You could also think in terms of Huntington's term: torn country, a country riven by racial religious and or ethnic, actually civilizational, divides, breaks, or border areas, sometimes represented geographically as used in his term.
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Friday, March 30, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
INDIA TWENTY MILLION + APPLICANTS FOR 100K RAILWAY JOBS
They need to consider euthanizing some of these hundreds of millions of unemployed and unemployables.
What is the alternative?
Force them across the borders into other countries equally bereft of work and food?
Slavery is not an option: you have to be able to use slaves to do something that will at least support the slaves and make it worthwhile to keep them. They can't even do that in India.
You could charge the Indian government with human rights violations. Sounds rather hollow, under the circumstances, doesn't it.
Maybe the NYT has the answer, say: Trade Is Not A Job Killer.
Just read that to them. That will surely help!
Maybe the NYT has the answer, say: Trade Is Not A Job Killer.
Just read that to them. That will surely help!
WESTERN UNSOLIDARITY RACE ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS
My hygienist, very conservative white lady, tells me, today, gramps came from Sicily.
He had been sold into white slavery, as a carusu around 1900, worked in mines in Sicily.
Apparently Booker T Washington talked about it, see Wikipedia.
He came here, escaped I guess, and then worked in mines here, before WWII...had black lung...
Anyway, people whose gramps were slaves, white slaves and black slaves, do not necessarily mix well at all, here, later, either in the 18th Century or right now...trust me.
Almost half the colonists here were originally indentured servants, not black slaves, but pretty damn close to slavery in everything except name, when indentures were often struck for hard labor, and lasted 5 to 7 years, in a place where you often didn't even live that long...
Almost half the colonists here were originally indentured servants, not black slaves, but pretty damn close to slavery in everything except name, when indentures were often struck for hard labor, and lasted 5 to 7 years, in a place where you often didn't even live that long...
RECONSTUCTION FOIBLES DK CANDY COATING
Friday, June 30, 2017
DK POST DECEMBER 29 2011
Why not post his 2011 post here, so that my remark can be seen in context?:
Thursday, December 29, 2011
A similar era?
At long last I have acted on my intention to investigate the Gilded Age, in order to find exactly how similar politics 140 years ago were to our own. My text has been a remarkable book, Twenty Years in Congress, 1861-1881, written by a distinguished participant, James G. Blaine of Maine, who came within an ace of becoming President himself in 1884 but lost by the votes of a few thousand New Yorkers and retired to write this most interesting history. There is no substitute, I have found, for investigating an era through the eyes of a participant, and Blaine combined an eye for character with a respect for primary sources, quoting theCongressional Globe and presidential addresses at great length. My read has tended to confirm that the similarities in the two eras are rather striking, largely because both are dominated by a mixture of partisanship and corruption.
I have skipped volume I for the moment and began in the wake of the Civil War, during the Presidency of Andrew Johnson, one which bears an uncomfortable similarity in some respects to the time we are passing through now. Johnson, a poor white from East Tennessee, was one of the greatest accidents in American history. A loyal union man and a "War Democrat," as they were known, he joined Abraham Lincoln on the "Unionist" (not Republican) ticket in 1864 to appeal to loyal Democrats and the border states. Like many upcountry southerners, he hated the planter class, but it turned out that he hated the newly freed slaves more. The large Republican majority in Congress was determined to preserve the results of the war by either reducing the representation of the Southern states, or by enfranchising the freedmen. The 14th amendment was written to do the first: it did not require Negro suffrage, as it was then called, but specifically promised to reduce the Congressional representation of states so as to reflect the number of voters they enfranchised. When the southern states, supported by President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment, the Republican Congressional majority--which grew even larger in the 1866 elections--passed its own Reconstruction plan, putting the South under military rule and insisting that the southern states enfranchise Negroes in new Constitutions before they could send representatives to Congress again. Negro suffrage, sadly, was a measure well in advance of even northern opinion, (This sentence is quite an understatement, in itself. My underlining and parenthesis. Boomerbuster) and the radicals realized by 1867 that it had to be put into the Constitution in order to impose it upon the South. This the 15th Amendment did.
