Putin and Russia have achieved what they set out to do, haven't they?

Putin is an ex-KGB man. He's an expert on subterfuge. It's all about power. Putin wanted to gain control of Russia. He did. He wanted to strengthen his grip. He did. He wanted to re-establish Russia as a powerful world force. He has. He is a very rich powerful man.

 

The West missed a golden opportunity didn't we?

 

At the end of the Cold War we should have welcomed Russia in from the cold, set up more trading links, diplomatic links and reduced all threats.

 

We didn't do that. Our fear of socialism/communism prevented that.

 

As the USSR collapsed we courted those satellite states. We moved NATO bases to the borders of Russia. We moved missile sites onto their borders. We came an even bigger threat.

 

The way I see it Russia was forced to act. 

 

They had to take Crimea in order to have that sea port. The Ukraine was a response to NATO aggression.

 

I'm not sure how the US would feel if Russia was similarly setting up missile sites in Cuba for instance - Oh yes - I forgot. They be prepared to have a third world war to stop it.

 

Russia and Putin set out to destabilise Europe and the USA. It's all about power, right?

 

There have been cyber attacks, assassinations, nerve agents, intrusions into air-space and interventions into elections.

 

How much effect has Russian actions had on the referendum? On the election of Trump?

 

It's hard to say isn't it? What is not in doubt is that they have had some coordinated influence. They have seized the chaos caused by terrorism and mass immigration to help create further chaos and undermine the West. It's all about power, right??

 

What could be better than Trump and Brexit for Putin? Not a lot.

 

In two elections NATO is weakened, alliances are split, the EU and Britain are enfeebled and Trump is creating division and hatred. It's almost as if Putin planned it!

 

Is Trump a Kremlin stooge? Or do they have blackmail material? Is he in their pay?? Or did Putin just want him because he's so divisive he seeds chaos where-ever he goes? He's certainly a loose cannon!

Comments

opher goodwin Added Aug 11, 2018 - 7:13pm
You know it really doesn't take too many votes to swing a close election does it?
If Comey hadn't reopened the case against Hilary in the closing stages we wouldn't have Trump.
Perhaps if the Russians had not targeted key voters we wouldn't have had either Brexit or Trump?
Jeff Michka Added Aug 11, 2018 - 7:43pm
I dunno.  Perhaps if the D campaign had been better, but it wasn't.  It was piss poor st best.  A load of millennial staffers that found dealing with people, distasteful.  The same staffers all went around mumbling the mantra "We can't lose," and that in and of itself sealed the Clinton campaign to failure.  I live in an area that was heavy, heavy Bernie Sanders, but none of the millennial Sanders supporters wanted to be involved in D party politics, or thought they needed to, even when two Clintonistas stood up in caucus and told they 100 to Clinton 2 that "hillary must become the first female president and how Sanders was a "Communist."  Huh?  I got phone calls once a week berating me for two months after caucus trying to shift me to supporting Clinton.  Nope, but it dispirited others who couldn't deal with being berated for their political choice.  Get over it, kids  Chins up. 
Wendy Bugliari Added Aug 11, 2018 - 8:35pm
Magnitsky Act was more to change climate of Putin Mafia which 
was all over strong arming assets NOT titled to them.
Whistleblowers of Criminal acts against Government MEANT to favor citizens of Russia met with Gulag/death?
Sometimes seems there are more people from the old USSR in World business with $AUM equal to or beyond value ever claimed.
How did that happen?
Take loads of money to inviting Island Banks and power will grow also as long as they pay the OverLord eh?
America is NOT clean either but FBI did take on very HUGE Mafia here, just replaced by improved nothing to lose Putin puppets. VERY dangerous group too!
Flying Junior Added Aug 11, 2018 - 9:08pm
I agree that Russia deserved to take back the traditionally Russian Crimea.  Taking the port of Sebastopol away from the Russian Navy would be akin to taking away U.S. Navy bases in the Phillipines or the Yokota Air Base near Tokyo.  We would never stand for it.
wsucram15 Added Aug 11, 2018 - 11:22pm
Opher..
Russia never wanted our help. They wanted to be part of the team on their terms.  That didnt work out well if you recall. For one NATO  countries have-" transparent defense budgets and public and legislative oversight over their countries’ military affairs. This includes independent investigations into military failures and abuses, parliamentary control over how funds are allocating — or not allocated."
Putin controls his army and would NEVER allow this.
Russia (hence Putin) needs NATO as the enemy..its how he puts fear into his people about the EU and US.  We are always developing WMD against poor Russians.  The alliance's real aim is Russia-yeah it was on twitter posted by Dmitry Rogozin, the NATO envoy.
NATO would mean the end of their collective security treaty organization, something they have worked on for 16 or 17 years now.
On and on....
Heres the thing though, Russia has an ally already and they were proud and independent before, now they are stronger.
 
On comment above about comey- In my opinion, the change was the Bernie supporters, I think that cut clintons throat. Comey just made the last cut on the open wound.  While things are things that people suspect, these people KNEW and why was nothing ever done to stop it?
Everyone sat by..I mean everyone..and let this happen. Even the people including Sanders who was hurt by this..said nothing.  Clinton knew and said nothing. Obama knew and said nothing.
People have died because of this mess.  Saying nothing while your oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is NOT an option.
They (except intelligence who is trying to clean up mess) all knew and did nothing.  Its affected the entire world, people have died, been attacked again and are incarcerated. So why did this happen and more importantly why are two sides of seemingly intelligent people ( and some really are- dont count fox or even some liberal outlets) seeing this on polar opposite sides of the planet?  I get the Trump thing..put that aside.
Was one side of the country hypnotized while the other was not? I mean there were US agents in Cuba who were attacked by some sort of hearing wave that affected them...so take that leap.  JK
Is it just propaganda?  Probably..very effective and our government allowed that.  Why?  This is the heart of the question..not who but WHY WAS IT ALLOWED?  The US doesnt do that..they blow people up over a hang nail.  This was cyber warfare. Come on..people.
 
Look Awhile back I spoke to some Russians on a Novaya Gazeta feed.
They are happy, they think Americans are stupid people and those are the people on a newspaper that is controversial in Russia that dont even like Putin. Crimea is a source of contention and they claimed that the people were happy. I disagreed but its the news. I argued with Thomas over it at the time.
 
With the people that might be the issue, but its not the only issue with Putin. He has been making international moves with China for some time now.  Trump Im not sure if he is going along for the ride or is just too stupid to see what they are doing to the US/EU alliance.
This isnt just about Crimea or Russian economy or even its people..its more than that.  I just have no idea how far this will go.
Mustafa Kemal Added Aug 11, 2018 - 11:25pm
FJ
" Taking the port of Sebastopol away from the Russian Navy would be akin to taking away U.S. Navy bases in the Phillipines or the Yokota Air Base near Tokyo."
 
I disagree, I think it is more like 
"taking away the US access to the Pacific ocean"
 
There is a big difference.
 
Mustafa
Mustafa Kemal Added Aug 11, 2018 - 11:45pm
Opher, not bad of an article.
 
Execept, I think what Russia set out to do was rid itself of
the  Western Oligarch carpetbagging of Russia after the fall of the wall and transform Russia into a state with a future. Well, it appears they have done so, despite all our attempts to prevent it. 
IMO, the only reason they would "meddle" in our affairs is to find some way to counter our  "more than meddling" in theirs.
I suspect it is really easy for them to "meddle" in our affairs. They just present some truth -it is devastating.
 
With the resumed Iran sanctions, it appears China  will fill the gap left by France, so one more notch in western control over the worlds economic system gets chipped away.
If what they set out to do was gain freedom from our hedgemonic control of the financial system, SWIFT e.g.,  and the effects of our wrongtious sanctions, then I say"more power to em". 
 
Russia is promoting and is working toward a  "multipolar world order". and they would like to not be destroyed by having to spend as much as the US on weapons. Been there, done that.   Do you have a problem with that?
 
Anyway, I think your question is funny. Its a bit like saying
 
Trump and the USA have achieved what they set  out to do, havent they?
 
and then ask FJ what he thinks about that.
 
Mustafa
Flying Junior Added Aug 12, 2018 - 2:43am
Mustafa,
 
I enjoyed your extension of my metaphor about the Russian Navy.  My only knowledge of these things is from Tolstoy's Tales of Courage and Conflict.  Living in San Diego I have intimate knowledge of the U.S. Navy and our harbor.  I even know a thing or two about the trade currents.  My claim to fame is that in late 2002, I witnessed one of the Bob Hope class cargo ships loaded with Army and Marine equipment that was chugging northwest hugging the coast to make central La Jolla.  It was headed to the Persian Gulf with tanks, FOBs, fighting vehicles, air-conditioned tents, everything you could possibly imagine.  It took the Navy and the local longshoremen a week to load it up to the gunwhales.
 
Surveying the coast from from my vantage point seventy-five feet over the beach, I witnessed this behemoth tack 90 degrees to a new heading of southwest, (perpendicular to the coast,) to head out to deeper water to make the long voyage to the Panama Canal.
 
I have also seen many carriers, destroyers and other Navy ships.  We have facilities at North Island, the Port of San Diego and Point Loma.  We are a Navy town. 
 
Yet, I'm just a simple man and I do not understand these complex international relationships.
 
It did seem like a huge mistake to resume sanctions against Iran after the lovely treaty hammered out by the UN.  I suppose there will be consequences as other nations hasten to fill the void created by an isolationist United States.  Plus it was just no fucking fair.  Obviously Trump does not overly concern himself with fairness.
 
I think I liked what wsucram was saying about keeping the old boundaries between Russia and NATO alive.  It makes perfect sense to me.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 12, 2018 - 4:37am
Oph
 
We were never afraid of "communism". The West wanted to exploit Russia, not work fairly with them. We're experts in exploiting. That -ism babble is and was a pretext for action designed for the mob reading tabloids.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 12, 2018 - 4:38am
Mustafa
 
Right on !
Dr. Rupert Green Added Aug 12, 2018 - 4:47am
"Is Trump a Kremlin stooge? Or do they have blackmail material? Is he in their pay?? Or did Putin just want him because he's so divisive he seeds chaos where-ever he goes? He's certainly a loose cannon!'
 
Such postulates that the American people are idiots.
 
The Constitution is protecting America from Trumpism. Another layer of protection is the civil servants/bureaucrats.  The " foolish" Americans elected a peanut farmer, an actor, a cocksman/cockswain, a drunkard, a Blackman, and a Trump, yet the union is still strong.
Which enlightened European nation has elected the same? Americans, though distrustful of their government, want to see it succeed and thus give it a chance. These"foolish" Americans will engage in a civil war if they see their government going south.
 
