Saturday, May 18, 2019
Citing Harm to Public Education, Bernie Sanders Calls for Ban on For-Profit Charter Schools
"Charter schools are led
by unaccountable, private bodies, and their growth has drained funding from the
public school system."
Ahead of the official
introduction of his sweeping education platform in South Carolina this
coming weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday became the first
2020 presidential candidate to call for a national ban on for-profit
charter schools.
"Charter schools are led
by unaccountable, private bodies, and their growth has drained funding from the
public school system," Sanders tweeted. "When we are in the White
House we will ban for-profit charter schools."
Sanders's support for banning
for-profit charters comes as President Donald Trump's Department of
Education—under the leadership of billionaire Betsy DeVos—is pushing for the
expansion of charter schools nationwide.
"We need more of them,
not fewer," DeVos said of
the schools during a congressional hearing earlier this year.
According
to CNN—which got an advanced look at Sanders's plan before its official
release—the senator's platform will also include a moratorium on federal
funding for all public charter schools until a "national audit on the
schools has been completed."
CNN reported that the
senator will also propose:
Mandating that charter schools
comply with the same oversight requirements as public schools;
Mandating that at least half
of all charter school boards are teachers and parents;
Disclosing student attrition
rates, non-public funding sources, financial interests and other relevant data;
Matching employment practices
at charters with neighboring district schools, including standards set by
collective bargaining agreements and restrictions on exorbitant CEO pay;
Supporting the efforts of
charter school teachers to unionize and bringing charter schools to the
negotiating table.
"As president I will
stand with groups like the NAACP and put a moratorium on federal funding of new
charter schools until rules are in place to make sure they are operating with
transparency and accountability," Sanders tweeted on Friday.
The NAACP passed a resolution
calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools during its
national convention in 2016.
In a report (pdf)
on charters released in 2017, the NAACP Task Force on Quality Education
recommended the complete elimination of for-profit charter schools.
"No federal, state, or
local taxpayer dollars should be used to fund for-profit charter schools, nor
should public funding be sent from non-profit charters to for-profit charter
management companies," the report stated. "The widespread findings of
misconduct and poor student performance in for-profit charter schools demand
the elimination of these schools."
FRANCE TAKES UNPRECEDENTED ACTION AGAINST REPORTERS WHO PUBLISHED SECRET GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT
May 17 2019, 4:01 a.m.
JOURNALISTS IN FRANCE are
facing potential jail sentences in an unprecedented case over their handling of
secret documents detailing the country’s involvement in the Yemen conflict.
Earlier this week, a reporter
from Radio France and the co-founders of Paris-based investigative news
organization Disclose were called in for questioning at the offices of the
General Directorate for Internal Security, known as the DGSI. The agency is tasked
with fighting terrorism, espionage, and other domestic threats, similar in
function to the FBI in the United States.
The two news organizations
published stories in April — together with The
Intercept, Mediapart, ARTE Info, and Konbini News — that revealed the vast amount of French, British,
and American military equipment sold to Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates, and subsequently used by those nations to wage war in Yemen.
The stories — based on a
secret document authored by France’s Directorate of Military Intelligence and
obtained by the journalists at Disclose — highlighted that officials at the top
of the French government had seemingly lied to the public about the role of
French weapons in the war. They demonstrated the extent of Western nations’
complicity in the devastating conflict, which has killed or injured more than
17,900 civilians and triggered a famine that has taken the lives of an
estimated 85,000 children.
The French government did not
want the document to be made public, and officials were furious when its
release made headlines around the world. Not long after it was published,
Disclose’s co-founders Geoffrey Livolsi and Mathias Destal, along with Radio
France reporter Benoît Collombat, were asked to attend a hearing at the DGSI’s
headquarters in northwest Paris.
In rooms located four floors
below ground level inside the heavily fortified, beige-colored DGSI building on
Rue de Villiers, for an hour the journalists were asked about their work, their
sources, and their posts on Facebook and Twitter. They declined to answer
questions, citing their right to silence, and instead presented a statement
about their journalism and their belief that publishing the document had served
the public interest.
Press freedom has been
strongly protected in France for more than 130 years under the Press
Law of 1881, which gives journalists a right to protect the confidentiality
of their sources. The law also defines certain “press offenses” of which
journalists may be accused — such as defamation — and outlines procedures for
how these should be handled, through tribunals that can issue punishments,
including fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment.