Johnson's dogged resistance to these measures was fully shared by the Democratic Party, northern as well as southern. In an odd echo of what we have been through for the last three years, not a single Democrat in Congress voted for either the 14th or 15th Amendments, nor did any Democratic-controlled legislatures ratify them. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress, with good reason, did not trust Johnson to use the executive branch's powers to carry out their policies, and in 1867 they passed the Tenure of Office Act, taking advantage of a Constitutional ambiguity to make the approval of the Senate mandatory to remove, as well as to appoint, federal officers. Utterly contrary to tradition and precedent, this measure was clearly unconstitutional, but the Republicans forced it through nonetheless, and it became the basis for Johnson's impeachment when he removed Secretary of War Stanton from office. The Republicans would have done much better to have impeached him for clearly attempting to subvert the laws that they had passed, but they preferred to rest their case on a technicality instead. Blaine by the time he wrote his book clearly recognized that the impeachment was a mistake, although he had voted for it as a member of the House at the time. In the end, thanks to some courageous Republicans, Johnson was acquitted by the Senate by the narrowest of margins. The Tenure of Office act controversy now parallels the battle over President Obama's recess appointments, which the Senate used parliamentary subterfuge to try to prevent.
Partisanship dominated nearly every major issue in this period. The Democrats, many of whom had never believed in the Civil War, wanted to pay off the enormous war debt in depreciated paper currency; this the Republicans refused to do, and they made impressive progress in paying it off even under Johnson. Even the admission of new western states was now pushed or rejected on partisan grounds, because they were thought to be likely to send more Republicans to the Senate and the House. Republicans often referred to "the Democracy," as it was then called, as the party of treason (another call they have taken up again), while Democrats referred to Republicans as the party of dictatorship and racial equality. It was probably fortunate that the nation had General Grant to turn to, since he could command some bipartisan support at least in the North. We have no such figure on the horizon today.
Yet I could not help noticing that despite the equally partisan divide, the Congress functioned infinitely more efficiently than it does now. The House routinely suspended its rules to rush through legislation (this required a 2/3 vote, which the Republicans could usually, but not always, get), and the filibuster seems to have been unknown even in the Senate. Committees worked quickly and efficiently--without any staff at all. The level of oratory was incomparably higher than it is today. And one senses, in speeches on all side, an acute sense that the United States was still a relatively young democratic experiment--many of the legislators, after all, would have known in their youth men and women old enough to remember the adoption of the Constitution--and an instinctive, continual resort to the first principles of Republican government. The average legislator today would find himself intellectually overmatched, should a time machine take him back 150 years.
The real issue in this period, as in the war itself, was the question of federal authority. Having strengthened it beyond imagination to win the war, the Republicans, led by Charles Sumner in the Senate, one of the few real heroes of the era, knew they must keep it strong to complete the work of the war. Only the continued occupation of the South by federal troops, even after states were re-admitted to the Union, gave the black citizenry and white Republicans (of which there were some!) any chance of exercising their franchise and securing their lives and property. The Ku Klux Klan was, very simply, a terrorist organization dedicated to re-imposing white rule by force, something it gradually managed to do. Meanwhile, Democrats North and South, and even some dissenting Republicans, argued that the Republican majority, and, after 1869, the Grant Administration, was maintaining a wartime despotism long after the time had come to restore peace. Grant won a big electoral victory in 1868, but Blaine points out that his margin was somewhat deceptive. Both New York and New Jersey voted for Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candidate, and Grant's margins in several other Democratic states were quite small. Although Grant remained personally committed to reconstruction, he was a much weaker President than he had been a general, and his Administration's corruption so undermined the confidence of many concerned citizens that he faced a liberal Republican revolt in 1872. The liberals nominated a titan of the Republican Party, the editor Horace Greeley, and the Democrats decided they had best support him. Greeley could not win their loyalty, however, and he went down to a much worse defeat than Seymour.
Turning back for a moment to the present day, the Republicans in the last four years have treated Barack Obama in the same way their ancestors treated Andrew Johnson--and, I would suggest, for the same two reasons. First, they see him as attempting to maintain an old order which they detest--the remnants of the New Deal and the Great Society. They prefer, of course, to argue that he is trying to impose a new order, socialism, but I suspect that in their hearts they know the truth. There is some truth in this, just as Andrew Johnson and the defeated white Southerners and their Northern Democratic allies meant to restore the supremacy both of the white race and the Democratic Party. But secondly, neither set of Republicans viewed, or views, the President as legitimate. Johnson they regarded as an apostate; Obama they regard as unfit, for various reasons, to sit in the White House. Having opposed everything he did for two years, and having been rewarded with control of the House of Representatives, they are now obstructing him at every turn, and doing their best, too, to deny the Presidential appointing power by refusing to confirm his nominees, regardless of their impact upon the ability of the federal government even to function. George Will, who evidently realizes that Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, calls for four more years of total obstructionismin his last column of the year.