The flurries of pink pussy rising, me too movement, Black lives matter, extreme right and extreme left, and students against guns are just a small indication of the massive uprising of various potential groups that will be at uncivil war with each other to protect America.
Hence, I am not faded by defeatism and doom day scenarios. If it comes to it, Americans will put down their shit and rise up to defend America.
 
Paradoxically, the highly educated Obama took away many of our rights while bedazzling us with words and his wife physique.
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 12, 2018 - 5:00am
The U.S. should have reached out to Russia in the 1990's, agreed. 
 
But as to the final sentences of the post, the U.S. is broke. Therefore, NATO puts a broke country on the hook to defend an entire continent, which is virtually impossible. 
 
The sooner the fiction of NATO ends, probably the better. It was a Cold War era alliance to combat the Soviet empire which crumbled almost 30 years ago. 
 
The EU is one of the richest political entities in the world. Why can't it pay to defend itself? The U.S. should make plan to slowly close it's military bases across Europe in an orderly way and slowly withdraw from the continent. Strangely, military men don't like to do that though, withdraw.
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 12, 2018 - 5:04am
Trump's a bit of a loose cannon but most of what he's doing are platforms his base voted him into office to accomplish. 

Much of Middle America hates all the globalist agenda, America pseudo-empire stuff. They hate to be on the hook to defend Europe today (during the Cold War it was different). 
 
The press who are paid by these globalist agenda folks are having a freakout over the Trump presidency, yes. But most of the people who voted for him are fine with MOST of what he's doing. 
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 5:52am
Jeff - what a shame they didn't run with Bernie.
Thomas Napers Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:34am
Great comments Cullen!
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:39am
Wendy - the USA is far from clean.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:41am
FJ - I don't think many people really appreciate that. That port in Crimea was essential for Russia.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:47am
Mustafa - I think it was more than just retaliation for US meddling, though that is a factor. They are very much looking to weaken.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:47am
Stone - you may be right. Exploitation is the first response of those people.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 6:57am
Cullen - I don't think the US is broke. It is just not taxing enough and borrowing too much. It is still the major power in the world though China will soon overtake.
NATO is a very important treaty for keeping peace in Europe and around the world. I think what went on in Yugoslavia and is presently going on in the Ukraine and threatening to spill into other places Georgia and even Poland should be enough to show that there is still a great need for it. We take peace far too complacently. War is much too common. NATO, the UN and the EU have kept the peace in Europe for the longest time ever. Better to Jaw Jaw rather than War War as Churchill said.
This weakening of the EU, rubbishing of the UN and threat to NATO is a real threat to peace.
Perhaps if American cities had been reduced to rubble they'd have a different mindset. America feels too safe.
But I do think that European nations need to put in more to protect themselves.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 7:03am
Dr Green - there may be lots of social unrest but there's never going to be a civil war. All those groups are much too poorly organised. Nobody is going to fight to create a better America. The right-wing nutters might have a go and would be utterly crushed. They'd be no match for the army.
Trump is still doing immense damage despite the constitution.
The American people, in general, are poorly educated, ignorant and full of religious superstition. It makes them prime targets for populist politicians.
Leroy Added Aug 12, 2018 - 7:05am
"Is Trump a Kremlin stooge? Or do they have blackmail material? Is he in their pay?? Or did Putin just want him because he's so divisive he seeds chaos where-ever he goes? He's certainly a loose cannon!"
 
You started out pretty good.  I agreed with most of it until it came down to the last paragraph, then your TDS could no longer contain itself.  But, I do agree with the last sentence; he can be a loose cannon.
 
"If Comey hadn't reopened the case against Hilary in the closing stages we wouldn't have Trump.
Perhaps if the Russians had not targeted key voters we wouldn't have had either Brexit or Trump?"
 
The polls had already started to shift before Comey did what he did.  We'll never know if it was what put Trump over the top.  Voters had pretty much made up their mind.  I've never heard of any convincing evidence that Russia was involved with Brexit.  I maintain that it had virtually no impact on the US elections.   While there MAY have been external factors that helped Trump, there is no doubt that there were internal factors which helped Clinton.  Namely, the full force of the US administration and its spy agencies were colluding with a foreign power to derail the Trump campaign.  That was real.  That had an influence.
 
There is another theory (outside of the elections) on Russia which the circumstantial evidence seems to support.  That is that the oligarchs are sucking the wealth out of Russia.  They could care less about Russia.  It's about who dies with the most marbles.  Putin is the leader of these oligarchs.  He doesn't own the assets directly but he tells them what to do with these assets.  He effectively owns them.   The goal is to remove the wealth from Russia.  That is why the sanctions are hurting Russia where typically sanctions don't work.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 7:28am
Hi Leroy - good to hear from you.
I'm not sure I agree with you about Comey. The polls I saw had Clinton on the rise. I think Comey's intervention reopened wounds and created doubt. She fell away. I think it was crucial. Why did he do that? It was surely illegal.
What about the Facebook admissions that Russia was selectively targeting people? You don't think that had any impact?
I would agree that Putin and the oligarchs are busy stripping assets and wealth but is that any different to what is happening in America?
Leroy Added Aug 12, 2018 - 7:53am
" I think Comey's intervention reopened wounds and created doubt."
 
It insensed Christopher Steele and caused him to disobey his agreement with the FBI.  He went directly to the news media to make his false claims that Trump was a Russian puppet.  It hurt Trump.  Did Comey's action sow doubt in Clinton?  Maybe to a few of the undecided, but the impact of foreign actors (Steele) was greater.
 
"She fell away. I think it was crucial."
 
There is disagreement on that.  I have seen an analysis that suggested the poll numbers had previously not be updated.  In any case, poll numbers just don't change that fast.  You overestimate the average American in assuming they were closely following this debacle.
 
"Why did he do that? It was surely illegal."
 
It was against FBI/DOJ rules.  He has been admonished for bypassing authority.  He was not a good actor, for sure.  However, it was not illegal.  Why did he do it?  The simplest explanation is usually the best: to cover his arse.  If Clinton had won and the shenanigans about the FBI sitting on the emails from Weiner's computer had been revealed, Comey would have been in trouble.  He might have been in trouble in any case as field agents were about to blow the whistle.  He would have lost his job.  The fool lost his job anyway.   Good riddance.
 
"What about the Facebook admissions that Russia was selectively targeting people?"
 
It was happening with both campaigns as well; the only difference was the Trump campaign had to pay for the information.  Facebook made in-kind contributions to the Clinton campaign by giving it the information for free.  Facebook also exposed that most of the Russian ads came AFTER the election.  No need to explain further.
 
"I would agree that Putin and the oligarchs are busy stripping assets and wealth but is that any different to what is happening in America?"
 
For one, they are not moving the assets outside of the US.  Secondly, the little guy still has a chance.  We don't assassinate those who disagree with our president.  Most of the problems in the US are from trying to help those who are less fortunate.
Dino Manalis Added Aug 12, 2018 - 8:11am
 Putin laments the demise of the Soviet Union, but would like better relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world.  Russia is a Eurasian power whether we acknowledge it or not.  If we don't befriend Russia, they will become closer with China; Iran; and others in the East.  Better Russo-American relations would facilitate greater cooperation with respect to international problems and deal with them more effectively and efficiently.
Mustafa Kemal Added Aug 12, 2018 - 8:30am
FJ, thanks for that account of your views of the pacific.  I can almost feel the salty wind,  the ruffle of a jib and the feel of my hand on the gunel along with  the sights and sounds of the navy loading up -growing up army, we never saw boats.
 
Mustafa
Dr. Rupert Green Added Aug 12, 2018 - 8:33am
@"Dr Green - there may be lots of social unrest but there's never going to be a civil war. All those groups are much too poorly organised. Nobody is going to fight to create a better America. The right-wing nutters might have a go and would be utterly crushed. They'd be no match for the army" (Opher).
 
Well, let us be civil in our war for America. The Army members would have to kill their mothers, brothers, sisters, girls, and boyfriends, and their children as they block streets and key infrastructure while in the nude and their hands up. Surely, the lesser intelligent Phillippine army did not slaughter their people as they engaged in a pink uprising that toppled a corrupt government.  
 
"The American people, in general, are poorly educated, ignorant and full of religious superstition. It makes them prime targets for populist politicians."(Opher).
 
Explain how the world mostly calls upon "ignorant" American for defense and sustenance in their grayest hour.
 
Bill H. Added Aug 12, 2018 - 11:06am
 
Jeanne - Thanks for an accurate description of Russia's priorities as they have been and as they presently are. One of my wife's relatives was a top Colonel in the USAF, so during most family events we would constantly receive an education on what Russia was up to. Believe me, it hasn't changed, only the methods used to achieve the objectives are different.
Cullen - There was a period during the era of Mikhail Gorbachev that Russia was actually moving to better relations with the US based on real friendship terms. This soon ended with the election of Boris Yeltzin and has virtually disappeared under Putin, who's priorities are obvious to many.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 11:29am
Leroy - I thought there was a law that made it illegal to make such pronouncements as Comey made in the last days of a campaign?
Are you sure they are not shoving their loot into off-shore tax havens??
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 11:30am
Dino - well I'm all in favour of better relationships but I think we missed the boat.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 11:34am
Doc Green - I didn't see any such compunctions in Ohio at Kent State. I think they do as they are told. They'll shoot their mothers and kids. But it won't come to that. There is too much fragmentation and too much disagreement.
Who is calling for America to sort things out? Most want them out of their countries.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 11:35am
Bill - yes - I don't think Putin wants good relations.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 12, 2018 - 1:25pm
Cullen
 
We could pay for ourselves. But it's not that we're afraid of Russia so we don't have to waste money on arms for an imaginary enemy made by the US in order to sell their arms.
 
The US doesn't let us off the NATO hook. Or better the econopolit network of criminal organisations and politicians.
 
We prefer to use our money to keep our countries' infrastructures and economy safe and systems running that serve the people.
Leroy Added Aug 12, 2018 - 1:26pm
"I thought there was a law that made it illegal to make such pronouncements as Comey made in the last days of a campaign?"
 
No law.  Just rules.
 
"Are you sure they are not shoving their loot into off-shore tax havens??"
 
