is going against the branch on which it sits, plutocracy. The preceding extracts were hidden away from the electronic front page. What we found on the front page was Krugman going all-out against Bernie Sanders in Sanders Over The Edge.

A good way to say bad things is to sound reasonable’ Krugman excels at that:

“…most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?

Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro.

Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?”

Actually Krugman is a specialist of trade, not banks. Bank specialists like Simon Johnson, have called for the break-up of the 21 biggest banks (which are recognized as special by the present US government).

Krugman detests Sanders saying Hillary has no clothes:

“It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions… But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.

And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified” to be president.

What probably set that off was a recent interview of Mr. Sanders by The Daily News, in which he repeatedly seemed unable to respond when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans. Mrs. Clinton, asked about that interview, was careful in her choice of words, suggesting that “he hadn’t done his homework.”

But Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.”

Speaking of exhibiting extremely deep, vicious dishonesty, I sent the following comment, it was censored:

It was obvious, during the ramp-up to the Iraq war that the top leaders of the USA had lost their mental balance. The United Nations did not believe their lies and refused to give them an authorization to attack Iraq. Bush attacked, without a UN Security Council authorization, because he was supported by New York Senator Clinton. The invasion of Iraq by the US caused millions of people to die or being wounded. It brought the Islamist State.

Those who engineered this debacle should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Suggesting they are decent, because they apologize, is to deny civilization has merit. Proposing to be led by them again is proposing to learn nothing from the past.

Specialists of banks long suggested to break big banks and big shadow banks (Simon Johnson, 2009). This is not a revolutionary proposition. Teddy Roosevelt broke big oil. When President Franklin Roosevelt came to power, he closed all the banks. That was much more revolutionary.

Global trade treaties enabled giant corporations to extend their monopolies to the entire world. This way, they escape local legislation. An example is the “Double Irish” Apple Inc. and many other corporations use. The CEO of Apple admitted that two-third of the profits of Apple were not taxed.

End of my comment. Krugman never mentions subjects such as the preceding with the angle I use. In his world, big banks, big trade, big bucks, etc. are absolute big goods.

Hillary is his “sis”, with a bit of luck, she will be grateful, and make him big something, some more. Heathens such as me, with their strident Clintonophobia, have no doubt “not done our homework” because, like Sanders, we are just reprobate school children of no intellectual merit.

Try not paying taxes, as big fishes do, if you are a little guy. You will be sent to jail, anywhere in the West. Plutocracy central? You bet!

Another, completely innocuous comment of mine to Krugman later in the day was also censored. Krugman’s post was entitled “Why Cruz is worse than Trump“. Exactly what I have been saying for five months. I guess the dear professor noble Nobel whatever, is not too keen to expose where he gets (some of) his inspiration from. These are sad, nervous days, for those who love plutocracy, the old fashion way.

Nine 5 Star Hotels In Bariloche, Argentina, & Golf Courses To Receive Obama & His Secret Service, In Style, Next Year

Nine 5 Star Hotels In Bariloche, Argentina, & Golf Courses To Receive Obama & His Secret Service, In Style, Next Year

In “USA Financial Extortion“, the essay linked to at the beginning of this essay, I pointed out the connivance between New York “Justice” and financial “Vulture Funds”. Meanwhile, the son and scion of one of the richest persons in Argentina was duly elected president, and Obama rushed to celebrate him, after 15 years of cruel, demented, anti-Krugman, anti-financial plutocracy rule in Argentina. That new Argentinian plutocrat and president is called Macri. He is a dancer. It turns out he was the name on shell companies in several places of the Anglo-Saxon plutocratic empire (such as the Bahamas). That was just revealed in the Panama Papers. Never mind.