It has now become clear to me that the United States has enjoyed only two eras of genuine political consensus in its history: from 1800 to 1824 (although in some respects that consensus persisted into the 1830s), and from about 1941 until about 1968 (although in some respects that consensus lasted at least until the 1980s.) The earlier consensus was built around white manhood suffrage, expansion into the Northwest, and attempts to keep slavery where it was. The second was based upon the New Deal and the United States' new world role. The Civil War and Reconstruction proved that the nation could pass through one of its periodic crises without creating a real consensus or even strengthening the federal government. The executive branch did not recover from the Presidency of Johnson until Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson. There is every reason to think that those of us in our sixties will not live to see a genuine consensus established again, and that the executive will continue to grow weaker for at least the next decade.
The issue of corruption at all levels of government, combined with serious economic inequality, eventually brought about the Progressive era, more than thirty years after the end of the Civil War. We too may have to wait for decades before we set about fixing government and, perhaps, restoring some of the role it played in the economy in the middle of the twentieth century. In any case, the trends of that era were clearly not fated to continue indefinitely. We have moved into a new era, one sadly reminiscent of the Gilded Age, few of whose politicians have gone down as heroic figures.
I have skipped volume I for the moment and began in the wake of the Civil War, during the Presidency of Andrew Johnson, one which bears an uncomfortable similarity in some respects to the time we are passing through now. Johnson, a poor white from East Tennessee, was one of the greatest accidents in American history. A loyal union man and a "War Democrat," as they were known, he joined Abraham Lincoln on the "Unionist" (not Republican) ticket in 1864 to appeal to loyal Democrats and the border states. Like many upcountry southerners, he hated the planter class, but it turned out that he hated the newly freed slaves more. The large Republican majority in Congress was determined to preserve the results of the war by either reducing the representation of the Southern states, or by enfranchising the freedmen. The 14th amendment was written to do the first: it did not require Negro suffrage, as it was then called, but specifically promised to reduce the Congressional representation of states so as to reflect the number of voters they enfranchised. When the southern states, supported by President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment, the Republican Congressional majority--which grew even larger in the 1866 elections--passed its own Reconstruction plan, putting the South under military rule and insisting that the southern states enfranchise Negroes in new Constitutions before they could send representatives to Congress again. Negro suffrage, sadly, was a measure well in advance of even northern opinion, (This sentence is quite an understatement, in itself. My underlining and parenthesis. Boomerbuster) and the radicals realized by 1867 that it had to be put into the Constitution in order to impose it upon the South. This the 15th Amendment did.
Johnson's dogged resistance to these measures was fully shared by the Democratic Party, northern as well as southern. In an odd echo of what we have been through for the last three years, not a single Democrat in Congress voted for either the 14th or 15th Amendments, nor did any Democratic-controlled legislatures ratify them. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress, with good reason, did not trust Johnson to use the executive branch's powers to carry out their policies, and in 1867 they passed the Tenure of Office Act, taking advantage of a Constitutional ambiguity to make the approval of the Senate mandatory to remove, as well as to appoint, federal officers. Utterly contrary to tradition and precedent, this measure was clearly unconstitutional, but the Republicans forced it through nonetheless, and it became the basis for Johnson's impeachment when he removed Secretary of War Stanton from office. The Republicans would have done much better to have impeached him for clearly attempting to subvert the laws that they had passed, but they preferred to rest their case on a technicality instead. Blaine by the time he wrote his book clearly recognized that the impeachment was a mistake, although he had voted for it as a member of the House at the time. In the end, thanks to some courageous Republicans, Johnson was acquitted by the Senate by the narrowest of margins. The Tenure of Office act controversy now parallels the battle over President Obama's recess appointments, which the Senate used parliamentary subterfuge to try to prevent.
Partisanship dominated nearly every major issue in this period. The Democrats, many of whom had never believed in the Civil War, wanted to pay off the enormous war debt in depreciated paper currency; this the Republicans refused to do, and they made impressive progress in paying it off even under Johnson. Even the admission of new western states was now pushed or rejected on partisan grounds, because they were thought to be likely to send more Republicans to the Senate and the House. Republicans often referred to "the Democracy," as it was then called, as the party of treason (another call they have taken up again), while Democrats referred to Republicans as the party of dictatorship and racial equality. It was probably fortunate that the nation had General Grant to turn to, since he could command some bipartisan support at least in the North. We have no such figure on the horizon today.