But matters of state security
are not included in the Press Law as a “press offense,” and the DGSI appears to
have seized on that loophole to accuse the Disclose and Radio France
journalists of “compromising the secrecy of national defense” from the moment
the classified document came into their possession. Under a
2009 French law that prohibits “attacks on national defense secrets,”
a person commits a crime if they handle a classified document without
authorization. There are no exceptions to this law for journalists, and there
is no public interest defense.
“They want to make an example
of us because it’s the first time in France that there have been leaks like
this,” Disclose co-founder Livolsi told The Intercept on Thursday, referring to
the sensitivity of the document, which was prepared by French military analysts
last September for a high-level briefing of President Emmanuel Macron at the
Élysée Palace. “They want to scare journalists and their sources away from
revealing state secrets.”
In a worst-case scenario, the
reporters could face five years in prison and a €75,000 (around $83,900)
penalty. The next stage of the case is still unclear. The DGSI could close it
and let the journalists off with a warning. The case could also be handed off
to a judge, who could conduct further investigations and possibly decide to
take the case to a trial.
Virginie Marquet, a lawyer and
board member of Disclose, represented Destal at one of the hearings at the DGSI
on Tuesday. She is hopeful that the journalists will not face jail time. But
she notes that the government appears to be pushing for a harsh punishment.
Last week, Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly suggested in a public statement
that Disclose
had violated “all the rules and laws of our country,” adding: “When you
disclose classified documents, you are exposed to penalties.”
Whatever the outcome, the
DGSI’s treatment of the case has already sent a message. “There is a chilling
effect,” said Marquet. “It’s a warning for every journalist — don’t go into
that kind of subject, don’t investigate this information.”
Paul Coppin, head of the legal
desk at Reporters Without Borders, told The Intercept that he could not predict
the outcome of the case because there has never been one like it before. That
journalists could be punished for handling classified documents — regardless of
their public interest — was concerning, he added, especially given the ease
with which the government can categorize any information as secret.
“It is very problematic,”
Coppin said. “This reveals the weakening of procedural guarantees that
journalists should benefit from in the exercise of their work. There should be
a stronger framework [in France] to protect journalists in the course of their
activities.”
France’s Interior Ministry,
which oversees the DGSI, did not respond to a request for comment.
LOBBYISTS WORKING TO UNDERMINE MEDICARE FOR ALL HOST CONGRESSIONAL STAFF AT LUXURY RESORT
by Lee Fang
AT A LUXURY RESORT just
outside of the nation’s capital last month, around four dozen senior
congressional staffers decamped for a weekend of relaxation and discussion at
Salamander Resort & Spa. It was an opportunity for Democrats and
Republicans to come together and listen to live music from the Trailer
Grass Orchestra, sip surprisingly impressive glasses of Virginia
wine — and hear from health care lobbyists focused on defeating Medicare for
All.
The event was hosted by a
group called Center Forward and featured a lecture from industry
lobbyists leading the charge on undermining progressive health care
proposals. Center Forward was originally known
as the Blue Dog Research Forum, a think tank affiliated with the conservative
Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats; the coalition has pressed the
caucus to oppose social welfare spending, taxes on the wealthy, and
regulations on business.
The organization’s website is
filled with bromides about giving “centrist allies the information they need to
craft common sense solutions” that paper over an agenda designed to enrich
powerful corporations.
Center Forward’s big idea on
Medicare Part D, for instance, is to maintain lobbyist-authored
provisions of the law that bar the government from bargaining for lower prices
for medicine. Such restrictions cost taxpayers and patients as much as $73
billion a year while boosting the profits of drugmakers. Center
Forward endorses the idea with a testimonial from Mary Grealy, a lobbyist
for a trade group that represents pharmaceutical companies.
The retreat, held the weekend
of April 5-7 in Middleburg, Virginia, continued Center Forward’s approach.
The schedule shows that the
health care discussion was led by Center Forward board member Liz Greer, a
lobbyist at Forbes Tate; the firm manages the Partnership for America’s Health
Care Future coalition designed to undermine Medicare-for-All. Paul
Kidwell, a lobbyist from the Federation of American Hospitals, and Larry
Levitt, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, also spoke. No proponents of
Medicare-for-All were included. Kidwell’s trade association is part of the
Partnership for America’s Health Care Future group opposing single payer.
“I don’t think there were any
supporters of Medicare-for-all speaking. We at the Kaiser Family Foundation
don’t take a position on any issues, pro or con,” wrote Levitt, in an email to
The Intercept. “I discussed a variety of health care issues being debated in
Congress, including Medicare-for-all and a public option, explaining their
benefits and potential downsides.”