It's not necessary in the US.  It's actually more difficult to put your loot in off-shore accounts as you are obliged to report it.  Not reporting it is a serious crime.  As I am sure that many expats will attest, the reporting laws are a real pain in the rear.  That is why many foreign banks don't want Americans' money.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 12, 2018 - 1:27pm
Bill
 
Yeltsin was a puppet of the globals as Porochenko is today. Putin figured that correctly....
James Travil Added Aug 12, 2018 - 3:13pm
When establishment MIC warmongers like General Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to “undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals,” he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told by the plutocrat-owned media. Control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about “Russian propaganda” and Putin’s attempts to “undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals,” all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. Personally I see that as a good thing. 
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 3:56pm
Right - thanks for the clarification Leroy. Here they just bung it off-shore.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2018 - 3:59pm
Cheers James.
Jeff Michka Added Aug 12, 2018 - 5:24pm
The US had no problem giving up Subic Bay in the Philippines.  Subic bay went away after a treaty on bases in the PI failed.  We also gave up Clark AFB, but because of  Mt. Pinatubo.  It was also on the chopping block of the base negoitiations, around 1990/1.  Both facilities were big players in the Cold War Pacific strategies.  *shrug*
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 6:16am
Jeff - what were the reasons for giving those bases up?
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 13, 2018 - 8:36am
Putin has achieved what he set out to get. And he has in the process had other effects,  "The Russian economy had a more socialist structure when they were controlled by the Soviet Empire. ... Since Russia relied so much on commodities to be exported to them, they were very vulnerable to the economic crisis that took place in 2008. They experienced a steep fall in the global demand, a tightening of credit, and commodity prices almost brought Russia's economy to a halt. They have since begun to recover. ... The Russian industry is still considered highly inefficient because of years of low quality investment. Russia has a resource-based industry. They've also developed a large manufacturing capacity that includes metals, food products and transportation equipment. Russia is now considered the world's third-largest exporter of primary aluminum and steel. Russia does still have many import barriers from their Soviet Union days. They often use non-tariff barriers to restrict foreign access to their market."  https://www.reference.com/world-view/type-economy-russia-aa0aa7027159fd9a
 
So what does this all mean?  That the economy is still on the edge of a cliff.  There trading partners can drive it over the edge.  Right now Europe is the major customer of Russia,  but America could use it's leverage in NATO to Europe to purchase American oil and gas since Russia is by there own actions shown to be an opponent.
 
If Trump gets a reduction is all tariffs by using the threat of tariffs (clearly what Trump has said in many theaters and to many trading partners) Russia will be a big looser.  In effect the reduction of tariffs by Europe is a statement that socialism doesn't work.  This is just a crack in socialism in America and Europe.   Russia is steeped deeper into socialism so is less likely to respond by reducing their restrictions.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 1:02pm
Thomas - I can't see the logic of how a reduction of tariffs by Europe is a statement that socialism doesn't work. You'll have to explain that. 
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 13, 2018 - 1:15pm
James, 
LoL
 
When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about “Russian propaganda” and Putin’s attempts to “undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals,” all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. Personally I see that as a good thing. 
 
I see nobody responded to you bulls-eye, they are steeped in their shibboleths.
 
In the 90's the "Harvard Boys" gave economic advice to Yeltsin.  I won't mention their religious affiliation as my detractors will fling ad-hominems at me, despite reality.
 
This then converted the Russian economy into an Oligarchy, where said Oligarchs were "international" in viewpoint.  The "Boys" scheme centered on borrowing western capital in dollar form, to then buy up the country.  To pay back the debts Russia had to poke holes in the ground and dig up platinum or oil, to then acquire dollars, to then pay dollar denominated debts.  
 
Russia's middle class was disenfranchised as it became an extraction economy, similar to that of Africa.  Plutocracy owned all the means of production, and the production was primarily resource extraction.  The country then became polarized and this was intentional due to the "boys" advice, so the west could then partition Russia into manageable parts.  It was an elaborate scheme to break Russia up.  Is it no wonder they now have a jaundice view of the West?
 
In effect, the West created economic terrorism against Russia.  This is why Yeltsin, when he passed the reigns to Putin, said to save Russia.  
 
During this whole sordid affair, the West moved Nato closer to Russia's borders, and KSA exported Wahhabism to Chechnya using its petrodollars.   
 
The KGB internal security apparatus saw their country being dismantled.  When Russian OIL became owned by Oligarchy (Yukos) and later determined to be a Rothschild gambit, the internal security apparatus mounted to counter-attack.  By then depredations from the West became too much to take.  Many Russians were walking around without jobs, and some were starving, and their country had been stolen from beneath them.
(Sound familiar to Weimar Germany?)
 
With regards to Sevastopol, that is needed access to the black sea.  Crimea has been part of Russia since Kathryn the Great.  Crimea must be understood in context of it being given to Ukraine during soviet times, a gift that was probably illegal.  Crimean's have never been Ukrainian, and don't even speak the language.  Russia had a long term lease at Sevastopol, which was paid up.
 
The coup in Ukraine was led by the West, and funded into existence.  And yes, our famous friends are heavily implicated here as well.  Why?  Finance Capitalism and a hatred of all things Russian, especially from losing Pale of Settlement.  
 
Putin was from Andropov's directorate in the former KGB.  This small directorate was more of a bureaucratic management operation that Andropov created as Soviet Union was breaking down.  Andropov felt there was a need for some sort of professional management system.  This is why Putin was put in charge of running cities.
 
This bleeting out of he was a KGB spy is missing the bigger picture in that this wasn't a normal operation and there is no analog in the CIA.  Also with regards to Oligarchs, Putin simply taxed them and told them not to get into politics.  This is much better outcome than war.
 
Many of the oligarchs took their ill-gotten gains, and fled to London to avoid taxation, the seat of ZOG.
Flying Junior Added Aug 13, 2018 - 2:58pm
Jeff and Opher,
 
I didn't mention the closing of the U.S. base at Subic Bay because under President Obama, we had negotiated five additional naval bases, one still under construction.
 
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/03/21/the-u-s-military-is-moving-into-these-5-bases-in-the-philippines/
Flying Junior Added Aug 13, 2018 - 3:17pm
Thomas,
 
So far from what I have seen, no nation wishes to capitulate to Trump's cudgel.  The tariffs have been met with retaliatory tariffs, albeit with a good deal of restraint.  The child-monster has simply upped the ante with ridiculously high tariffs in response.
 
I don't know about you, Thomas, but I feel a burning shame that the leader of the wealthiest nation on Earth has chosen to whine like a baby about unfair trade deals while throwing around the weight of the largest economy like a destructive bear with a baseball bat.  I guess there is a certain appeal to displaced workers to blame their ills on the behavior of other nations.
 
We have gone from being a member in good standing of the world community to a greedy rogue state.  All in eighteen months.
 
He doesn't care who gets hurt or how many others lose money.  Farmers, vintners, U.S. manufacturing, U.S. automobile and motorcycle manufacturing.  The monster asked for Harley-Davidson to, "Please be patient."  What a reckless imp!
 
This is a nice opportunity for Russia, China, the EU, and others to step into the vacuum.  The entire Pacific Rim of Asia is ready, willing and able to produce.  Canada, Mexico and South America are ready to bargain.  Australia and New Zealand stand willing and able.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 3:19pm
FJ - so there's a nett gain??
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 3:23pm
FJ - I am afraid that when people feel they are being bullied all logic and rationality go out the window. It would be political suicide for a country to roll over and take it. The population would be up in arms. I'm afraid that Trump has forgotten the emotional aspect of trade. Nobody likes being bullied. We could be in for a major new trade war with a host of new alliances that leave the USA out in the cold.
Bill Kamps Added Aug 13, 2018 - 3:30pm
Russia and Putin set out to destabilise Europe and the USA. It's all about power, right?
 
There have been cyber attacks, assassinations, nerve agents, intrusions into air-space and interventions into elections.
 
The attacks and intrusions have been going on for 60-70 years, so nothing really new here.  Perhaps a new slightly more aggressive round.
 
Sure, and at the margin Russia is slightly better off.  However, they still have an economy no larger than Italy's, the US  and NATO still outspend Russian about 14:1 on defense, they still have one aircraft carrier while the  US and NATO have close to 20, any one of which is far more capable than the Russian one. 
 
They didnt destabilize Europe as much  as you would like to believe.  Again, marginal gains, but gains, so let's give Putin that.
 
Both Russia and the US need each other to be the boogeyman, so they can create even larger defense forces.  Again nothing much new here that hasnt been going on for decades. 
 
Could it have been different? sure, but then how  could both countries justify spending what they do on the military.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 3:48pm
Bill - I can't see how it is anybody's interest to spend such large sums on the military. It broke the USSR and badly damaged the USA. It would be much better for both sides to be at peace with one another.
The disruption of the West through sophisticated cyber attacks is something new isn't it?
Bill Kamps Added Aug 13, 2018 - 4:06pm
opher, it is not in the citizen's interest to spend massively on the military, agreed.  It IS in the military contractor's interest, the military's interest, and it is in the politicians interest as they are then able to wield more power with their military.
 
Internet attacks have been going on for quite a while.  Before that, their was espionage through various means, including electronic eavesdropping.  Russia, and probably the US have been poisoning people for quite some time.  These things make for good press, and lots of clicks. 
 
Im not saying you are false.  Simply that these kinds of games have been going on since WWII, mostly for internal consumption within Russian and the US.  The people who think we are really preparing for war with each other, overstate the intent of what is going on.  We try to gain advantage at the margin, and make each other look bad, but neither side is about to start WWIII, that is in no one's best interest. 
 
Having said that, Putin has scored some minor successes, and generally his optics are better than Trump's, because Trump cares not a bit about optics, which is unfortunate. 
 
I would contend we are further from war with Russia, than during most of the last 60-70 years.  Perhaps during the 1990s when Russia was in disarray it was less likely than now.  But during most of the Cold War we were closer to the trigger than now.  Even with sanctions we trade much more with Russia than we did during the Cold War.  Russia is now part of the international banking system, and trades openly with Europe, and many other countries.  This wasnt happening during Soviet times.
 
 
 
Bill Kamps Added Aug 13, 2018 - 4:13pm
By the way, George Bush used to run the CIA.  The fact that Putin used to be in the KGB makes him no more ruthless than other Russian leaders, or US leaders for that matter.  What makes him powerful, is that he does not have to answer to Russian courts, or their Congress.  He can do what he wants.  Trump is more limited by comparison.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 4:18pm
Bill - you are probably right though both sides need a bogeyman. 
Bill Kamps Added Aug 13, 2018 - 4:20pm
opher, agreed.  Both sides need a foil.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 13, 2018 - 4:48pm
Of all nations on earth, the U.S. is the one best positioned for Autarky.  
 
The U.S. has everything it needs to produce goods, which then become prices.  Prices still distribute some 70% of purchasing power to labor.
 
In other words, the China Wall Street Gambit has vectored purchasing power away from the U.S. mainstreet and put it into the hands of Chinese and Wall Street Plutocrats.
 
This gambit happened soon after the wall came down, and China had an excess of communist labor available.  Wall Street soon hatched the plan to shift industry to China to then take wage arbitrage.
 
Wage arbitrage is taking the delta in wages between U.S. and China in profits.  Wall Street imported Chinese goods (from transplanted american factories) at just under the American price.  This was to make maximum arbitrage.  The net effect is to destroy American industry and the ability to distribute purchasing power through wages.
 