Yet I could not help noticing that despite the equally partisan divide, the Congress functioned infinitely more efficiently than it does now. The House routinely suspended its rules to rush through legislation (this required a 2/3 vote, which the Republicans could usually, but not always, get), and the filibuster seems to have been unknown even in the Senate. Committees worked quickly and efficiently--without any staff at all. The level of oratory was incomparably higher than it is today. And one senses, in speeches on all side, an acute sense that the United States was still a relatively young democratic experiment--many of the legislators, after all, would have known in their youth men and women old enough to remember the adoption of the Constitution--and an instinctive, continual resort to the first principles of Republican government. The average legislator today would find himself intellectually overmatched, should a time machine take him back 150 years.
The real issue in this period, as in the war itself, was the question of federal authority. Having strengthened it beyond imagination to win the war, the Republicans, led by Charles Sumner in the Senate, one of the few real heroes of the era, knew they must keep it strong to complete the work of the war. Only the continued occupation of the South by federal troops, even after states were re-admitted to the Union, gave the black citizenry and white Republicans (of which there were some!) any chance of exercising their franchise and securing their lives and property. The Ku Klux Klan was, very simply, a terrorist organization dedicated to re-imposing white rule by force, something it gradually managed to do. Meanwhile, Democrats North and South, and even some dissenting Republicans, argued that the Republican majority, and, after 1869, the Grant Administration, was maintaining a wartime despotism long after the time had come to restore peace. Grant won a big electoral victory in 1868, but Blaine points out that his margin was somewhat deceptive. Both New York and New Jersey voted for Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candidate, and Grant's margins in several other Democratic states were quite small. Although Grant remained personally committed to reconstruction, he was a much weaker President than he had been a general, and his Administration's corruption so undermined the confidence of many concerned citizens that he faced a liberal Republican revolt in 1872. The liberals nominated a titan of the Republican Party, the editor Horace Greeley, and the Democrats decided they had best support him. Greeley could not win their loyalty, however, and he went down to a much worse defeat than Seymour.
Turning back for a moment to the present day, the Republicans in the last four years have treated Barack Obama in the same way their ancestors treated Andrew Johnson--and, I would suggest, for the same two reasons. First, they see him as attempting to maintain an old order which they detest--the remnants of the New Deal and the Great Society. They prefer, of course, to argue that he is trying to impose a new order, socialism, but I suspect that in their hearts they know the truth. There is some truth in this, just as Andrew Johnson and the defeated white Southerners and their Northern Democratic allies meant to restore the supremacy both of the white race and the Democratic Party. But secondly, neither set of Republicans viewed, or views, the President as legitimate. Johnson they regarded as an apostate; Obama they regard as unfit, for various reasons, to sit in the White House. Having opposed everything he did for two years, and having been rewarded with control of the House of Representatives, they are now obstructing him at every turn, and doing their best, too, to deny the Presidential appointing power by refusing to confirm his nominees, regardless of their impact upon the ability of the federal government even to function. George Will, who evidently realizes that Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, calls for four more years of total obstructionismin his last column of the year.
It has now become clear to me that the United States has enjoyed only two eras of genuine political consensus in its history: from 1800 to 1824 (although in some respects that consensus persisted into the 1830s), and from about 1941 until about 1968 (although in some respects that consensus lasted at least until the 1980s.) The earlier consensus was built around white manhood suffrage, expansion into the Northwest, and attempts to keep slavery where it was. The second was based upon the New Deal and the United States' new world role. The Civil War and Reconstruction proved that the nation could pass through one of its periodic crises without creating a real consensus or even strengthening the federal government. The executive branch did not recover from the Presidency of Johnson until Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson. There is every reason to think that those of us in our sixties will not live to see a genuine consensus established again, and that the executive will continue to grow weaker for at least the next decade.
The issue of corruption at all levels of government, combined with serious economic inequality, eventually brought about the Progressive era, more than thirty years after the end of the Civil War. We too may have to wait for decades before we set about fixing government and, perhaps, restoring some of the role it played in the economy in the middle of the twentieth century. In any case, the trends of that era were clearly not fated to continue indefinitely. We have moved into a new era, one sadly reminiscent of the Gilded Age, few of whose politicians have gone down as heroic figures.
LET'S TALK ORIGINALISM SECOND AMENDMENT
This was designed to protect rebellious and anarchic colonists of each state not only against its own denizens, but also against Britain, against Indians and the French and Spanish, and most importantly, against the militias of their so called brother states, if called upon by their own state or local government to do so.