Greer and Kidwell did not
respond to a request for comment.
The ethics disclosure shows a
large number of senior aides attended the event.
Several aides to Democratic
leadership filed disclosures showing that they received paid travel to
attend the Center Forward retreat, including chiefs of staff to Majority Whip Jim
Clyburn, D-S.C., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. The retreat included
chiefs of staff to leading centrist Democrats, including Reps. Kurt
Schrader D-Ore.; Dan Lipinski, D-Ill.; and Xochitl Torres Small, D-N.M.
Officials from the Blue Dogs, Problem Solvers Caucus, and the New Democrats
were also in attendance.
Unlike the previous branding
of Blue Dogs, who were once billed a “big tent” designed to bring conservative
ideas into the Democratic Party, the centrist push now
explicitly includes Republicans. Senior aides to Reps. Sean Duffy,
R-Wisc.; Rodney Davis, R-Ill.; and Will Hurd, R-Tex. attended the retreat as
well.
The Ethics Committee rules bar
registered lobbyists from arranging luxury travel for Congress. Although Center
Forward’s board is made up almost entirely of
registered corporate lobbyists, the event forms were signed by the group’s
executive director, Cori Kramer, who is not a registered lobbyist — a
technicality that helped elide the prohibition on lobbyist-funded travel. The
forms show the group spent as much as $560per
congressional aide for transportation, food, and lodging.
“The host list speaks for
itself,” said Wendell Potter, president of Business Initiative for Health
Policy. “This event wasn’t about fixing the health care system. It was about
protecting the health care industry, no matter the cost to patients, families,
workers, or employers.”
“The industry is the root
cause of our health care crisis. A congressional staffer serious about finding
solutions wouldn’t touch that retreat with a 10-foot pole,” he added.
How to pay for the Green New Deal?
HOW TO PAY FOR THE WAR
Posted on May 16, 2019 by L. Randall Wray | 8
Comments
Remarks by L. Randall Wray at
“The Treaty of Versailles at 100: The Consequences of the Peace”, a conference
at the Levy Economics Institute, Bard College, May 3, 2019.
I’m going to talk about war,
not peace, in relation to our work on the Green New Deal—which I argue is the
big MEOW—moral equivalent of war—and how we are going to pay for it. So I’m
going to focus on Keynes’s 1940 book— How To Pay for the War—the war that
followed the Economic Consequences of the Peace.
Our analysis (and the MMT
approach in general) is in line with JM Keynes’s approach. Keynes rightly
believed that war planning is not a financial challenge, but a real resource
problem.
The issue was not how the
British would pay for the war, but rather whether the country could produce
enough output for the war effort while leaving enough production to satisfy
civilian consumption.
To estimate the amount left
for consumption we need to determine the maximum current output we can produce
domestically, how much we can net import and how much we need for the war.
My argument is that this is
precisely how we prepare for the Green New Deal. “Paying for” the GND is not a
problem—the only question is: do we have the resources and technological
know-how to rise to the challenge.
While in normal times we
operate with significant underutilization of capacity, during war, Keynes
argued, we move from the “age of plenty” to the “age of scarcity” since what is
available for consumption is relatively fixed.
At the same time, more output
produced for military use means more income, which, if spent on consumption
would push up prices. Hence, some of the purchasing power must be withdrawn to
prevent inflation. Thus, Keynes rightly viewed taxes as a tool for withdrawing
demand, not paying for government spending.
He thought taxes could be used
to withdraw half of the added demand. The other half would have to come through
savings, voluntary or “forced”.
Voluntary savings would only
work if everyone saved enough, which can’t be guaranteed. If households don’t
save enough, they bid up prices while consuming the same amount of resources,
but paying more. The business ”profiteers” would get a windfall income, some
saved and the rest taxed away (so businesses would effectively act as tax
collectors for the Treasury—the extra consumer demand facing a relatively fixed
supply of consumption goods would generate extra tax revenues on profits).
Thus voluntary saving plus
taxes would still withdraw demand, but on the backs of workers and to the
benefit of profiteers. If workers demanded and got higher wages, the process
would simply repeat itself with wages constantly playing catch-up to price
increases as workers consumed the same amount of real resources.
