May 11, 2018: Art of the Deal, Art of the Steal, Art of the Squeal

That Fred Trump would send his son to a military academy was a personal tragedy; that he should have retrieved him is a national calamity”.

             ----from The Quotations of Chairman Joe

It is painfully obvious that our Caesar Disgustus cannot run a respectable lemonade stand. He has no management skills and, clearly, he has no negotiating skills. He has squandered hundreds of millions of his father's money, lost over a billion dollars in the late 80's and early 90's and would have been kicked into well deserved oblivion, if not the penitentiary had it not been for.....?

That, as we used to say, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question. We know that the billionaire Russian fertilizer king came to his rescue on a Florida real-estate investment. We know, as tRUMP's larvae has readily admitted, that after he bilked the New York Banks out of a billion or so dollars that these sources of income dried up and the family began to rely more and more from Russian money. Disgustus, stealing directly from contractors, bankers, and tax fraud moved into stealing indirectly through the medium of the Russian oligarchy and organized crime. Reports of money laundering and racketeering fill the pages of his chroniclers. An now we have the Art of the Squeal wherein our intrepid 'billionaire' protests his innocence, despite all the evidence to the contrary, while squealing like a stuck pig.

The great deal maker has always been a fraud. He knows nothing about the deal. He is drawn only to what flashes before his eyes at any given moment. Now we find him in a trade war with China, raising tariffs to 25 per cent on a huge range of goods and services thinking this will make the Chinese knuckle under and bend to his will.

Disgustus, totally ignorant of history, is innocent of the consequences. Tariff protections only work if the nation raising these barriers is fostering the very industries producing the products in question. Raising tariffs then forces the people to buy domestically produced goods creating employment and keeping the wealth in the country. We did this with the textile industry, steel-tool industries, machine industry, farm produces and a whole range of industrial and agricultural enterprises when the United States was building its industrial base.

But the 'suits' have been allowed to gut the industrial base so that almost nothing is being made in this country. As a consequence, tariffs serve only to raise the cost of living because Americans cannot turn to domestic suppliers who would otherwise be producing the same items at a now lower cost.

In addition, Disgustus who understands nothing—especially finance—fails to understand that China is America's banker. When we were young, the national debt did not have the significance that it has now for two principle reasons: It wasn't as high as it is now and we owed the money to ourselves. Now, increasingly, we owe the money to foreign nationals and governments—and the Chinese hold much of that debt. Disgustus could provoke a response wherein the Chinese simply stop buying treasury notes driving interest rates through the roof forcing draconian budget cuts or, worse, dumping the notes they now have.

In any case, the use of trade to force action by foreign governments has an uncertain record. One is reminded of the Confederacy employing a strategy of forcing Britain to recognize Richmond by burning nearly it's entire stock of cotton. The thinking was that it would create such havoc in the English textile mills that the imperative of kneeling before 'king cotton' would become immediately obvious. Instead, the English sought supply elsewhere and developed the Egyptian and Indian cotton markets.

Disgustus doesn't understand that it isn't the 1950's anymore. No, the conservatives and their capitalist overlords have succeeded in outsourcing the American economy and the palliative offered by this ignoramus and his team will succeed only in further destabilizing the national economy.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh

Impeach and Imprison.

November 30, 2015: Slave Trade Agreements, Instruments of Exploitation, Controlling the Debate

"The British and Americans, as all nations, have always been adept at covering the basest crimes with a coat of righteousness"
                                 ---from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

 

There were two postings on my Facebook page this morning on different but highly relevant and connected issues.  Both by Senator Bernie Sanders. The first questioned why, under the pending trade deals, we are moving to further the importation of all kinds of cheap goods into this country but we cannot bring ourselves to do the same thing when it comes to importing cheaper pharmaceuticals from abroad.  I commented that I agree with the Senator, but that we should remind ourselves that the entire ‘principle’ of “Free Trade” was largely the invention of the British and to a lesser extent the other western European powers, later followed by the United States, to enforce first the British Mercantile System and slave trade, and later to impose and maintain the drug trade, principally the production of opium in India for sale in China. This, by degrees led to the use of military force to suppress insurrections as, famously, in the case of the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium wars, conflicts in which the United States, not yet a world power, played a secondary, albeit supporting role. 

I raised this point to demonstrate that the lofty ‘principle’ of “Free” trade was, at its origin, nothing less than a ruse for exploitation leading speedily to the oppression and colonization of the rest of the world.  A “noble” principle assuaging the consciences of expanding wealth; a veneer of righteous ‘principle’ covering, however transparently, the base instincts of human avarice, gluttony and greed.
The British and Americans, as all nations, have always been adept at covering the basest crimes with a coat of righteousness. 