Greenmailing and other gambits were behind the mechanism, where American industry had to move or else get bought out.  Incredibly as it sounds, Finance can borrow new bank credit against assets it doesn't own, like a targeted company.  The conceit is that they will win the company and take the pensions and buildings and technology, to then pay the loan.
 
Other schemes included copy cat factories in China where they would work during the day (at an American owned factory) and at night in the copy cat, transferring knowledge.  Chinese are notorious thieves if you haven't noticed.
 
Stealing he Patrimony of generations to then monetize for today in the form of arbitrage, means that U.S. mainstreet labor was short circuited from their birthrights.
 
Do you really think that inventors want their creations to go to a foreign countries citizens, and to wall street plutocrats?
 
The trade deficit is a direct function of the wall street china gambit, where China recycles dollars won in mercantile trade, to then buy TBills and debt.  These recycled dollars DO NOT GO INTO BUYING AMERICAN GOODS.  OK!  This is in direct contravention of good economic policy.  In effect, it is a rape of America.
 
This whole whining about trade partners and how they will be mad at us is crocodile tears.  Where was your outrage as America was being stripped.
 
Also, where is your outrage as America immigrates millions of third world peeeples, to then take arbitrage on their life energy?  The idea is to hammer American labor costs to the lowest possible rating, so that capital is always ascendant.  Go ahead and don't ask for a raise, and be humble as you cannot have a one income family.  Dupes.
 
Then "capital" fixes the books so they can borrow cheaply to then buy you out.  Meanwhile China continues to steal and monetize America's innovations to climb the industrial curve quickly.
 
These imbalanced trade relations are called mercantilism, and they have always been toxic.  Tariffs are good in this case, because they redress this toxic relation.
 
The better way of course would be a Bancor system, but in today's backward economic environment, they are not even on the radar.
 
So, I will take half a loaf, and GO TARIFFS.  
 
America got rich behind tariff walls, and it was called the American system of Henry Clay and Peshine Smith.  Those of you who have been programmed with this Tariff bad idea (sometimes they are bad) are mostly not clued into real economic history.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2018 - 5:55pm
Mefo - I think you will find these tariffs are a bad idea!!
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 13, 2018 - 7:42pm
I don't think so.
It is a really really bad idea to sell off your patrimony for some cheap wage arbitrage.
 
You then hollow out your industrial base, and then you get things like opiod epidemics, and people cannot make a living wage.  
 
It is the path of death.  Tariffs mean that you make things yourself, especially when your trading partners are bleeding you to death.
 
The U.S. really doesn't need others - it is a continental country with energy independence.
 
The whole idea of free trade was hatched up by an "island country" i.e. Britain.  Island countries do not have natural resources in abundance.
 
The Tariffs will work, and they have worked in the past.  The best type of economy is not single resource.  
 
Putin has said the embargo against Russia was one of the best things that ever happened to them.  He is right.  They are developing a deep and flexible economy, with food independence.  
 
Flying Junior Added Aug 13, 2018 - 8:43pm
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 13, 2018 - 10:05pm
FJ,
AD Hominems in the face of facts.  You are not winning any converts.
 
Here is a another book for you to read, to then disabuse yourself of your bad programming.
 
America's protectionist takeoff 1815-194
Maybe this episode in America's history didn't happen either?  Or, could it be you ?
wsucram15 Added Aug 13, 2018 - 10:24pm
BillH...
The paper I mentioned I believe it belongs to Mikhail Gorbachev started in 1990 (novaya gazeta). Putin has had a couple of the reporters killed.
The Russians are told the US is doing bad things to hurt them, but they are not given the whole story and I am sure, neither are we. I dont know why its so hard for people to understand this.  People get mad at SEF about his attitude towards the US...but he doesnt live horribly far from Russia (About from east coast to west coast of US)., Ukraine (2 day drive), Poland (overnight),   where these these things are happening. He lives pretty close to Germany.  None of these countries have a great view of the US.
Much like your family member, my brother was involved in the military for years and I heard stuff and some stuff he did over there, I just knew he was there. I heard about hackings of installations that werent supposed to be able to be hacked and that was years ago now.  Stuff like that.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:32am
Jeanne
 
People get mad at SEF about his attitude towards the US...but he doesnt live horribly far from Russia (About from east coast to west coast of US)., Ukraine (2 day drive), Poland (overnight),   where these these things are happening. He lives pretty close to Germany.  None of these countries have a great view of the US.
 
Thanks for that. Of course we get a broader view of the whole thing (not from our newspapers, which are mostly part of the big 6), but we have lots of independent YT channels in German, French, Russian etc. which show reality, unlike the mass media does.
 
I mean the US HAS good people which explain things and have a realistic sight as there are Chomsky, Paul Craig Roberts or others, but seen from here there aren't many (we know of).
 
The difference between Europe and the US is that we have less of that drawer/black-and-white thinking. Here, we don't speak about or bash -isms much, cite religion endlessly or easily take sides just because the media tells us so.
 
Often I think the US is not really into progressive thinking. Quite the opposite to their technological abilities....
Stone-Eater Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:33am
BTW: We are bordering Germany an speak almost the same language ;-)
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:38am
Mefo - everybody needs to trade. It is the lifeblood of civilisation. To be isolated and cut-off is not good for anyone. The US is far too self-centred as it is. 
What you describe reminds me of a hermit shut up in his own house. Psychologically disastrous. When a country becomes too inward looking it starts to die.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:40am
FJ - there's a lot of cuckoos around this site!
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:51am
Jeanne - I have lived through the cold war with US bases all around me. Vulcan bombers used to take off over my school. It shook. We knew we had at least seven nuclear missiles aimed at us. It felt very much that we were being used as a giant aircraft carrier for a limited nuclear exchange in which we were expendable. 
Americans feel distant and safe. I think that comes from not having had their cities destroyed in the blitz. They largely fought their wars from a distance.
I think that Americans have a strange dichotomy of personality. They are full of bravado but fear-ridden. Whenever there is a terrorist attack they are too scared to step outside their country. The bravado melts.
Over here we know that war is real and erupts quickly and often. When it comes to it we do get bombed and flattened. That is why the UN, NATO and the EU are important to me. Anything that brings people together trading and talking reduces the possibility of war.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:53am
Stone - yes I think you are right. America is very black and white and the religious stuff adds another layer of non-thinking.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:55am
Stone - I think Americans do not understand the effect of proximity. Russian tanks could be rolling across Europe in no time at all. America is separated by big oceans and that creates a different mentality. Even Britain separated by a narrow channel has a different mentality. It's psychological.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:56am
BTW - not that I was suggesting that Russian tanks are likely to be rolling across France any time soon. It is just the closeness of it.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 14, 2018 - 6:11am
Oph
 
Right you are. Geography and distance relations are not their thing ;)
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:43am
Opher,
The people who are against tariffs use economic arguments.  Their arguments are intellectually bankrupt.  
 
That is my case.  I'm saying the emperor has no clothes.  Any argument against tariffs on economic grounds is one of deception and untruths.  The REAL HISTORY of tariffs is that they can be properly deployed and are useful, especially if they prevent monopoly and the undermining of your economy.
 
This is exactly the case of today.  The U.S. economy is being undermined by Mercantilism of others, especially China.
 
I'm presenting a case that has facts behind it and no rational counter-argument except yours:
 
Mefo - everybody needs to trade. It is the lifeblood of civilisation. To be isolated and cut-off is not good for anyone. The US is far too self-centred as it is. 
What you describe reminds me of a hermit shut up in his own house. Psychologically disastrous. When a country becomes too inward looking it starts to die.
 
there is truth to your above statement.  Let me clarify.  From an economic standpoint, the U.S. can tariff up and it would be a good thing.  
 
It would be a bad thing to become a hermit.  I do not advocate for that.  The U.S. can still trade in the world, but it does not need to be  a doormat for every mercantilist country to wipe its feet on.  
 
The U.S. also performs a sort of reverse mercantilism with its banks.  See Perkin's book, economic hitman.  
 
So, the U.S. is not blameless in this drama, as the finance sector has used its money power to screw over resource rich economies and turn them into extractions for big business.  
 
Predators of all stripes have to lie in order to make their cases, and their lies are easily exposed. 
 
It is a lie that tariffs are always bad in all cases.  The U.S. got rich behind tariff walls.  That is just the hard facts and sorry if anybody doesn't know this, but now they do.  
 
So, go out and sin no more, and stop talking about how tariffs are then end of the world.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:21pm
Stone - I think that America is very insular. When I lived there I hardly got any world news. Even international sports events they only reported on their own athletes and nobody else. It makes for a very inward looking culture.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:25pm
Mefo - I'm glad that you accept my point about isolation.
I accept your point that tariffs can be a good thing in certain cases. However, my experience of tariffs is that they make goods more expensive for the consumer and as a consumer I do not enjoy that.
In my view a tariff war only serves to put up prices and hits trade volume and economies. 
Ryan Messano Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:56pm
The deception is strong in Badlose
Ryan Messano Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:57pm
What drugs are you on?
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:29pm
Oh oh - Kindergarten's out!
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 14, 2018 - 3:32pm
Opher,
 
You are correct, sometimes tariffs make prices go up.  Let's suppose inside of America there is an industry charging monopoly prices.  In that case, you would WANT to lower tariffs on foreign competitors, to then lower prices.
 
Let's suppose you want to industrialize with your own credit (the American System) so you can put your people to work.  Further you want to have steel, food, and other things that are crucial to modern life.  
 
In that case, you would put up protective tariffs.  
 
So, tariffs are situation dependent.  In our current SITUATION, American's are being abused, raped even, by the China/Wall Street Gambit.
 
Stealing the patrimony of generations is a very serious charge.  It means that the generational compact has been broken.  The son is not taught by the father, because the entire industry has been lifted and moved.  It disenfranchises life by a short term "profit" motive to make wage arbitrage today at the expense of the future.
 
Well, the future is now.  It was a great party of 401K's increasing due to the gambit; wall street was a hero, but mainstreet became a zero.  Our chinese friends were gifted our patrimony, we owe them nothing.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 14, 2018 - 5:00pm
Opher and Flying Junior,  EU is made up of elected democratic socialist nations.  Now that is an oxymoron combination to begin with, but since ~ 1946 they have been trying to get it to work and so has most of the free world.   It doesn't work anywhere well since to get vote you give out freebyes that someone has to pay for eventually or as they are doing today bring in those desperate to get out of totalitarian nations. The crazy part of it all is they are helping to recreate the totalitarian nation they are fleeing.  The end goal of Fabian Socialism [call themselves democratic socialist] is a Communist nation.
 