Keynes’s preferred solution
was deferred consumption. Instead of taxing away workers’ income, which would
prevent them from enjoying the fruits of their labor forever (and possibly
reduce support for the war effort), he proposed to defer their consumption by
depositing a portion of their wages in “blocked” interest-earning deposits.
This solution would avoid
inflation, while at the same time more evenly distribute financial wealth
toward workers.
Furthermore, this would solve
the problem of the slump that would likely follow the war, as workers could
increase consumption after the war at a measured pace, spending out of their
deferred income.
Keynes recognized that it is
not easy for a “free community” to organize for war. It would be necessary to
adapt the distributive system of a free community to the limitations of war,
when the size of the “cake” would be fixed.
One could neither expect the
rich to make all of the necessary sacrifice, nor put too much of the burden on
those of low means. Simply taking income away from the rich would not free up a
sufficient quantity of resources to move toward the war effort—their propensity
to consume is relatively low and they have the ways and means to avoid or evade
taxes.
But taking too much income
away from those with too little would cause excessive suffering—especially in
light of the possibility they’d face rising prices on necessities.
To avoid a wage-price spiral,
labor would have to agree to moderate wage demands. This would be easier to
obtain if a promise were made that workers would not be permanently deprived of
the benefits of working harder now.
In other words, the choice
facing workers is to forego increased consumption altogether, or to defer it.
In return for working more now, they would be paid more later—accumulating
financial wealth in the meantime.
He recommended three
principles to guide war planning:
1) use deferred compensation
to reward workers;
2) tax higher incomes while
exempting the poor; and
3) maintain adequate minimum
standards for those with lower incomes such that they would be better off, not
worse off, during the war.
The deferred compensation
would be released in installments, timed with the slump that would follow the
war. The system would be “self-liquidating both in terms of real
resources and of finance”—as resources were withdrawn from the military they
could turn to civilian production, with the deferred compensation providing the
income needed to buy that output.
While Keynes argued that “some
measure of rationing and price control should play a part” he argued that these
should be secondary to taxes and deferred compensation. Rationing
impinges on consumer choice and inevitably has differential impacts across
individuals. Price controls can create shortages.
In any case, he argued that an
effective program of deferred income will make rationing and price controls
easier to implement.
What Keynes wanted to avoid
was the UK experience of WWI when the cost of living rose an average of 20-25%
annually over the course of the war, and wage hikes tended to match price
hikes, but with about a one year lag.
This allowed sufficient but
permanent loss of consumption by workers to shift resources to the war.
By contrast, both the US and
the UK managed to contain inflation pressures much more successfully in
WWII—the UK hit double digit inflation only in 1940 and 1941, and had
remarkably low inflation during the remainder of the war; the US barely reached
above 10% only in 1942 and in other years inflation ranged from 1.7% to 8%.
Both of them adopted a variety
of anti-inflation policies that approximated Keynes’s policy. Given the
circumstances, the policies were remarkably effective.
Note that in the US,
government spending rose to nearly half of GDP—with the budget deficit rising
to 15% of GDP and the national debt climbing to 100% of GDP. In light of that
massive mobilization, it is amazing how low inflation was.
I think this will also happen
as the GND is phased in—the growth rate will accelerate sharply and the
government’s share of GDP will grow from the current 25% or so toward 35% of
GDP. At the same time, there will be reduction of private spending on
healthcare so we end up with maybe an overall boost of GDP of maybe 2.5%.
If desired, we can reduce the
stimulus through deferred consumption—perhaps through a surcharge on payrolls
that will be returned through more generous benefits after the GND “war” cools
down. Me? I’m an optimist. I believe the GND boost will put us on a sustained
higher growth path, without inflation, that will generate the additional
resources required.
If we compare that to the WWII
build up, all of this seems quite manageable. And the inflation effect will be
much lower—in part because we are not producing stuff to blow things up and in
part because we face strong deflationary pressures from the east—a couple of
billion workers have joined the global production force to keep inflation down.
And some of this shift toward
the GND will be reversed quickly once the new infrastructure is in place and we
have greened our economy. We will release the deferred compensation and we
might end up with a government that is permanently bigger but not by that
much—say a third of the economy instead of a quarter. Again, that is no big
deal.
We long ago became a
post-agricultural society. Since WWII we’ve transitioned to a post industrial
society. It makes sense that we are going to have a bigger government since
most provisioning already is, and will increasingly be, coming from the service
sector—an area where public service Trumps private service—in education, care
services—aged and young, healthcare, the arts, and many forms of
environmentally-friendly recreation. More parks, less shopping.