 

 The proclamation of “Free Trade” is, perhaps for us, the most mendacious of the use of Orwellian language.  More accurately, one would presume, what we are truly witnessing is the emergence, or rather re-emergence, of a modern form of the ‘slave’ trade; and, accordingly we might better refer to the pending group of agreements as slave trade agreements inasmuch as the effect, if not the outright intent, of these instruments is to drive down the standard of living around the globe and make more universal the misery of the human race. 

The second posting by the Senator asked why the media is not covering the issue.  As seen in a previous column the White House had promised a full-fledged public discussion and debate. (1)

Given the secrecy surrounding the negotiations and the reluctance—indeed the refusal—of this administration to be forthcoming concerning the contents of these trade agreements, I had my doubts.  Granting the president ‘fast-track’ authority in which the treaties would not be subject to committee hearings, or any hearing, and their would be no amendments allowed to these agreements, but rather a simple up and down vote, it was clear that we—the people—were about to be railroaded.

 Accordingly, I submitted this comment to the Senator’s post:

“The conspiracy of silence. The last thing the national and multinational corporations want is a full-fledged discussion of this travesty against the peoples of the world. It follows, then, that the media will do the bidding of their corporate paymasters and remain silent. MSNBC's dismissal of Ed Schultz was the shot across the bow and the rest of the so-called 'journalists' wet themselves to their socks.”

 

And so it goes.  He that has the gold makes the rules; he that controls the forum and the language controls the debate. 
___________


(1).  See blog posting:

May 22, 2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions

June 16, 2015: Underscore the Point, Cabal in Washington, Future Calamity

As if to underscore the point made here in a recent post (1), former Labor Secretary Robert Reich had this to say about the headlong push by this White House to enact the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Why has President Obama been willing to spend so much political capital on the Trans Pacific Partnership? I have a guess. It begins with Michael Froman, the United States Trade Representative who’s been in charge of this debacle. Froman went to Harvard Law School with Obama, but that’s not the only important connection. In the Clinton Administration, Froman was chief of staff to Bob Rubin when Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury. Rubin, you may recall, had convinced Clinton to pass NAFTA, kill the Glass-Steagall Act, and not regulate financial derivatives. Immediately after the Clinton Administration, Froman accompanied Rubin to Citigroup, where Rubin ran the bank’s executive committee while Froman became President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy. Froman remained at Citigroup until Obama tapped him to be U.S. Trade Representative. (Froman did well at the bank, receiving more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.) Not incidentally, Froman was the person who first introduced Obama to Rubin.

When it comes to understanding influence in Washington, following the people is almost as important as following the money. (Sometimes they're the same thing.)” (2)

It’s more than a question of personal loyalty; it is that the cabal that has assumed power and now represents the core of Democratic operatives with experience in governance are products of a wrong-headed move under Clinton and his DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) to a Friedmanesque economic model.  One must remember that President Obama not only attended the same schools, but taught for a while at the University of Chicago, the very citadel of ignorance as personified by its long-standing relationship and support of Milton Freidman.  It’s more than following the advice of old and trusted friends; it’s more than a question of acquiescing to the group wisdom of the ‘old network’.  Obama really believes this economic tripe, that’s the issue and that’s what’s so unsettling.  Its one thing to react to the prevailing political winds and trim one’s sails accordingly, for a good sailor knows that he must tack in the wind.  It’s quite another to change your destinations altogether.   

Reich, of course, worked with these guys and knows them well.  What emerges from a careful reading of the records of recent presidential administrations is that we have a revolving door between government and the financial institutions and that no matter who wins, be it Democratic or Republican, the ensuing administration will be staffed by the same cast of characters, recruited from the same sources, advocating the same policies, predicting the same outcomes, irrespective of the successes or failures of previous experience.  

The post by Professor Reich is significant in two respects.  First, the network of the architects of the last and the next financial crisis runs deep.  As the economic and foreign policy teams of the Bushes and Clintons gather once again behind the ‘chosen’ candidates’ one thing is certain:  a rehash of the 1992 Bush-Clinton race will be a replay in more than name only; it will ensure more of the same.  Secondly, couched in passing reference and between the lines one finds that the failure to regulate financial derivatives, now estimated to total 710 trillion dollars (or roughly 10 times the economy of the United States), is yet one more failure of the Clintons to reign in on Wall Street and prevent a future national, if not a global, calamity. 

___________________

1.      See Post : June 14, 2015: Arteries of the Republic, Political Stenosis,In the Shadows, which describes part of the cabal that administer the budgets and the treasury no matter which party wins the White House.

2.      Robert Reich, Facebook post 6-15-15

June 15, 2015: The Beagle in the Room, Of No Account, Reach for the Biscuits

 

In my post of May 22, I published a response from the White House to my concerns about the upcoming agreements of and the processes relating to the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and similar agreements with our European trading partners.  In a lengthy response the White House made the following assurances relating to the ratification of the agreements. 