Macri, as president, reduced the arrogant financial demands of the lower classes in Argentina: he needs all the money in the world, to pay his Vulture Fund friends in New York, whom Obama serves so well. So brand new president Macri threw more than one million people in poverty, by gutting their allowances: more than 2.5% of the total population of Argentina. Such is the way of the admirers of Reagan: make the rich richer, and the economy will reward you (thus, when Obama came to power, he saw the economy and its big banks were sick: so he gave all the money in the world to the big banks, and reduced the tax rates of the hyper rich by 20%, and now you can see the economy is right).

In any case, throwing more than a million to the poor house is glorious: not bad in a few weeks of assuredly very presidential work. Maybe Macri’s dad can propose newly retired super star noble Nobel Obama some 5 star stay in Bariloche, next year? Just an idea. What are friends for, among the world’s rulers, if not grateful?

Patrice Ayme’

Global Trade Outlaws Rule

March 9, 2016


Sanders’ surprise victory in Michigan, a big industrial state, is attributed to his attacks against so-called “free” trade (Clinton has never seen a “free” trade treaty she did not love). Ditto for Donald Trump’s victory in the same state (Trump has proposed a 45% tax on Chinese imports). Polls show angry white males and the young (for Sanders) are voting against the system which brought to them the globalization of pauperization. Rightly so.

Let me provide more needed theory:

As it is, globalization means plutocratization.

First, globalization without redistribution implies plutocratization. (As Paul Krugman asserts.)

Second, globalization of trade without globalization of law amounts to trade without law. Thus, organizations, corporations and plutocrats presently engaged in global trade are, technically, out-laws.

Third the immense fortunes gathered by the trade outlaws have enabled them, in turn to pay well their servants in politics and national administration to further the very out-lawfulness which has made them prospered.

Fourth, under the Clintons in the 1990s, the Banking Act of 1933 was replaced by financial deregulation, which spread worldwide, making financiers masters of world trade.

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

One of my commenters and friends told me that it is president Carter, a democrat, who had started the degeneracy we presently enjoy. I was surprised, and initially denied. However, I looked and various graphs, and, to my dismay, he turned out to be right. As I learn more about what happened, I will integrate it in my discourse (Carter, of course, attacked, secretly, Afghanistan on July 3, 1979, so he was not highly considered here; but now he is heading evwen lower!)

In other words, we are engaged in a nonlinear process: the global trade outlaws are getting ever more powerful, and, the more powerful they get, the more they advance their plots and breathing together (con-spirare, conspiracies),

Meanwhile, We The People, are getting ever more destitute (the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, does not include LIFE ESSENTIALS such as education, health care, retirement).

Let me give you an example of the degeneracy of US society: I had an insurance agent for two decades, who worked at one of the most prestigious insurance companies in the USA. Last Spring he got sick. Although a well paid professional, he did not get health care in a timely manner. So he died of pneumonia. He was in his forties (basically the age when one gets sick the less). I know dozens of similar stories. Meanwhile, US healthcare is 50% more expensive, per head, than health care in the most performing healthcare systems in the world.

What does that have to do with the globalization of trade? Massive globalization led to massive plutocratization, and that, in turn, led to US politicians and civil servants doing exactly what plutocrats and their corporations wanted them to do (so that politicians and civil servant would make their future income up, as the good agents of plutocracy whom they are).

 Then the one who led us for 40 years, the one who makes more than 200,000 dollars in an hour, giving secret talks to financiers, claims to represent We The People. We The People are earning 10,000 times less (2,000 x 4.5) than she does, per hour. How can she represent, or even understand, us? Is that realistic? No wonder some of us want to protect themselves.

Paul Krugman, the architect, under president Ronald Reagan of “free” trade, presents as self obvious that Sanders’ program is “unrealistic”. Says Krugman: “The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties — Trump is trying to become America’s Mussolini, Sanders at worst America’s Michael Foot — Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here’s the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?”

Well, I tell you why, Paul: We The People are getting tired of ‘the conscience of a liberal” who got to work engineering Ronald Reagan’s sinister plot to claim that giving to the rich was the best way to give to the poor. Krugie boy is on his best defending his position at the altar of “power”:

Paul Krugman: “The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he’s never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn’t and can’t.” 