In another important
contribution—Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren— written in 1930,
Keynes speculated about our future– a time when “for the first time since his
creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his
freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science
and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and
well.”
By Keynes’s timeline, this
should have been reached by 2030. We’ve timed our GND to be completed by 2030.
We have 10 years to make Keynes’s vision become reality. The alternative is
annihilation.
Some (both heterodox and
orthodox alike) argue we just cannot “afford” survival. It is cheaper to just
keep doing what we’ve been doing and hope for a different result. That is not
only the definition of insanity, but it is—as Keynes would say—unnecessarily
defeatist.
The challenge is big; the
alternative is unacceptable.
(*Our report, How to Pay
for the Green New Deal, by Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray, will be
published soon at the Levy Economics Institute.)
Millions of Americans are just one paycheck away from ‘financial disaster’
Published: May 18, 2019
6:08 a.m. ET
Jacob Passy
Missing more than one paycheck
is a one-way ticket to financial hardship for nearly half of the country’s
workforce.
A new study from NORC
at the University of Chicago, an independent social research institution,
found that 51% of working adults in the United States would need to access
savings to cover necessities if they missed more than one paycheck.
Certain communities were more
prone to economic hardship in the event of missing a paycheck. Roughly
two-thirds of households earning less than $30,000 annually and Hispanic
households would be unable to cover basic living expenses after missing more
than one paycheck, the researchers found.
“Even so, notable differences
remain across race, ethnicity, education groups, and locations and many
individuals still struggle to repay college loans, handle small emergency
expenses, and manage retirement savings,” it added.
The findings were based on a
survey of more than 1,000 adults. The researchers interviewed a nationally
representative panel designed to be indicative of the U.S. population.
The survey provides a sobering
look at Americans’ precarious finances even as the economy is improving, jobs
are more plentiful and the stock market has — despite this week’s volatility —
generally continued its upward trajectory this year.
Prosperity Now, a Washington,
D.C.-based think tank focused on expanding economic opportunity for low-income
Americans, said 40% of U.S. households lack a basic level of savings.
These “liquid asset poor”
households don’t even have enough savings to live at the poverty level for
three months if their income was interrupted.
The data is even worse for
people of color, with more than half of households of color (57%) being liquid
asset poor, it found.
“The 2019 Prosperity Now
Scorecard shows that too many families are either struggling to make ends meet,
or are just one emergency away from a financial disaster,” it said.
Millions of Americans don’t
have savings to fall back on
A separate survey from home
repair service HomeServe USA found that almost 1 in 5 Americans (19%) reported
having no money set aside for dealing with the costs of an unexpected emergency
expense. That report said 31% of Americas don’t have at least $500 set aside to
cover an unexpected expense.
At the other end of the
spectrum, over a quarter of Americans (26%) said they had $8,000 or more set
aside for unexpected emergency expenses, it added.
Americans aged 65 and over are
likely to have the most money set aside for unplanned expenses: 48% of people
within the age group reporting having $8,000 or more in emergency funds (versus
20% of those ages 18 to 64).
“Nearly half of Americans
(49%) cited medical emergencies as a potential unexpected expense for them in
the next 12 months, a finding with added significance given the level of
national attention and political debate around the topic of health care in
recent months,” it added.
Though wage growth has
accelerated recently, those gains have
been concentrated among the wealthiest Americans most.
In addition, research from the
Federal Reserve found that roughly
4 in 10 Americans couldn’t afford a $400 emergency. It said 41% would
have to dip into savings, slightly less than 44% in 2016, 46% and 50% in 2013.
Approximately 22% say they
expect to forgo payments on some of their bills and nearly half of those who
don’t pay their bills also fail to pay off their credit-card bills every
month, racking
up double-digit interest rates.
The Fed’s 2018 report found
that 74% of adults reported they were doing “at least OK financially” the previous
year, up 10 percentage points from the first survey in 2013.
“Short disruptions in pay can
cause significant hardship, as most Americans appear to be living
paycheck-to-paycheck,” Angela Fontes, director of the Behavioral and Economic
Analysis and Decision-Making (BEAD) program at NORC at the University of
Chicago, said in the report.
The savings rate in the U.S. fell to
6.5% in March from a recent high of 8.8% in 2012.
The NORC study found that most
workers would manage a missed paycheck by cutting spending on non-essential
items (73%). But other methods consumers would employ to handle a gap in income
could have serious long-term ramifications.