Guys, you can not have free market and government controlled major parts of the market, John Keynes economics, skewing the market.  It isn't a free market with rules, it is a market with special interest getting what they want by buying off politicians.  Tariffs is one of the method of serving special interest.  Opher you said, "Thomas - I can't see the logic of how a reduction of tariffs by Europe is a statement that socialism doesn't work. You'll have to explain that." And Melobills to Opher said, "You are correct, sometimes tariffs make prices go up." [ALWAYS DO] Junior, "So far from what I have seen, no nation wishes to capitulate to Trump's cudgel.  The tariffs have been met with retaliatory tariffs, albeit with a good deal of restraint."
 
Your all correct, but the contest isn't over.  The voters in the EU, America, and the rest of the nations with elected officials haven't spoke.  Let the tariffs kick in and when the votes see the purchasing power and jobs all go south they will react.  The pocket book is the strongest voice in any voting booth.  So all Trump has to do is to keep saying "how about eliminating all tariffs." He will be heard by enough people to get that message to all voters.  Then only the nations that do not let the people be heard will be capable of keeping tariffs.  
 
Can Trump stay on message is a bigger question then the results.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 14, 2018 - 5:31pm
You are correct, sometimes tariffs make prices go up." [ALWAYS DO] Junior
 
No they don't.  Anybody who is rational has to look at all the data.
 
America's protectionist takeoff.  This is forgotten history, so you guys need to get with the program.  America got rich behind tariff walls, when it was appropriate to do so.  
 
Tariffs DO NOT ALWAYS MAKE PRICES GO UP.  They may do it temporarily in the case of Trumps policies, but some method needs to be used to bring industry BACK TO AMERICA.  Long term, prices will go down, and further prices will vector back to American's.
 
Free market theology comes from Britain, an Island country with little in the way of resources.  The colonial system was to extract resources from the outer territories, and then fashion raw material into finished goods on the Island, using British labor.  In this way, the increment of production went to the British, while the Colonials were reduced to being hewers of wood, and drawers of water.
 
Extraction economies are always BAD.  And China/Wall Street gambit and  de-industrialization of America is an attempt to turn American's into extractors of resources, so others can make the increment of production.
 
China's east coast has ships come in with raw material, while finished industrial goods go out.
 
America's west coast has shredded steel going East to West by rail, while new cars come in West to East.   If you travel China you will find few American made goods, the trade is totally imbalanced.
 
This mantra about free trade being an unmitigated good is hypnosis in action, which in turn is promulgated by false economic doctrine.
 
America's protectionist takeoff
 
The contribution of the American School of Political Economy (1848 to 1914) to America's wildly successful industrial development has disappeared from today's history books. American protectionists and technology theorists of the day were concerned with securing an economic competitive advantage and conversely, with offsetting the soil depletion of 19th century America's plantation export agriculture. They also emphasized the positive effect of rising wage levels and living standards on the productivity that made the American economic takeoff possible. The American School's "Economy of High Wages" doctrine stands in contrast to the ideology of free traders everywhere who accept low wages and existing productivity as permanent and unchanging "givens," and who treat higher consumption, health and educational standards merely as deadweight costs. Free trade logic remains the buttress of today's financial austerity policies imposed on debtor economies by the United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. By contrast, the lessons of the American School of Political Economy can provide a more realistic and positive role model for other countries to emulate - what the United States itself has done, not what its condescending "free-trade" diplomats are telling them to do. The lesson is to adopt the protectionist policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that made America an economic superpower
 
 
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 5:54pm
Thomas - the EU is not made up of socialist countries at all. Most of them are not socialist at all. The UK is not socialist, neither is France Germany and most others. Where'd you get this idea from?
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 5:55pm
Mefo - things that encourage responsible trade are good.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 14, 2018 - 6:06pm
Keynes said this:
 
All international trade is only barter.
 
Say it to yourself three times, and put it in permanent memory.
 
If you trade a car to germany, then an equivalent car (or something similar) is to be bartered back.
 
What ACTUALLY HAPPENS is that Mercantile countries do not purchase from mainstreet america.  
 
Instead they take their dollars and put them into TBills or other debt instruments. 
 
The TBill action holds dollar price high, and makes interest rates low.  That then induces YOU to take out loans, to then buy more China crap.
 
China then does their gambit by forcing technology transfer, and pretty soon you are a zero with no job.  
 
It is a sophisticated mechanism that goes well beyond platitudes like "responsible trade."  What is that?
 
All trade is barter, that means that it has to be balanced.  IT is an economic law, like gravity.  Also, that those returning dollars won in mercantile trade are allowed to vector into debt is another abortion of economic doctrine.  This is why Keynes wanted the bancor system, but was overcome by the ((usual suspects)) at Bretton Woods.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 14, 2018 - 9:34pm
Opher, you just keep drinking their Cool Aid.  Mark Levin wrote a book Ameritopia which defined the alterations that have turned the nation into a Democratic Socialist state using Fabian Socialist tactics. 
 
Department of experts that are not elected write regulations that exceed the limits set by law.  Or the law is so poorly written that no regulations should be created.  This Opher is socialism.  Judges write judgments that are in fact creating law.   Obama Care does not create a tax and clearly states this but the Supreme Court said it was a tax instead of telling Congress that if they want it to go into effect they have to make it a tax.
 
Now Opher you telling me that the EU government does not create regulation as odious as the American regulations.  I have had to design product to meet them so I know they have very similar regulations.  I know that Canada has similar regulation as America.  With this knowledge have to believe every nation in Europe have unelected  department members that create regulation, laws.
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2018 - 6:37am
Mefo - I agree that there is that element. Are you really suggesting that America does not export enough and imports too much?
If that was the case how is America still the biggest economy in the world (just)?
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2018 - 6:54am
Mefo - Let us look at one aspect of the tariff controversy - that of Turkey.
Trump thinks that doubling tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminium will help the USA.
I don't see it.
It may help US steel and aluminium in the short term but it has huge ramifications.
Turkey responds by imposing even more tariffs to hit other US industries:
Turkey doubled tariffs on a series of imported American goods. They raised tax on US alcohol to 140 per cent, cars to 120 per cent and leaf tobacco to 60 per cent. Tariffs were also doubled on cosmetics, rice and coal. They are boycotting US electronics and Iphones.
All of that will negatively hit workers in all those industries.
Worse than that it upsets international relationships. Even with Erdogan Turkey was an ally. It was used for bases in the ME wars.
They are pushing Turkey closer to Saudi who will more than make up the shortfall. It will make Turkey more extreme and worsen relationships.
The USA will be a net loser.
Steel and aluminium will be more expensive in the States which will affect construction and many other industries. All those industries hit by Turkish tariffs will sell less, make less profit and make lay-offs.
Prices will rise for people in the US and Turkey.
The only way that tariffs can work is if other countries roll over and allow themselves to be bullied. That is not going to happen is it? There's too much emotion and politics for that.
Pissing off allies and creating enemies will cost more in the long run.
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2018 - 7:01am
Thomas - I'm sure the Tory party will be pleased to hear that they are socialist. That'll raise a few hackles. I reckon that there'd be some objections in Denmark, Holland, Germany, Finland, Belgium and others too. You have a strange idea of what is socialism.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:17am
Oph
 
Saudi is US ally. They will go for BRICS.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:18am
BTW: Turkey is a small market. That doesn't hurt the US. Incirlik is way more important for them ;)
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:25am
Opher, both parties in England turned it into a Democratic Socialist State just like both parties in America have done the same.  You see Opher corporations and producer groups like farmers prefer getting special treatment from government instead of having to compete for customers.  It is cheaper to pay politicians, get tariffs for example, then to have to improve the quality or lower cost.  They feed right into the Fabian Socialist approach.  So the Tories are happy to get paid off so long as voters do not complain.
 
"Fabian Society began in England in 1887.  At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation, but their true goal [tactic] was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change. In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto: “When I Strike, I Strike Hard”. Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model."   https://www.nolanchart.com/article4425-a-fabian-socialist-dream-come-true-html    Obama obtained great support from the socialist leaders of the EU including England.  "Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one."   https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html  The end goal of Fabian Socialist as stated above is Marxist Socialism, Communism.
 
"Karl Marx changed the world too, and now we have a central bank and a “progressive” income tax that stunts economic growth. I used to wonder why he would see an advantage for Communist Party plans in a capitalist nation to those two things. ...  They found a way to wrap it in a nice “alms for the poor” package: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” for taking more from each dollar of income from some people than from others, and “maximum employment and stable prices” for a central bank. ... The progressive income tax increases political power over private wealth and moves the issues of wealth and fruits of production into the arena of government power and political discussion. It brings “class warfare” into public discussion, and promotes class envy, and when done with savvy demagoguery,
distracts from the fact of property as a natural and civil right to the idea that it all belongs to the government to use for the “common good”, for the use of the collective.  In other words, it’s a Trojan horse, meant to both concentrate control of wealth into the hands of political kingmakers and money changers." ... 
 
The central bank creates this fiat money out of thin air, and it is created as a debt to itself by member banks. Those banks are the next beneficiaries, because they now have more money to work with for loans. This “new money” next gets to the biggest debtors,
biggest corporations and government entities who now work with it for their own ends."   https://trutherator.wordpress.com/why-did-karl-marx-want-an-unequal-income-tax-and-what-central-bank/ 
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:34am
Opher I thought the socialist should tell there own story.   You said, "You have a strange idea of what is socialism."  No Opher I believe what the socialist actually say.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:52am
Opher says this:
 
Mefo - I agree that there is that element. Are you really suggesting that America does not export enough and imports too much?
If that was the case how is America still the biggest economy in the world (just)?
 
Opher, 
The word "deficit" means unbalanced.  Trade deficit means that the U.S. imports much more than it exports.  The deficit is conservatively around 600 billion per year.  
 
In reality there is no "deficit" when you consider that the U.S. exports 600 billion dollars worth of IOU's to overcome the imbalance in trade.  These IOU's are in the form of debt, which is asking the future to pay.  
 
To answer your question with a question.  Do you think it is fair to saddle the future with an IOU obligation from the past?  The father saddles his children with debts?  And even worse, these debts point at some foreign country.  Even worse, these foreign countries are using this mechanism to steal America's patrimony?  Even worse is that it forms finance plutocracy in America and eventually will be its undoing.  
 
How is America the biggest economy?  Simple, it is financialized economy by virtue of dollar as reserve.  The finance sector is counted in GDP, which is false accounting.  Finance sector is actually overhead, not the productive part of the economy.
 
In other words, you've been duped.  Don't feel like the lone ranger, most people have been.  A really good parasite will pass hypnosis to then confuse you into a false belief system.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:56am
Opher says this:
 
Mefo - Let us look at one aspect of the tariff controversy - that of Turkey.
 