That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say: the USA has basically to get accord from just one power, the French Republic, which is all for putting the brakes on soul-less globalization (always has been, for about a century, whether governments are from the so-called right, or left). Then, automatically Germany, Italy and Spain (with, or without a government), will follow. Tax cheats such as Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands are going to increasingly feel the whip, and better shut up. (A few days ago, France told Britain that she would open the refugee gates, if Britain left the EU. So Britain is going to have to face unexpected costs, in all ways.)

The World  Trade Organization, prodded by France, already announced that a carbon tax, imposed worldwide, was NOT in violation of WTO rules. So one can start with that, on day one. See what it does for the price of Chinese steel and Chinese solar panels.

In all justice to Krugman, he finishes this way: …”the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don’t know exactly what form it’s taking.

Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.”

It is a huge “if”. I would be astounded if Clinton made it to the presidency.

After decades of increasingly corrupt, venal, lying politicians whose idea of policy is to do what the world’s richest corporations and their plutocrats want them to do, what could be worse?

Having someone reigning again who got paid a fortune repeatedly for plotting in secret talks with financiers what would be the next move to enrich that elite? Under Bill Clinton, the Banking Act of 1933 was destroyed, bringing the reign of unrestrained finance. Moreover global trade treaties got signed, which allow corporations and their corporations to escape taxation and legislation. How electing Trump or Sanders could make it worse?

When Clinton was asked why she accepted so much money from Goldman Sachs, for so little “work”she replied: “I guess that’s their rate!” She refused to release any transcript to the flood of talks she gave to financial conspirators and outlaws. And you know what? Thanks to the stubborn work of individuals such as yours truly, this sort of rotten mentality is now exposed, and nobody wants to be led by it anymore. Not even the people supporting Ted Cruz.

Paul Krugman’s dream of another cabinet job, 35 years after the one he enjoyed with his boss, Reagan, is fading away…

Patrice Ayme’

“Democrats”, Plutocrats, & Plutophiles

January 31, 2016

Clearly, we are not in democracy. The Clintons made more than one hundred million dollars out of politics, just telling (financial) plutocrats that they deliver, and can deliver even more, again. Indeed, the Clinton gave financial plutocrats… the world. (With the help of Bushama since.) The official American  “left” is presently ready to select those world famous corrupt politicians as their leaders. (That does not mean I prefer Ted Cruz to Clinton; not at all, just the opposite. I stay faithful to the Lesser Evil Principle.)

“Socialist” Senator Sanders is running close behind plutocrat Clinton in Iowa, first state to vote, tomorrow. Some people may object that Clinton is no plutocrat, because her fortune is not yet in the billions, and only multi-billionaire qualify as plutocrats. That lack of imagination arises from a very narrow, low dimensional, naïve, obsolete, culprit definition of what “plutocrat” is.

Is There Anyone In The World More Officially Corrupt For All To See Than The Clintons? Give Me The Name! I Want To Know! Is That Stench The Best "Democrats" Can Do? These Are Serious Questions.

Is There Anyone In The World More Officially Corrupt For All To See Than The Clintons? Give Me The Name! I Want To Know! Is That Stench The Best “Democrats” Can Do? These Are Serious Questions.

In truth lots of money provides with lots of power. It is this power on others which is intrinsically evil, intrinsically corrupting. Clinton has it, and she proved it aplenty since she controlled the White House.

Rants of the .1%, and their clients to explain why being ruled by the Clintons is best, are all over. The plutophile New York Times included. In “Plutocrats and Prejudice”, the excellent professor and Ubermensch Krugman claims, with Hillary, that there is a multidimensional causality of evil: racism, sexism, etc. play a role. They have to be fought. And if that leaves no time to fight big money exclusively, claims Paul Krugman, that’s only “realistic”. He denounces the “naive” Sanders and his supporters:

Krugman: “Like many people, I’ve described the competition between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as an argument between competing theories of change, which it is. But underlying that argument is a deeper dispute about what’s wrong with America, what brought us to the state we’re in.