Most importantly, it guaranteed the safety of colonists who often were almost outnumbered by negro slaves in the Southern states.
Most importantly, it guaranteed the safety of colonists who often were almost outnumbered by negro slaves in the Southern states.
The Second Amendment was a powerfully framed states' rights amendment, not designed so much with respect to the nascent federal government exclusively at all.
This was hardly your Whiggish Lincoln originalism.
After all, Lincoln not only armed, but also trained, newly freed negroes, a thing that would have been truly unthinkable and unfathomable, for any reason of any kind, to the founding fathers barely four score years before.
After all, Lincoln not only armed, but also trained, newly freed negroes, a thing that would have been truly unthinkable and unfathomable, for any reason of any kind, to the founding fathers barely four score years before.
DRED SCOTT LINCOLN WHIG ORIGINALISM CLASSIC POST
Saturday, June 3, 2017
RE DK DRED SCOTT POST NEW PARAGRAPH WHIGGISM ON STEROIDS
"With no hope of making its views prevail through law, the South seceded...." DK
Looking again at his text, it seems to me that white southerners, hardly the only whites worried about negroes, either slave or free, would have been less worried about law, through which it seems to me that they had very well been able to make their views prevail by a majority in Congress, with for example the Kansas Nebraska Act, which overruled and supplanted the Missouri Compromise quite apart from Dred Scott also ruling it unconstitutional. It seems to me that that was plenty of law on their side.
They had certainly been able to make their views prevail, consistently with well founded judicial interpretation of the Constitution, in Dred Scott.
So what was it that caused them to secede, hardly out of legal or judicial hopelessness, but perhaps out of justifiable concern? It was the branch implacably, irrationally, against them, the one branch which they now could not control, Lincoln's.
Lincoln's new Republican Party was founded on a supposedly originalist basis, 'originalism on steroids', to use Professor Kaiser's term. See Douglas' quotation from the Second Resolution from the first Republican Mass State Convention in Illinois in 1854, Debates, p 48, ";to bring the administration of the government back to first principles;...".
What Lincoln's originalism on steroids actually is, in reality, however, is Butterfield's Whiggism on steroids.
The actual views of the founders regarding negroes as citizens or subjects were those summarized and expressed by Justice Taney, not by Lincoln and the Republican Party, as even someone like Bobbitt has readily acknowledged.
In a sense, then, Lincoln and Trump may turn out to be the two most momentous, and in some ways similar, presidencies, for analogous tragic, doctrinaire, and irrational reasons.
Maybe they each, in their way, are rather Alcibiades figures.
Make America One again. A house divided cannot stand....
Make America great again.
Lincoln's new Republican Party was founded on a supposedly originalist basis, 'originalism on steroids', to use Professor Kaiser's term. See Douglas' quotation from the Second Resolution from the first Republican Mass State Convention in Illinois in 1854, Debates, p 48, ";to bring the administration of the government back to first principles;...".
What Lincoln's originalism on steroids actually is, in reality, however, is Butterfield's Whiggism on steroids.
The actual views of the founders regarding negroes as citizens or subjects were those summarized and expressed by Justice Taney, not by Lincoln and the Republican Party, as even someone like Bobbitt has readily acknowledged.
In a sense, then, Lincoln and Trump may turn out to be the two most momentous, and in some ways similar, presidencies, for analogous tragic, doctrinaire, and irrational reasons.
Maybe they each, in their way, are rather Alcibiades figures.
Make America One again. A house divided cannot stand....
Make America great again.
RE NYT TRADE IS NOT A JOB KILLER
This guy needs to have Michael Pillsbury's book rammed up his ass, slowly.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
CLASSIC POST THE VISIBLE HAND
Monday, July 26, 2010
KRUGMAN ON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHY NOT THE VISIBLE HAND?
Looks like a well thot out piece. Good points.
He is even critical of conservatives, critical even on underlying presuppositions of his field, critical of the Casanova hand among the wealthy conservative spin on climategate, critical it seems of the invisible hand solving the problem.
One problem, though, when it comes to a solution, what does he suggest?
Putting in place a carbon credit market regimen by legislation.
But isn't a 'market system', essentially the one he is criticising, what has given us the global warming situation in the first place, for which he now has another market solution?
Hasn't a 'market' in carbon credits already shown its flawed face?
Isn't booming Asia, industrially/environmentally/MILITARILY, our 'invisible' hand, to a great extent, at work? ('At play', really, is a better term, in that it has been too haphazard, childish, naive, whimsical, blithe, a history to be called 'work'.)