Opher, the idea is to push Turkey out of Nato.  Nato is going to be reformed or broken up.
 
From an economic perspective, Turkey has nothing to offer the U.S.  From a strategic perspective, they control the Bosporous.  From another strategic perspective they are former Ottoman empire, and that construct needs to be suppressed.
 
Turkey and Russia have been locked together to control the Bosporous and Black Sea, so Turkey is really Russia's problem, not ours.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:02am
SE says this:
Saudi is US ally. They will go for BRICS.
 
No they won't.
 
Saudi is the main U.S. ally, especially after 1973 Kissinger Saudi Agreement.  This codifies the petrodollar system.
 
The 73 agreement puts the Saudi's firmly in the Western Camp, especially the finance sector.  Saudi's are not allowed to have their own bourse, and must recycle petrodollars into TBills.  
 
The latest move is to form a NATO like structure of gulf monarchies, who in turn are Sunnis.  Turkey will not be part of this structure, and will probably be left as a lone wolf to triangulate between them and Russia and China and Europe and the U.S.  
 
Shanghai Cooperation Council, BRICS, AIIB - none of these alternative economic structures have anything at all to do with Saudi's.  
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:16am
Thomas says this:
 
The central bank creates this fiat money out of thin air, and it is created as a debt to itself by member banks.
 
Some clarification is needed:
 
The banking system endogenously (within the system) creates bank credit upon hypothecation.  Hypothecation is a fancy word for creating a debt instrument.  Said instrument simultaneously creates new credit and debt as twins upon birth.
 
Central Banks do SWAPS.  For example, the FED will SWAP new keyboard credit for a TBill.  This expands the ledger allowing new credit to enter into the money supply.  The money supply expands when the Government issues a TBill.  Said TBill eventually finds FED keyboard credit.
 
Member Banks are the main issuers of credit, not the central banks.
 
The central banks finance the member banks POST FACTO, and up to the last minute.  CENTRAL BANKS are the tail on the dog, not the dog. 
 
Most people are wrong about central banking, thinking it is the head of the pyramid.  It is not, it is the TBTF member banks ... and in the case of the U.S., the New York FED.
 
Private Central Banks were created by their private corporate 'MEMBER" banks as part of the money trust.  Central Banks were created to make a "trust" or monopoly on the issuance of credit by private corporations.  Even more specifically, they were created to make  network, where said network could balance their books through reserve loops, and where only they could create the "money."  
 
Member banks create the credit, and the central banks provide reserves POST FACTO.  
 
Central Banks in the Western World are all agents for private banking corporations.  They have some quasi government properties, but in general no banking employee's get government salaries or pensions, etc.  They are usually not listed in the phone book as government operations.  
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:26am
We seem to always get half the picture, "To answer your question with a question.  Do you think it is fair to saddle the future with an IOU obligation from the past?  The father saddles his children with debts?"  The question that come first is who's debt is this and is it debt?   Trade imbalance says that foreigners are willing to do three possible things: A) hold government IOUs  B) debt of companies and individuals C) converted the debt into investments in America.
 
This third option, reinvestment in America or the purchase of American companies is a positive sign for voters.  They are creating jobs in America instead of in their nation.  The profits will stay in America as long as investing in America is better then other locations.   
 
The banking sector of nations like England are the highest paid and considered the crown of the economy.  What that means is that England has been investing outside of England for at least a century.  Who do you think funded the start of America's industrial revolution?   So what happened is that England manufacturing capacity  is saturated or due to government regulations, added cost,  a poor investment compared to foreign nations, the driving force for colonialism, but they realized that they didn't have to control the government if they could have a favorable local government like American, Canada, Australia, etc..
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:33am
By the way.  Communism was funded into existence by Wall Street and London.
 
Any talk of Communism needs to understand that it is the flip side of finance capitalism, both of which are pyramid control systems.
 
Cultural Communism is another pyramid control, which is funded through private banking usury and its main agents are the ((usual suspects)).
 
I know you guys get mad at me for pointing at the Jew.  But, consider that you may not know monetary history as deeply as I do.
 
A mixed economy, with some social programs has been the only successful model.  
 
If you want a high level of socialism, then your population must be single ethnic.  For example, the Skandinavian countries were all "son's of John" or Johansens.  
 
Socialism (not communism) is not possible in multi-culti multi-racial type of countries.  
 
See Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" for the social science if you doubt me on this.
 
The leftists who want socialism, by importing multi-culti are creating racial enclaves, which in turn means that socialism is impossible.  Instead it will be Communism rammed up our rectums.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:43am
I would like to point out that not everything is included in the calculation of trade imports and exports.  Some goods and services do not show up: for example rent, inheritance, remittances, policing of the sea lanes and in NATO etc.  Also about 2/3 of US currency is circulating outside of Americas borders.  US dollars are legal tender in some nations officially and effectively in others.   Ref: http://www.truefreetrade.org/money.htm
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2018 - 10:48am
Stone - Turkey is a small market but it is what is happening in all places where Trump is attempting to bully people.
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2018 - 10:50am
Mefo - I do not see why socialism cannot be effective in multicultural societies. Please explain.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 1:26am
Putnam was a liberal who collected data for many years.  He thought maybe his data was wrong and sat on it, not publishing it.  
 
He basically thought the same as you, that multi-culturalism was a net benefit.  
 
His data said otherwise and of course he had a mental crises.  Being a good scholar he went ahead and published anyway.
 
The findings were that differential groupings of people causes low trust.  It makes people hunker down and "turtle."   They stop volunteering and become closed in.  They don't engage their neighbors or expand outward to their county or city.
 
It means that your population "bowls alone" and loses civic mindedness.   In the case of the U.S., this is fatal and destroys the civic fabric De- Tocqueville noticed.  This civic fabric was bottom up in concentric rings of family, neighborhood, county, state; and all of it with high volunteerism.
 
Socialism redistributes the economic surplus.  Only single ethnic populations of "one tribe" are willing to redistribute to their concentric ring extended clan. 
 
Putnam has shown that low trust societies are developed as a function of multi-culturalism.  Actually it is more than culture, it is race.  Differential races cause the "turtling" effect that Putnam noticed.  Ethnic differences are a problem, but racial differences is a much bigger gulf to bridge. 
 
If people are bowling alone, then for sure they won't want their excess productivity taken from them and redistributed to the neighbor they view as alien to their genetics.
 
The only outcome of a low trust society, if you want to redistributed the excess productivity, is to take it by force with communism.   Communism attempted to break down race and family, even wipe out religion - it failed in the Soviet Union and China.   
 
In a single ethnic high trust society, people will volunteer their excess productivity.  
 
Socialism cannot work with differential groups, and differential behavior is aggravated by racial differences.  
 
Multi-Culti is a failed experiment.   
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 1:37am
Thomas, 
This is not a good thing:
the sea lanes and in NATO etc.  Also about 2/3 of US currency is circulating outside of Americas borders. 
 
Dollar as reserve, and further as petrodollar is not the panacea people think it is.  It distorts your economy and financializes it, giving the excess productivity to parasites.  The highwaymen are charging excess  fees for us to ride on their finance road.
 
Of course the banking corporations want their "credit" used worldwide.  
 
Those excess dollars could come home and buy up the real economy.  Would you like to be dispossessed from the country of your ancestors? Do you think your ancestors would be happy about that?  
 
Triffins dilemma is also real.  A reserve country cannot easily stimulate their own industry as their deficit spending goes overseas to stimulate other economies.  
 
If you get right down to brass tacks, reserve currency is a con, and mercantilism (like what China is doing) is stealing and cheating. 
 
Two wrongs don't make a right.  Tariffs are at least something to recover industry and return to a real productive economy, and not something promoting finance oligarchy.
 
Policing the sea lanes is a COST to the taxpayer.  Those who have lost their jobs due to offshoring are quite happy to pay their taxes to the MIC, I"m sure.  We pay to police the sea lanes, while mercantilists use the subsidized sea lane transit to double screw us.  What a deal!
 
The globalist neo-liberal order is to make war with the world, and invite the world in.  It is to take wage arbitrage by shifting of jobs overseas in a race to the bottom, while simultaneously immigrating low cost labor.
opher goodwin Added Aug 16, 2018 - 7:25am
Mefo - I've never heard of this guy Putnam. I would take a lot of convincing that this is the case. In biological terms hybridisation is always better.
In terms of society. I can see that if there is not good integration and trust then the case you describe might be so but when things are bedded in the trust is there.
I think the USA is more ethnically fragmented than the UK. We were doing very nicely with multiculturalism up until Brexit put a spanner in the works.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 10:58am
Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" has been around for awhile.  It is easy to ignore things that don't comport with what you think you know.
 
Opher you cannot continue to proclaim ignorance when you have been educated.  The onus is on you now to grapple with facts, and you will have to man-up.  Don't be a pussy.  Putnam decided to man-up, you can do the same.
 
By the way hybridization is NOT ALWAYS BETTER.  You do not always get  hybrid vigor.  
 
In an already diverse population of hardy plants/animals then hybridization can bring on weakness or new types of diseases.  Millenia of evolution has already worked on some populations removing weakness relative to its environment.
 
A negro/white mullato is not as equipped to handle the desert as would be an African born to that region and better evolved for it.
 
This idea of  hybridization makes "strong offspring" comes from breeding horses and dogs for one characteristic, say running, which makes them weak in other areas.   For example, they are "high strung" have short lives and poor immunity against disease. 
 
In other words, once again you are drawing wrong conclusions about things.  These conclusions are part of the gestalt of the West and are purposeful hypnosis.  Don't feel like the lone ranger, most people are in this category.  
 
  Darwin noticed that the negro/south american indian hybrid, this  offspring had lost the negro's natural tendency to being carefree and happy, and instead offspring was morose and tended toward violent murderous behavior.  The offspring was worse than the parents.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 11:22am
Thomas, this is an excellent question:
 
The question that come first is who's debt is this and is it debt?   Trade imbalance says that foreigners are willing to do three possible things: A) hold government IOUs  B) debt of companies and individuals C) converted the debt into investments in America.
 
Debts denomination (money type) matters a lot.  Most of America's debt is denominated in dollars.  Read Perkin's book economic hitman for more on this.  The U.S. finance sector likes to get foreign economies hooked on DOLLAR LOANS.  That way, they have to grind their currency through the exchange rate mechanism to acquire dollars, and that is when the predators sweep in to buy up their country cheap, usually with planned exchange rate collapses.
 
In the case of China, they studied the U.S. and finance capitalism, and have worked out a sophisticated mechanism of jiu jitsu economics that I call the Wall Steet/China gambit.  This has finally been analysed by the U.S. and is part of the policy of Trumps confrontation via tariffs.  
 