To oversimplify a bit — but only, I think, a bit — the Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil. Or more specifically, the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness we see all around us.

The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story. Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right. This may not seem like a very big difference — both candidates oppose prejudice, both want to reduce economic inequality. But it matters for political strategy.

As you might guess, I’m on the many-evils side of this debate. Oligarchy is a very real issue, and I was writing about the damaging rise of the 1 percent back when many of today’s Sanders supporters were in elementary school.”

Krugman can write all he wants, he did, and acted, differently. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was viewed as an extreme rightist (now he is viewed nearly as a leftist!). Paul Krugman went to serve Ronald then-an-extreme-rightist. At the time, Reagan’s economic theory was “trickle down”: make the rich richer, they in turn, will enrich the 99%.

Instead, what happened is that now the .1% are the only people the president of the USA listens to, and worries about. And so it has become around the world, in consequence.

Krugman was always a little Hillary, no wonder they like each other: splurging at the trough of big money and big oligarchic power, while talking, and posturing left. Actually, Krugman was a predecessor: he was helping Reagan, before Bill Clinton helped Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra (a complex conspiracy to sell weapons to Iran secretly and illegally, and using the profits to finance a guerilla in Central America). Governor Bill Clinton provided Reagan with Mena airport in Arkansas. Planes full of CIA employees brought weapons to Nicaragua, came back with drugs. One was shot down over Nicaragua, another crashed in Arkansas. (Thanks to sufficient assassinations, not too many people are minding the subject anymore.)

As Krugman was economic adviser to Reagan inside the White House, he was obviously co-responsible with “Trickle-Down”. So we see history demonstrates that Krugman-Reagan-Clinton-Trickle-Down-Cult of the .1% is all the same universe. The roots of G. W. Bush: then W. Bush was just a playboy making money thanks to his bin Laden connections and the like. (Ex) president Bush and (the brother of Osama) Bin Laden met in New York, on 9/10/2001, the day before 9/11.

OK, ready for another bout of disinformation? Krugman: “But it’s important to understand how America’s oligarchs got so powerful.

For they didn’t get there just by buying influence (which is not to deny that there’s a lot of influence-buying out there). Crucially, the rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, an alliance between an elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change and, above all, by hostility toward you-know-who.”

So here Krugman is claiming that it is racism against Obama which made people vote to the right, and that this caused plutocracy. No, lies, lies, lies.

Clinton deregulating finance, destroying FDR’s work was the main engine of today’s plutocracy. (And I don’t like FDR, but I recognize what was, because that’s what is.) Even under Obama, the supposed victim of racism, tax rates on the 400 richest went down 20%. So clearly it’s rich democratic politicians who passed laws favorable to plutocrats.

Krugman:  “Yes, there was a concerted, successful effort by billionaires to push America to the right. That’s not conspiracy theorizing; it’s just history, documented at length in Jane Mayer’s eye-opening new book “Dark Money.” But that effort wouldn’t have gotten nearly as far as it has without the political aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, and the resulting flip of Southern white voters to the G.O.P.

Until recently you could argue that whatever the motivations of conservative voters, the oligarchs remained firmly in control. Racial dog whistles, demagogy on abortion and so on would be rolled out during election years, then put back into storage while the Republican Party focused on its real business of enabling shadow banking and cutting top tax rates.”

Disinformation again: the flip in question, while real, does not explain the rise of plutocracy, which mostly went ballistic under the rule of Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.

At a time when the biosphere is faced with extinction, the sort of dance the Clintons and Obama did, with Bush laughing in the middle, goes nowhere: the middle class has not progressed in the last 25 years. The Clintons freed the financial sector and its “money changers” (FDR) and now those dragons of the apocalypse roam the world.