What I suggest, and it is not going to work here, is an old tool of government:
police power; the power to say that certain things, or certain polluting activities in certain measures, will not be permitted, on penalty of such and such.
Call it THE VISIBLE HAND.
But that solution has always been anathema to economic thinking.
He is even critical of conservatives, critical even on underlying presuppositions of his field, critical of the Casanova hand among the wealthy conservative spin on climategate, critical it seems of the invisible hand solving the problem.
One problem, though, when it comes to a solution, what does he suggest?
Putting in place a carbon credit market regimen by legislation.
But isn't a 'market system', essentially the one he is criticising, what has given us the global warming situation in the first place, for which he now has another market solution?
Hasn't a 'market' in carbon credits already shown its flawed face?
Isn't booming Asia, industrially/environmentally/MILITARILY, our 'invisible' hand, to a great extent, at work? ('At play', really, is a better term, in that it has been too haphazard, childish, naive, whimsical, blithe, a history to be called 'work'.)
What I suggest, and it is not going to work here, is an old tool of government:
police power; the power to say that certain things, or certain polluting activities in certain measures, will not be permitted, on penalty of such and such.
Call it THE VISIBLE HAND.
But that solution has always been anathema to economic thinking.
EASTER PASSOVER COMING UP I LIKE TO HIT THE HISTORICAL JUDAISM AND JESUS THEMES
Terms search: Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible Unearthed, E P Sanders, Jesus, etc.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
FORGET ABOUT THE COLOR WHITE THE COLOR BLACK THE COLOR PURPLE THINK ABOUT THE COLOR
YELLOW
Smell the coffee, Western whitey, Western blackey, Western liberal Jew or liberal Christian stooge, Western orthodox Jew or Conservative Christian stooge, game over for all of you, baby.
TERMS SEARCH THE CHINA PRICE
Eg:
Sunday, December 25, 2011
RE DK'S CURRENT POST IRAQ REVISITED FREE TRADE RESOURCES THE CHINA PRICE
Shows, I think, how little deeper insight has gone into some of the big strategic moves the US has made.
Our blinkered political history, and political structures, made this short sightedness inevitable. (Some may rightly quibble over 'inevitable', but I will still use it.)
If we really wanted bigger imperialism,
rather than an economic nationalism more appropriate for many reasons,
we should not have embarked, instead, on blind globalization, after WW II.
If Kaiser is right about significance of big petro contracts with the French, re Iraq,
how then about the big resource contracts of China and India with Australia which I have noted.....
Sounds like they really need to be unwound,
but how about free trade?
Weren't those resources, also, acquired at the so called China price ( Big Lots )?
What is wrong with this China Price?
Our blinkered political history, and political structures, made this short sightedness inevitable. (Some may rightly quibble over 'inevitable', but I will still use it.)
If we really wanted bigger imperialism,
rather than an economic nationalism more appropriate for many reasons,
we should not have embarked, instead, on blind globalization, after WW II.
If Kaiser is right about significance of big petro contracts with the French, re Iraq,
how then about the big resource contracts of China and India with Australia which I have noted.....
Sounds like they really need to be unwound,
but how about free trade?
Weren't those resources, also, acquired at the so called China price ( Big Lots )?
What is wrong with this China Price?
THE CHINA PRICE CLASSIC POST
Thursday, November 1, 2012
RE BBC CHINA BUYS STAKE IN HEATHROW AIRPORT
This is just a tiny example, of what one now often sees, with relatively unbridled so called market capitalism.
Can you say ' leverage decline ' re UK versus China, or China versus other global power players?
Australia has been selling big contracts to them for a long time now.
What if the deals, some time, somehow, for some unforeseen reason, need to be unwound?
Will it just be a little matter of money?
Term search: Mary Poppins, Popper, playing three sides, etc.
Can you say ' leverage decline ' re UK versus China, or China versus other global power players?
Australia has been selling big contracts to them for a long time now.
What if the deals, some time, somehow, for some unforeseen reason, need to be unwound?
Will it just be a little matter of money?
Term search: Mary Poppins, Popper, playing three sides, etc.
NYT LEONHARDT SQUIB FILLED WITH BLACK WHITE RACISM ARTICLES AND REFERENCES
See these older posts:
Sunday, March 4, 2018
CLASSIC NYT RACISM POST
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
RE NOCERO RACE AND NCAA
"... it's almost always ok (FOR THE NYT) to raise the spectre of black white racism..."