All of the trade theorists who are steeped in Neo-Liberal economics that due the ABC you did above, are at a loss to explain how it is that their ABC's are not working in accordance with textbook theory.  It CANT HAPPEN they proclaim, the exchange rate will adjust and it will balance.  
 
Yet it did happen.  The exchange rate didn't adjust due to the TBill mechanism I described earlier.  Also, wealth is not money, wealth instead is the Patrimony, of which is being stolen and monetized for cheap.
 
It is a hard thing to eject theories that don't comport with what your eyes actually see.  Humans are unique in this regard.
 
Are you eyes lying to you, or is it your brain putting up filters?
 
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 12:59pm
What that means is that England has been investing outside of England for at least a century.  Who do you think funded the start of America's industrial revolution?
 
The American system of credit was to use internal credit (American sourced credit issued as new loans.  The beginning of this was Massachusetts bay colony.  In particular Cotton Mather employed this doctrine.  They made loans of credit to then start Iron production, farms, and outfitting of land.  
 
This was NOT DONE WITH GOLD FROM ENGLAND.  Later the English tried to force the colonies into their gold system.
 
Massachusetts bills were even issued, which were the money - they were pay upon demand instruments.  
 
This colonial experience, along with that of the Philadelphia Colony informed Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and especially Alexander Hamilton.
 
Hamilton has written many tracts, which eventually the American system as postulated by Clay and Smith.  
 
Read the book.  Educate yourself.  Your education is incomplete and wrong.
 
Clay and Smith then informed Frederick List, who formed Industrial Capitalism under the Kaiser.
 
England has always PROMOTED INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL.  With it comes the hypnosis that a country cannot use its own internal credit, and must therefore be in debt to the "international" bankers.
 
Finance Capitalism is very much centered on London, and since it is a cancerous system that depends on lies, then it will undo Britain.
 
Britain became a host for the parasite in 1694, and the parasite jumped to the U.S. fully by 1912.  Britain has often acted as America's worst enemy, especially as the Colonies struggled to learn what money really was.
 
It is as Aristotle said:  A legal device.  
 
A country can issue its own credit to itself, it doesn't need "capital" from London.  Foreign credit is only useful to buy foreign goods that you cannot make yourself.
 
The latest gambit by the parasites in the City is all of the offshore banking activity, and even worse, the Euro-Dollars they are sneakily making on the books as "international," thus screwing over American's and putting dollars into circulation, when it is not even their damn money type.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 16, 2018 - 2:35pm
Mefobills, you really have no understanding of capitalism and free enterprise.  Money goes where the best return can be achieved.  That simple and America was and is still a good investment.  Two decade head start of Europe into becoming socialist region, buying votes and power through taxing has made Europe a poorer investment.  China is a very limited investment opportunity since the government as all totalitarian governments (including socialist governments around the world) can seize investments at will, making them poor investments.  A nation governed by 'laws of man' with no boundary is in the end lawless.  Democratic socialism officials work hard in removing boundaries to their power.
 
So here is a short history of foreign investment in America started with the Virginia colony in 1607.  By 1789, "foreign debt" was 29% of Continental Congress government debt.  Excluding American businesses and Colonial debt.  Some 56% of the U.S. government debt was in foreign hands in 1803.  62% of the stock of the Bank of the US government and 35% of stock in state banks were held by foreigners in 1803. Roughly 5 to 6% of the stock in insurance, turnpike, and canal companies was owned by nonresident foreigners.  Some 58% of American state government debt was held abroad in 1853.    By the early 1850s, railroad bonds had already become a substantial part of the foreign investment in the United States. These bonds were backed by mortgages on the railroads themselves. British companies had arranged to sell iron rails in the United States, but because the railroads would not earn money until they became operational, the rail sellers accepted bonds as payment. British merchant bankers created a market for the bonds. The bonds were sold not only in Britain, but in Holland and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere on the European continent. In 1853, a survey indicated that some 26% of American railroad bonds issued were held abroad.  The discovery of gold in California in 1848 turned new foreign attention to the United States.  Foreign capital poured into the United States in the period from the mid-1870s to 1914, the so-called first time of globalization. As the world's largest recipient of foreign capital, the United States was the world's greatest "debtor nation." Foreign capital contributed in a very positive fashion to the economic growth of the country. The greatest part went into building American railroads.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/foreign-investment-united-states
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 16, 2018 - 2:44pm
Mefobills, government debt that is repaid by taxing and/or the hidden tax of inflation of the people is the debt and imbalance of trade that is bad for a nation.  The collection of taxes has a negative effect on the economy.  It suppresses the ability to pay back the debt.  And in the end make the citizens and nation poorer.  
 
Private debt for things that generate a profit that can be used to pay back debt have the opposite effect.  No one is forced to purchase the item or service unless they know it has value to them.   Where no one has a choice when taxed or robbed by inflation.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 16, 2018 - 2:49pm
I am afraid I do not understand this <<Britain became a host for the parasite in 1694, and the parasite jumped to the U.S. fully by 1912.>>
Are you talking about Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic, was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic?
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 5:28pm
Thomas, parasitism is a biological term for a parasite/host relation.
 
Parasitism is done by parasites.  Parasites suck energy from the host, and it is seldom symbiotic.
 
Stealing life energy from hosts in the form of rents or usury is the action of a parasite.  
 
I know you are tongue in cheek with your comments, as if I am some sort of dumb-ass, but as you know by now, I'm not.
 
Parasitism is an evolutionary mechanism evolved from some groups.  Monopoly is another form of parasitism, to live "high" by transferring wealth to your industry in the form of high prices. 
 
Man is a rent seeking animal, and the highest rent seekers can be modeled in biological terms - as a parasite.
 
 
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 16, 2018 - 5:56pm
Thomas, sorry to be so hard on you. But you are like the little freshman kid trying to show off. Your entire argument is nonsense.  You obviously learned economics in skool and brainwashing began on the first day.  I'm not trying to be insulting, you instead should pay attention and learn.
 
As the economist Thorstein Vleben puts it, schooling in economics is "learned incompetence."  Henry Clay of "American System' actually had to start up new schools, usually in the agricultural schools to bypass the established centers of economic "learning."  It is the rare economist who rises above his brainwashing.
 
Mefobills, government debt that is repaid by taxing and/or the hidden tax of inflation of the people is the debt and imbalance of trade that is bad for a nation.  The collection of taxes has a negative effect on the economy.  It suppresses the ability to pay back the debt.  And in the end make the citizens and nation poorer.  
 
In a debt money system, governments debt is the people's savings.  This is shown by Wynne Godley's sector imblance equations.  If it weren't for government debt, the private "debt" generating sector would soon sort into haves and have nots, especially as there is not enough purchasing power to pay interest.  I'm going to say it again, private debts are not enough to run an economy, it soon fails.  This is a feature of the debt money system.
 
Also, the government collects taxes and re-spends.  If they pay public debt with it, the money disappears, thus shrinking the money supply and lowering the ability to have private savings.  
 
Sorry, don't shoot the messenger.  Anytime debt money enters the ledger to pay down liability, it disappears.
 
With regards to trade, Mercantilism is the method of grabbing another countries "money" to then pay the imbalances in the home country.   In the old "gold days" when bank credit rode on top of Gold in a 10:1 ratio, it would collapse the trade imbalance economy in a 10x rate.
 
Us stupoid humans still arguing about this stuff, when it has been settled for some time.  

 
Private debt for things that generate a profit that can be used to pay back debt have the opposite effect.  No one is forced to purchase the item or service unless they know it has value to them.   Where no one has a choice when taxed or robbed by inflation.
 
Learned incompetence again.  Private debts are the worst kind.  The great depression was because of people going into debt at a bank, and then gambling in the stock market.  When the market collapsed, the debtors had no money to pay their debt instruments.  Then their houses and lively-hoods were transferred in a swap to satisfy the bankers.  This  then supported finance oligarchy in the harvest of debtors, while putting the economy into depression.  Those that got out early (early warnings for insiders) soon came back and bought up the country cheap.  And yes, it was the ((usual)) suspects who had early warning, including the Bush Family who were part of the insider cabal.
 
If you have high private debts, then your population is busy servicing this debt as a diversion away the circular flow.  In other words, people cannot by and sell from each other because of this siphoning away of purchasing power.  
 
Yes, Say's law is not perfect, the actual fluxing of bank money is in an accounting periodicity, where some component is always disappearing.  
 
You cannot push on a string, if there are no takers, then private debt formation will not be forthcoming and you will have a depression.  The post 2008 collapse was a balance sheet depression precisely BECAUSE OF PRIVATE DEBTS FORMED DURING HOUSING BUBBLE.  
 
This mechanism was almost exactly the same as the great depression.  
 
No one is forced to purchase the item or service unless they know it has value to them. 
 
This term "value" is empty calories. It is settled at the moment of transaction.  If your yard-stick, the money is changing then it is hard to find prices.  In a depression, the money becomes scarce making people who are desperate to lower prices.  Those who make perishable goods and services are devastated especially.
 
In an inflation environment, those who are holders of debt instruments are not getting back what they think is fair, as the purchasing power is declining relative to when it was loaned.
 
But, here is the deal, the holders of debts tend to be the finance sector, and much here is fraud anyway.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 16, 2018 - 9:55pm
Mefobills, the definition of parasitism  was not the issue. The issue was how it was relevant to the direction of the discussion, Socialism vs Capitalism.  You expanded the explanation.   
 
So you grew up learning Keynesian Economics. I took economics from people that grew up before Keynes became the standard in universities.   I learned Milton Friedman, classic economics, closer to Adam Smith's theory and what John Kennedy applied, I was a freshman in High school when he was assassinated.   
 
Keynesian Economics to classic free market economics is like oil and water, do not mix.  So what you said is expected.  I do not understand when Keynesian economic is compared to 'supply side economics'.  The free market is not driven by one side of a deal.  As Adam Smith said not exchange will occur unless both sided  accept the deal.  Doesn't sound like the customer is being forced by the manufacture that is supplying a product.   I will agree that government has skewed the market in the manufactures favor.   In effect they have introduced a little Keynesian economics into the  public free market.
 
This is pure rubbish, "In a debt money system, governments debt is the people's savings."  The federal government can print paper money and history is full of examples.   I will agree that inflation is stealing the peoples saving.  So your saying the government is a robber?  
 
More rubbish, "private "debt" generating sector would soon sort into haves and have nots, especially as there is not enough purchasing power to pay interest."   Have nots do not have collateral needed to obtain debt.  Look at third world nations.  The debt is government generated.  
 
Still more rubbish, "If they pay public debt with it, the money disappears, thus shrinking the money supply."  But when government pays for something with money that adds currency to the economy.  Government competing for products raises the price of those products and since Government can print money we know they are willing to pay a premium price.
 