A bushel of wheat is bought and sold 2,000 times (two thousand) between the Middle West and Africa. That’s fine with Clinton, let her have one to one dinner with the head of Goldman-Sachs again: her husband did what Goldman-Sachs’ Rubin told him to do. How melts, and wheat is bought and sold, to infinity?

Krugman persists. In “Pre-Iowa Notes“, he claims that:

“For those who were joyful and uplifted on inauguration day 2009, the years that followed have been a vast letdown: American politics got even uglier, policy progress always fell short of dreams. Now comes Sanders…. some people really want to hear that message, and don’t want to hear that they’re being unrealistic.

But there’s something else, which I keep encountering, and which I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice: even among progressives, the two-decade-plus smear campaign against the Clintons has had its effect. I keep being told about terrible things the Clintons did that never actually happened, but were carefully fomented right-wing legends — except I’m hearing them from people on the left.”

Krugman is smearing us by claiming we are smearing the Clintons. He is also disinforming us. Well the Clintons, or at least Bill Clinton, gutted the “Banking Act of 1933” (“Glass-Steagall”). When Hillary gets 675,000 dollars from Goldman Sachs for speaking a few hours, what’s the difference between that and a bribe?

There Are Countless Pictures Of Hillary Clinton Apparently In Love With The Chair Of Goldman-Sachs (Left)

There Are Countless Pictures Of Hillary Clinton Apparently In Love With The Chair Of Goldman-Sachs (Left)

I am not exaggerating: I have dozens of these. What’s going on guys? Bernie Sanders has raised concerns over the $675,000 she made from Goldman Sachs. Asked if she would release the content of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, Hillary just laugh with her fabulous goat laughter.

In 2011, Chelsea Clinton, then a 31 year old graduate student, was installed on the corporate board of Barry Diller’s Internet media holding company. When she was barely twenty years old, she was made a “hedge fund manager” by other family friends. Undoubtedly, for her outstanding talent in financial matters, and vast experience in media management. Chelsea then got an annual salary of 600,000 dollars from NBC (as a “special correspondent“). She is a high multimillionaire in her own right, and now an “investment banker”. Chelsea recognizes a personal net worth of 15 million dollars (1916). We should all become “investment bankers”, and then become presidents and get the Nobel Prize, for whatever.

[Mr.Diller is Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC/InterActiveCorp and Expedia, Inc. and the media executive responsible for the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting. He stands number 268 on Forbes 400 list with a net worth of $ 2.3 Billion. Obama reduced the tax rate of the Forbes 400 by 20% in his first term, no doubt because they suffered a lot in the 2008 crisis they had set-up.]

During These Sumptuous Dinners, The .1% and Their Leading Plutocrats Can Plot In Public. Breathing Together, That's What "Conspiring" Means

During These Sumptuous Dinners, The .1% and Their Leading Plutocrats Can Plot In Public. Breathing Together, That’s What “Conspiring” Means

[Hillary and the Chair of Goldman-Sachs, again!]

Asked by the Des Moines Register on Thursday if she regretted to make money from speaking to plutocrats, Clinton compared herself to President Barack Obama, noting that significant campaign donations from Wall Street did not stop him from passing the Dodd-Frank reform law. Disinformation again: this “reform” is much weaker than the Banking Act of 1933 which the Clintons demolished. The Obama administration went easy on Wall Street by refusing to criminally prosecute the major financial institutions responsible for the 2008 economic crisis, or laundering drug money, or financing terrorist networks, etc.

The two Clintons made speaking fees totaling over $125 million since 2001. Obviously payments for services rendered. Maybe payments for future services.

Not to say Hillary Clinton is monolithic. Maybe that’s why she sent classified information over non official channels (a crime). Maybe she knew she was an evil which cannot be stopped, but by devious means. Her ambition, she knew, could not be stopped, nor her greed. But, deep down, in the greatest depths of her soul, twinges of remorse and decency wanted her stopped. So they flattered the brazen side of her who wanted to flaunt her power, and suggested she use her email for top secrets.