Stupid NYT bastards, now busy radicalizing a new, already anarchic and ignorant, teen age generation against both guns and only black white discrimination, thinking that this new new left can then be successfully launched against the conservative, and long anarchic, right, to save their liberal asses...
These teenagers will not turn out to be your 'voice of reason'...
The other huge point, is that the forces in favor of gun ownership here are largely very well armed, whereas these new teenage Joans of Arc are weaponless on principle!
My advice to anyone for gun control, attending a gun control rally expected to be contested: Come well armed.
Right wing armed gun rights anarchists would think it is open season on these little darlings.
These teenagers will not turn out to be your 'voice of reason'...
The other huge point, is that the forces in favor of gun ownership here are largely very well armed, whereas these new teenage Joans of Arc are weaponless on principle!
My advice to anyone for gun control, attending a gun control rally expected to be contested: Come well armed.
Right wing armed gun rights anarchists would think it is open season on these little darlings.
RE DIPLOMAT EXPULSION BLACKMAIL COMICAL REALLY
None of these countries have much use for diplomats in embassies anymore, with the EU, etc taking the place of most of their governments, anyway.
Who cares about diplomats, anywhere, really, anymore?
Nobody. Leaders can simply tweet each other!
The Russians are the best able to do without diplomats anyway, so it turns out to be a win win for Russia to get rid of diplomats everywhere!
Monday, March 26, 2018
THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET NEEDS TO BE PERMANENTLY DISMISSED EN MASS RIGHT NOW
This is perfectly constitutional, believe it or not, can be done utterly without cause, no finger pointing, nothing, silence, escept for the media creating stories to tell why.
They all serve at his pleasure. Think about it.
No reappointments, baby!
They all serve at his pleasure. Think about it.
No reappointments, baby!
The only member of the cabinet who cannot be summarily dismissed, without any cause whatsoever, is the Vice President.
I recommend that this be done immediately!
Why have them, after all, for Trump? Dead weight. Great cost. Get in his way.
I am sure he would agree wholeheartedly!
This is one area where he can deliver on his campaign promises re bloated inefficient government.
Most of his appointments only were done to queer Democratic initiatives. They failed to get rid of the posts and the bloated departments!
Why bother with that extra shuffle and expense?
Disband those bloated executive cabinet departments by executive order, to be accomplished within, say, 30 days? Get rid of them all.
Why not Trump himself, by White House staff, or, by God, self help, queer Democratic initiatives, himself, directly, no cabinet bureaucracies?!
This is one area where he can deliver on his campaign promises re bloated inefficient government.
Most of his appointments only were done to queer Democratic initiatives. They failed to get rid of the posts and the bloated departments!
Why bother with that extra shuffle and expense?
Disband those bloated executive cabinet departments by executive order, to be accomplished within, say, 30 days? Get rid of them all.
Why not Trump himself, by White House staff, or, by God, self help, queer Democratic initiatives, himself, directly, no cabinet bureaucracies?!
STORMY SPANKED TRUMP W HIS IMAGE MAG BEST SUMMATION MEDIA ROLE I KNOW ABOUT
"Once more, a network oligopoly would usher in a long era of lowest-common-denominator entertainment." Starr, p 384.''
This has to be Barry Blitt bait...
Barry: Put "Russian Times" script at the top. That would be perfect.
Please send me a preliminary sketch! Anything.
This has to be Barry Blitt bait...
Barry: Put "Russian Times" script at the top. That would be perfect.
Please send me a preliminary sketch! Anything.
RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS EXPELLED ACROSS EUROPE TOO
Americans never knew what diplomats were for anyway.
Trust me.
Bring ours home too, and let them flip burgers.
Those are almost the only jobs left in the West anyway.
Rooskie diplomats can just as well be sent to Siberia. Good Goddamn place for em! I still think we should cut a deal to send our biggest losers to Siberia, too! Pay Putin for it. Well worth it.
They, Rooskie diplomats, deserve it for having screwed up the Skripal murder, stupid bastards. He's still alive, isn't he?
The spies can just shoot each other from now on.
They are an ongoing embarrassment for embassies anyway, as this debacle has proven.
Why have embassies? They don't really know, to tell the truth, what embassies are for, anyway! (Kennan paraphrase)
Let the tourists fend for themselves with the foreigners.
Let contractors take care of our nationals there...leave them to themselves in the Casbah or the Congo, who cares? They decided to go.
MNCs and theirs can fend for themselves, wherever they are, and the devil take em, bastards!
Strike the tents.
Trust me.