Never ending rubbish, "debt money enters the ledger to pay down liability,"  Debt on accounting books is defined as a liability, must be paid back.
 
Rubbish again, "Private debts are the worst kind."  So this never happened as reported by the above reference, " Foreign capital poured into the United States in the period from the mid-1870s to 1914, the so-called first time of globalization. As the world's largest recipient of foreign capital, the United States was the world's greatest "debtor nation." Foreign capital contributed in a very positive fashion to the economic growth of the country. The greatest part went into building American railroads."  The federal government was small and even state governments were small, a small part of GDP.  So the investment was in private industry.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 17, 2018 - 12:02am
Thomas, I'm not a Keynsian, but when he is right he is right, also Friedman when he is right, he is right.  
 
Yes, the governments debt is the public's savings.  You will have to study Godleys sector equations, which you have not had time to do, and then you bleet out that I'm speaking rubbish?  Please engage the brain.  You continue to consider yourself as qualified, when you are not.  The first step to change is recognition that maybe what you think you know is wrong.  You were also wildly off base with regards to hyperinflation.  
 
If you want to persist in fantasy, then I cannot help you.
 
Then you talk about third world nations and their "government debt."  Have you read "Economic Hitman" yet?  These are private debts from the finance sector.  You have to understand this mechanism to then purge yourself of some fantasies.  Third worlds malfunction for many reasons, some of it is low human capital, or lack of resources, or also being predated upon by the Western Financial Sector.  
 
You are seriously confused on how the debt money system works.  Government does not create money exogenously.  Look at your bills, Do they say U.S. dollar?  No they don't.
 
 But when government pays for something with money that adds currency to the economy.  Government competing for products raises the price of those products and since Government can print money we know they are willing to pay a premium price.
 
 
 
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PRINT MONEY!  It borrows money into existence from the private banking system.  There is a tiny amount of seinorage in the form of "coins" that are sold at face value to the Fed system.  The difference in face value from cost is the only seigniorage goverment gets.  Paper dollars are bought from the mint by the private banking system at production cost. 
 
Government in inelastic markets LOWERS PRICES.  Government presence in elastic markets will raise prices.  So you last statement about competing for products is unqualified.   
 
 
Foreign capital poured into the United States in the period from the mid-1870s to 1914, the so-called first time of globalization.
 
You will have to square the inputs of foreign capital with the simultaneous growth in internal credit and tariffs.   In other words, the U.S. was resisting being "globalized" by Britain.  
 
america's protectionist takeoff 1815-1914
 
Put above book on your reading list.  This book diagrams the money flows of this period.
 
And here is another laugher:
The greatest part went into building American railroads."  
 
Canada built their cross continental railroad from a much smaller population base (about 30 million people) it came in on time and under budget and they used Canadian labor. It was funded by debt free money by Bank of Canada.  It also did not undermine the country with Plutocracy.
 
If you want to find out the Shenanigans of "creditor plutocrats" and the railroads, here is another book for you:
 
Triumphant Plutocracy
 
Pettigrew was the first Senator from South Dakota and he had a ringside seat of the "railroad" barons and their methods.  This is an important book that shows how psychopaths and "special interests" maneuver to take over politics and feather their beds.  Grabbing of money power by private interests has a very sordid history.
 
The plutocracy that was formed by the Railroad Barons was documented further by Henry George:
 
Some, especially in a rapidly growing economy, may be actively “speculating”: buying in anticipation of large price increases. Others, notably wealthy absentees or railroads, have acquired land they cannot manage, but feel no pressure to sell. Large landholders engage in such behavior without necessarily colluding. Consequently, as George puts it, “the speculative advance in land values tends to press the margin of cultivation, or production, beyond its normal limit, thus compelling The Economics of Henry George: A Review Essay 499 labor and capital to accept of a smaller return, or (and this is the only way they can resist the tendency) to cease production”
 
The barons were absentee landowners, who took railroad right of way, and then the inputs of
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 17, 2018 - 12:03am
the inputs of labor from the townspeople is what increased land value.  The absentee barons got wealthy by sitting on their ass.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2018 - 9:26am
Mefobills, I do not know where your saving is in but I specifically do not want to have any of may saving in government bonds.  I prefer stock and private bonds.  As part of the 'public' my savings in not government debt.   The article where foreign investments were discuss above also said that the 'public' held most of the private debt.  I do not disagree that government debt is held by the 'public' but it is also held by foreign investors also pointed out by the article.  The division is defined by the market like any other debt.  So the market in the extreme could have no government debt in the hands of the 'public' or as you suggest all in the hands of the 'public'.
 
Third world countries as we both know have been bought up for not paying back there debt by the international banking organization.  The citizens or industry within the nations have never been highlighted.  That suggest where the problems are.
 
Seems you need to study hyperinflation of the currency that occurs from time to time.  The nations PRINTED PAPER MONEY. (classic example is Germany after WWI) Today a book keeping entry  or a change in amount of money held in reserve creates money just as effectively.  Example is the IOUs held by the social security account books of money spent by the government.  So please tell me what collateral is backing up those IOUs.  (the word of the government that they will get the money from it's citzens in the future is the collateral, not savings directly of the citizens but a source for citizens to pay taxes)   The debt that is created for welfare payment has no collateral backing it up.   Government can put the threat of punishment as a type of collateral,  USSR and communist-China for example have blood soaked ground.
 
So Mefobills your telling us your more knowledgeable then 


<<https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/foreign-investment-united-states>>  with this statement, "And here is another laugher:


The greatest part went into building American railroads."  
opher goodwin Added Aug 18, 2018 - 4:59am
Mefo - no - hybridisation nearly always produces hybrid vigour. What you are confusing is selective breeding and inbreeding. When you bring different varieties together you are not matching up harmful deleterious genes.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 18, 2018 - 11:25am
If you have a population that is large and stable, and has been reproducing in its evolutionary niche for thousands of years, then it is already vigorous.
 
When you cross breed this already vigorous population with another you don't get hybrid vigor, you just get hybridization.
 
Hybridization is a crap shoot.  If your population is ALREADY genetically fit and winnowed to be so over millenia, then why do you think introducing new genes is mother nature improving on mother nature?  
 
For example, many hybridized roses are much weaker than their "wild and genetically fit forebearers..... but the hybrids are pretty.
 
If you have a genetically fit population of horses which possess both stamina and speed, then a mule hybrid is undesirable from a speed standpoint. 
 
Hybrid vigor is used by leftists to make a false argument with regards to human populations. 
 
In the case of humans, the more likely scenario is that two divergent populations, if mated will have genetic misfits - and then over subsequent generations evolution will weed them out, to then eventually find balance again.  
 
This all presupposes that eugenic forces are at work doing the "weeding" but that is no longer the case in the West.  The West is in a dysgenic cycle where the human capital is declining year on year.
 
Mating a low IQ person with a higher IQ person does not create vigor, the offspring tends to norm between the two parents.  The low IQ parent gains but the high IQ parent loses.  Even worse, in subsequent generations there is something called regression to the mean.  Generational offspring will regress to the former mean (the average of the two original parents, or possibly to the lower of the two).  
 
For example, the U.S. imports a lot of South Asians, many of whom are high IQ.  The average IQ of South Asian's in India is low at around 85.  This means their progeny, over time, will regress to their racial mean.  
 
Ideas matter and general hypnosis promulgated in the West is coming home to roost.  Importing millions of divergent peoples into already genetically fit and stable populations is causing problems, it is not producing hybrid vigor and  IS slaughtering high trust civility.  A high trust civilization is something easily destroyed.
 
(There is a reason smart Indians are always trying to escape from India.  It is a shit hole country with people literally shitting in the streets.  LETS IMPORT MORE!)
 
 
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 18, 2018 - 11:39am
Even if you erase vigor from the argument, under what logic does importing people from low trust cultures help the high trust culture?
 
People bring their wetware and behaviors with them.  There is no magic soil, that when you step on it, you magically become American.
 
The new immigrants self segregate into enclaves, then demand special favors, or want their own law e.g. Sharia.  They have different civilization norms, for  example rape of young girls is tolerated, and so on.
 
So, both the vigor argument is false, and this notion that the immigrant brings virtue, spice, and color is also false.  
 
The right immigrant maybe useful, but there are NO CONTROLS on immigration.  Any sort of human dreg can immigrate illegally or legally.
 
Insane people think that a one world government and a world without borders, and that "all people are the same" is some magical "heaven," when instead it is dystopian.
 
Idiocracy is the final outcome.
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 18, 2018 - 11:57am
Thomas,
I've already explained to you that you are wrong on this:
 
he nations PRINTED PAPER MONEY. (classic example is Germany after WWI) T
 
Germany DID NOT PRINT MONEY FROM THE STATE.  The Reichsbank had been privatized, and gave AUTHORITY to the private banks to print.  
 
The DAWES plan was forced onto German as a way of paying war time debts, which were impossible because the U.S also disallowed Germany to sell goods (to then acquire dollars).
 
OK!  The hyperinflation was already structurally baked into the cake.
 
It was the bear raiders, the shorters of currency, that caused the hyperinflation.
 
In a debt money system, MONEY IS LOANED INTO EXISTENCE.  If there is any paper printing that is done AFTER THE FACT.  Paper money in a debt money system is called on-accounts as it originates as an accounting gimmick.  
 
The process of shorting, in order to cover the shorts, caused the printing at the private banks.
 
Yes, the German government was guilty for allowing itself to be privatized and handing over the money power.  Also, the U.S. was guilty for screwing Germany.  There  were bribed and stupid politicians then as now.
 
Keynes was RIGHT when he said the interwar debts would only lead to a new war.
 
You are going to force me to write an article detailing the exact amounts and times of each of these events.  It was a complicated dance of inter-ally debts and flow of funds and exchange rates, along with the "bear raiding."
 
There is a reason I call libertarians as Liber-tards, because when it comes to money they are a-priori.  They dream it up, so it must be so.  They pull it out of their ass, when it has no bearing on reality.  IF it is a good theory, then it must be so, right?  It is always the government's fault as well - this is pure sophistry from people who claim themselves as intellects.
 
MEFOBILLS Added Aug 18, 2018 - 12:07pm
Thomas,
Did you read Pettigrew's book yet?  You have to educate yourself about the behind scenes maneuvering, which of course is not going to show up in your links.
 
There is no question the the "barons" became plutocrats and then engaged in monopoly behavior.  This then lead to the anti-trust laws.  I guess my eyes deceive me that these anti-trust laws came into existence?
 
There is no such thing as a self regulating free market - that is more liber-tarian tardism. 
 
Free markets are free for predators to take rents, and liber-tards are apologists for the creation of plutocracy and rent-seeking.  Tards then give cover and sanction for legal theft.