Around 2 in 5 consumers said
they would stop putting money away into savings, while more than a quarter
reported that they would stop making retirement contributions.
Arguably more concerning
though is how many Americans would turn to debt. Almost half of households in
this situation (47%) would turn to credit cards, while a similar share would
borrow from friends or family.
And nearly a fifth of
consumers would rely on a payday, auto or other short-term loan. These loans,
which can
carry interest rates upwards of 600%, can easily sink borrowers into an
inescapable debt cycle and wreak havoc on their credit score.
Mueller Report motivated by cheap fiction from Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS (Hillary’s disinformation contractor)
Free for All
from: CLUSTERFUCK NATION –
BLOG May 17, 2019
“WASHINGTON — House Democrats,
frustrated by President Trump’s efforts to stonewall their investigations and
eager to stoke public anger about the president’s behavior, are pinning their
diminishing hopes on Robert S. Mueller III yet again…. Mr. Mueller, who was
invited to testify by the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Intelligence
Committees a month ago, has not agreed to do so. ”
— The New York Times
Oh? Is that so? Do you wonder
why Mr. Mueller might not want to open his aching heart to any House committee
in the desperate, last-ditch effort to wring some impeachment joy juice from
the already wrung-out narrative of his disappointing report? For the excellent
reason that the minority Republican members of said committees get to ask
questions too, and they are sure to be embarrassing questions, perhaps placing
the Special Counsel in legal jeopardy.
For instance: why did Mr.
Mueller not reveal publicly that his team, and the FBI, both knew from the very
start that the predicating “corpus of evidence” for the two-year inquisition
was cheap fiction written by Glenn Simpson and his hirelings at Fusion GPS, the
Hillary Clinton campaign’s disinformation contractor — including “Russia
specialist” Nellie Ohr, wife of the then Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr? I could
go on, but the above fact-nugget alone is enough to inform any sentient adult
that the Mueller Investigation was an entirely political act of seditious
subterfuge, and there are many other actionable nuggets of blatant mendacity in
the 444-page report to inspire the convening of grand juries against a great
many officials in orbit around Mr. Mueller. So, don’t expect Mr. Mueller to
show up in any congressional witness chair, though he may occupy one in a
courtroom around the time that the next major election is in full swing.
Here’s what will actually
happen. These House majority committee chiefs are going to quit their
blustering over the next week or so as they discover there is no political
value — and plenty of political hazard — in extending the RussiaGate circus. In
the meantime, a titanic juridical machine, already a’grinding, will discredit
the whole sordid affair and send a number of hapless participants to the
federal ping-pong academies. And by then, the long-suffering citizenry will
barely give a shit because we will have entered the climactic phase of the
Fourth Turning (or Long Emergency, take your pick), in which the operations of
everyday business and governance in this country seriously crumble.
The Golden Golem of Greatness
will be blamed for most of that. The internal contradictions of Globalism were
already blowing up trade and financial relations between the US and China. The
Trump tariffs just amount to a clumsy recognition of the fatal imbalances long
at work there. As a 25 percent tax on countless Chinese products, the tariffs
will punish American shoppers as much as the Chinese manufacturers. Trade wars
have a way of escalating into more kinetic conflicts.
The sad truth is that both
China and the US are beset by dangerous fragilities. Both countries have
borrowed themselves into a Twilight Zone of unpayable debt. Both countries are
sunk in untenable economic and banking rackets to cover up their insolvency.
China’s fate hangs on distant energy supply lines that run through bottlenecks
like the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Molucca. The US has been
producing torrents of shale oil at a net financial loss — a business model with
poor long-term prospects. The temperament of the Chinese people is conditioned
historically by subservience to authority, which tends to blow into anarchic
rage quickly and catastrophically when things go wrong. The US populace, sunk
in decadence, despair, distraction, and delusion, moves sluggishly toward
unrest — and for the time being expresses its discontent only in ceremonial
narcissistic grievance.
The quarrel between the US and
China now threatens to suck the rest of the world into a global business
depression, which is what you might expect when globalism seizes up and the
global players start scrambling desperately to keep any kind of economy going.
The danger then will be that the disgruntled populations of these many lands
could become as delusional as Americans, and equally inclined to international
violence. There could be all kinds of fighting in all sorts of places while
everybody goes broke and hungry. And meanwhile, Robert Mueller meets his
protégé Jim Comey for the ping-pong championship of Allenwood federal
penitentiary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)