Democracy the way we are supposed to enjoy it, is just one letter away from demoncracy. Clearly, to feel that those, the Clintons, following directions from the CEO of Goldman Sachs (Robert Rubin) who destroyed president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s work to limit financial plutocracy, are best to lead the nation, means the present “Democratic” Party is way right. Way, way right. The Roosevelt family (Teddy and FDR, whom he helped bring up) was itself one of the oldest plutocratic family in the USA. So the plutocrats of the 1930s are now viewed as dangerous leftists.

The first American billionaire and financial plutocrat, Carnegie was for a tax on income of at least 50% and punishing inheritance tax. Why? To help the state, which makes entrepreneurship possible, and to prevent heirs, those no-good people to have too much power (I am paraphrasing). Now, no-good people are running for an encore, and We The People who-know-nothing are applauding the ever more amazing ascent of those who gave us the chop.

Patrice Ayme’

Revolution Needed, Vote Sanders

January 23, 2016

Clinton Would Be Another Obama to Nowhere:

Contrarily to legend, countries such as France, its scion, Britain, and their children, among them the USA, have been highly successful not in spite, but because of a succession of beautifully executed revolutions.

The level of inequalities of the planet has become so drastic, the economy is sputtering, the biosphere collapsing. Yet, the West’s leading grandiosely self-described “liberal with a conscience”, Krugman is in full Kliton, Clinton-for-president campaign. Not a day passes without another blast against Sanders. Oh, well, it was so good last time Clinton was president, the friends Krugman comes across all the time in New York, the financial plutocrats, got to seize the levers of the world, and fed Krugman lots of caviar and champagne, besides paying for 100,000 dollars a year to send the kids here Krugman and the like teach their erroneous discourses. (I am not saying Krugman is the worst; quite the opposite, he is the sweetest.)

During Obama’s First Four Years, Tax Rates on the 400 Richest Went Down 20%

During Obama’s First Four Years, Tax Rates on the 400 Richest Went Down 20%

So give me a break with Bush… Obama was Bush’s Third and Fourth term. Or shall we call it Clinton’s Sixth term? The point is that since the ex-chair of Goldman-Sachs, Robert Rubin, officially Secretary of the Treasury, started to tell a (swearing) Bill Clinton was he was going during his presidency, we have never looked back: the financial plutocrats, the sneakiest, sleekest, slickest and sickest of them all, have been in command. That command, they would lose if Senator Sanders became president (and, as far as they are concerned the arrogant Trump, a builder of real things, is as scary, he could do a Roosevelt on them…)

Says Krugman How To Make Donald Trump President Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. I don’t think Sanders is unelectable, but…” The Krugman class, highly paid pseudo-intellectuals ambling the rich carpets of Davos and plutocratic academia, is aghast from the prominence of leading candidates who have been railing against Wall Street and for a dramatic overhaul of health care in the USA.

Krugman deliberately ignores the possibility that Ted Cruz, not Trump, is the real Republican nominee. Why? Ted Cruz is the Goldman-Sachs candidate, like Obama and Clinton before him.

The day before claiming Sanders would make Trump president, in the New York Times editorial, Krugman in “How Change Happens”, revived the old John Lennon’s spite for revolution:  …”there are some currents in our political life that do run through both parties. And one of them is the persistent delusion that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor.”

Real weird a statement for a country which was founded in a revolution, and saw the most violent Civil War, this side of Rwanda.

Of course, nothing significant happened during the Obama presidency. (With the one single exception that, now, health insurance companies cannot just refuse to insure people, based on pre-existing conditions. To compensate, “Obama” instituted a color scheme for health insurance, where colored (“bronze”) plan is basically worthless. Is it a Freudian slip?)