Bring ours home too, and let them flip burgers.
Those are almost the only jobs left in the West anyway.
Rooskie diplomats can just as well be sent to Siberia. Good Goddamn place for em! I still think we should cut a deal to send our biggest losers to Siberia, too! Pay Putin for it. Well worth it.
They, Rooskie diplomats, deserve it for having screwed up the Skripal murder, stupid bastards. He's still alive, isn't he?
The spies can just shoot each other from now on.
They are an ongoing embarrassment for embassies anyway, as this debacle has proven.
Why have embassies? They don't really know, to tell the truth, what embassies are for, anyway! (Kennan paraphrase)
Let the tourists fend for themselves with the foreigners.
Let contractors take care of our nationals there...leave them to themselves in the Casbah or the Congo, who cares? They decided to go.
MNCs and theirs can fend for themselves, wherever they are, and the devil take em, bastards!
Strike the tents.
TRUMP TRADE WAR AVOIDED CLEAR SAILING AHEAD IT SEEMS BUT WAIT
Thursday, August 19, 2010
INFLATION AND DEFLATION BOTH ECONOMIST RED HERRINGS
I should point out,
that, when you are gradually, inch by monthly inch, slowly, annually, becoming a third world economy, trading down, down, to cheaper and cheaper produced goods, to the bottom;
reducing prices, down, down, to cheaper and cheaper priced goods,
to the bottom, you tend,
almost by inertia,
to steer a path, because you have to,
between little blips of inflation, or deflation,
sort of looking for a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, perpetual 'soft landing',
at the 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' airfield (let's not call it an airport).
That is what the US 'economy' if one can speak about such a thing, has been doing.
That is why we haven't had much 'overt' inflation, because we have been buying, and producing offshore more cheaply, goods made offshore.
That also is why we haven't had deflation, because their offshore costs were less, for a little while, and printing fiat money to buy them, so long as the money is accepted, wards off symptoms of deflation.
Keeping prices, and wages, gradually 'trickling down' (a different idiom: UNPROSPERITY TRICKLING DOWN) more or less together,
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Krugman has put his finger on it, domestic jobs, that is the 'sticky wicket' in the whole sordid process, inasmuch as more and more work, of whatever kind, goes offshore, there remain fewer jobs, of any kind, to fund purchase of those cheaper offshore goods.
The other aspect of the situation, re currencies, aside from inflation/deflation, is that these producing countries have begun to realize that US currency is really backed by nothing anymore, no productivity, no specie, nothing.
One takes it, as a medium of exchange, largely hoping to prop up temporarily (self interest) the stultifera navis, and/or to get something of real value from third parties (the old eurodollar situation now globalized).
The Bretton Woods system, flawed from the outset, gold standard even abandoned by US in '71-72(?), a prescription for market sloth, and manipulations of all kinds.
It is not that complicated, really.
that, when you are gradually, inch by monthly inch, slowly, annually, becoming a third world economy, trading down, down, to cheaper and cheaper produced goods, to the bottom;
reducing prices, down, down, to cheaper and cheaper priced goods,
to the bottom, you tend,
almost by inertia,
to steer a path, because you have to,
between little blips of inflation, or deflation,
sort of looking for a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, perpetual 'soft landing',
at the 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' airfield (let's not call it an airport).
That is what the US 'economy' if one can speak about such a thing, has been doing.
That is why we haven't had much 'overt' inflation, because we have been buying, and producing offshore more cheaply, goods made offshore.
That also is why we haven't had deflation, because their offshore costs were less, for a little while, and printing fiat money to buy them, so long as the money is accepted, wards off symptoms of deflation.
Keeping prices, and wages, gradually 'trickling down' (a different idiom: UNPROSPERITY TRICKLING DOWN) more or less together,
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Krugman has put his finger on it, domestic jobs, that is the 'sticky wicket' in the whole sordid process, inasmuch as more and more work, of whatever kind, goes offshore, there remain fewer jobs, of any kind, to fund purchase of those cheaper offshore goods.
The other aspect of the situation, re currencies, aside from inflation/deflation, is that these producing countries have begun to realize that US currency is really backed by nothing anymore, no productivity, no specie, nothing.
One takes it, as a medium of exchange, largely hoping to prop up temporarily (self interest) the stultifera navis, and/or to get something of real value from third parties (the old eurodollar situation now globalized).
The Bretton Woods system, flawed from the outset, gold standard even abandoned by US in '71-72(?), a prescription for market sloth, and manipulations of all kinds.
It is not that complicated, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)