Krugman, I love Krugman. Krugman is highly intelligent (many things are relative), so he can be used as a test bed of devious, not to say vicious, sophisticated logic. In particular Krugman presents us with the opportunity to dissect disinformative twisted logic:  radical policies have happened many times in the history of the USA. FDR was a case in point. But so was LBJ. More to the point, Paul Krugman served in the REAGAN White House, and Reagan (counter-) revolution was pretty much approved by voters. So was G.W. Bush let’s-go-invade-the-world, either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us, policies, which were also very radical (and not in a good way).

Krugman: “… on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders…

But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isn’t how change happens. That’s not to say that he’s a failure…

Yet his achievements have depended at every stage on accepting half loaves as being better than none: health reform that leaves the system largely private, financial reform that seriously restricts Wall Street’s abuses without fully breaking its power, higher taxes on the rich but no full-scale assault on inequality… who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama. (In fact, the health reform we got was basically her proposal, not his.)

Could Mr. Obama have been more transformational? Maybe he could have done more at the margins. But the truth is that he was elected under the most favorable circumstances possible, a financial crisis that utterly discredited his predecessor — and still faced scorched-earth opposition from Day 1.”

Here is again a piece of disinformation, which, actually, originated with Obama himself. Obama (for whichever reasons inside himself, probably greed) did not want to disappoint the powers-that-be (his considerable future income will depend upon them), nor his power base (60 million gullible voters, and your truly). So Obama pretended that the “rancor” (as he put it) of republicans prevented him to act. Parrot Krugman, following the choir of millions of pseudo-leftists, claims that “scorched earth” from the opposition stood in the way. Don’t worry: no luxury carpet burned at the White House.

We have heard this argument since day one of the Obama presidency: Obama could not do anything, because he did not control Congress (where the democrats had a majority), nor the Senate (where the democrats had a supermajority, more than 60 votes out of 100). So Obama, handicapped by his DEMOCRATIC majority and supermajority, had to kill time until he lost control of Congress, and lost his supermajority in the Senate?

Or is it that Obama was isolated among partisans of the status quo, immensely rich “democrats” such as D. Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, who are extremely happy with the system as it is, and just want to tinker with it, to give the appearance of changing what they truly profit from and do not want really to be changed?

Using “Medicare For All” as a fundamental health system with private insurance add-ons is basically the way the French healthcare system works. The present healthcare system in the USA could be morphed towards such a French like system, without wrenching changes (whereas going abruptly to socialized medicine as in Britain, Sweden, or single payer as in Canada, Germany would be too brutal to be pragmatic, indeed).

In finance, Obama had a great crisis, thus a great opportunity to cut out all the abuse. The Roosevelt, FDR and Teddy made drastic reforms: on day one, FDR closed all banks. Instead, under Obama’s first term, the New York Times found that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers’ tax rates went down 20%… relative to Bush.

Obama is caviar left, Clinton is caviar left. But the biosphere was much warmer in 2015 than in 2014. Meanwhile giant amount of unhindered, plotting and conspiring “Dark Pools of Money” are sloshing around the world, constituting most of the world’s trades.

In the latest funny twist, the cost of a barrel of oil full of oil has become cheaper than the cost of the same barrel, once emptied of oil. I told you oil was dirty!

In Canada, said barrel, with the oil inside, cost less than five cauliflowers. Agriculture has been despised too long.

The rise of sustainable energy (including nuclear in India, China) has much to do with it. This, and fracking in the USA, and the lift of the embargo against Iran, broke the camel’s back. Revolutions may be unleashed in several countries (Venezuela, Arab oil producers, Algeria, Russia, etc.). If you add Trump and Sanders to the mix, many plutocrats are starting to seriously worry.

All the more as their old semi-enemy, the European Union, is at the crossroads between strength and weakness, between further crackdowns in all sorts of ways and further degeneracy.

So resist Krugman’s siren songs. Clinton is a plutocrat singing plutophile songs. Vote for real change, vote Sanders. Differently from Obama or Clinton I, Sanders has a very long track record, we know who he is. Differently from Clinton, although initially a genuine New Yorker, he is not on the take, something Hillary clearly is.

Patrice Ayme’