  “The new Trade Promotion Authority mandates unprecedented transparency by requiring that any trade agreement be published online for 60 days before I sign it, and Congress will then have months to review, debate, and hold hearings on the details of the agreement before they vote on it. “ (1)

 Imagine my surprise to find that last Thursday the Senate moved to vote without hearings and truncated debate to authorize not only so-called ‘fast-track’ authority but the trade bill as well, all grouped together in a single vote.  No hearings, no national debate.  At the end of the week the House moved in similar fashion to pass the measure but was unsuccessful as a majority in the President’s own party balked at passage.  A major sticking point was the provision that funds providing for re-education and training of those workers displaced by the new trade agreements were to come from cuts in Medicaid. 

 I find it interesting that the “new Trade promotion Authority” mandating “unprecedented transparency” should at this juncture be sequestered behind closed doors and yet unavailable to the public.  And what matters if the documents are published online 60 days before the president signs it if the congress has already voted to approve it; for the horse will have long since left the barn. 

 The White House response, like so many responses from the governing elites, was, of course, a general response duly ‘personalized’.  A ‘canned’ response to an expression of specific concerns; a form of ‘non-communication communication’.   For those in government, the media advisors, the political ‘handlers’ this is seen as a way to placate the great ‘unwashed’—those not in the ‘know’.  The constituent, however, is left feeling like one is on the telephone line navigating a corporate ‘menu’ and speaking with a digitalized ‘voice’.  Communicating with one’s elected representatives is a bit like the citizens of Galveston and Houston fleeing from an impending hurricane calling emergency numbers for instruction on how to evacuate the city only to find that their frantic calls have been routed to New Delhi or Bangladesh from which instruction is given.  It is bad enough that my Congressman is brain dead, but the ‘non-response response’ only serves to further illustrate that the rot runs deep.  One is left to ponder whether the original communication though clearly received was ever read at all. 

I have a beagle named “Belle”.  She is a splendid companion but she will bark and bay at whatever passes, especially the postman, for she is a ‘southren’ dog and she doesn’t much cotton to anything associated with the ‘feds.’  I daily admonish her but she does not hear.  I bark out her name, but she ignores me.  It’s a funny thing, this beagle, for Belle can be upstairs well out of sight and mind, but if I rattle the biscuit jar she will bound down the steps to be the first in line.  So, it seems, it is with our political leaders.  “We the People” are of no account, unless and until we reach for the biscuits.  

 Ask Charlie Gladden.

__________________

(1). See the following post: “May 22, 2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions”

 

May 22, 2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions

On April 19^th I sent an email to the White House registering my displeasure with both the ‘leaked’ content of pending multilateral trade agreements and the processes by which the products of these negotiations are being presented to the Congress and the American people.  This afternoon I received a reply in which the administration is, predictably, defending its position.

Dear Joseph: Thank you for writing.  My Administration is pursuing a trade agenda that will place our workers, farmers, manufacturers, and businesses at the center of the 21st-century global economy—one that promotes both our interests and our values.  Trade done right is a critical part of my strategy to create jobs, spur growth, and strengthen the middle class. With 95 percent of the world’s customers living outside our borders, our ability to access new markets is vital to our economic well-being.  The export of American-made products supports millions of jobs here at home that pay up to 18 percent more than non-export-related jobs.  And, 98 percent of the more than 300,000 companies that export are small businesses.  However, even though more American businesses are exporting than ever before, most businesses still don’t export anything—leaving an incredible amount of opportunity that can be unlocked for our middle class.  To take advantage of that opportunity and level the playing field for our workers and businesses, we’re moving forward with the most ambitious trade agenda in American history, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will knock down barriers that block American made goods and services while promoting high standards in the fastest-growing region in the world, including the strongest enforceable labor and environmental provisions of any trade agreement. To protect our workers, the trade agreement will require countries to set a minimum wage, protect the freedom to form unions and collectively bargain, and work to end child and forced labor.  To preserve the environment, it will require countries to take tangible steps to curb wildlife trafficking, crack down on illegal logging, and prevent overfishing.  That’s why conservation organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy agree that the enforceable provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership are a critical step forward for environmental protection. Some prior trade agreements, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, have not lived up to their promise.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership addresses these problems through strong enforcement mechanisms, including for the labor and environmental standards.  This means that if our trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, aren’t playing by the rules, we can hold them accountable.  The agreement also includes new rules that make sure our businesses and property owners are protected from having property taken by foreign countries, while making sure that foreign corporations can’t undermine or get around our own laws and regulations.  Because we know that unfair currency practices by some governments hurt our workers, businesses, and farmers, we are working with Congress on new tools and standards that will make it easier for us to protect American workers and firms from unfair competition. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is also America’s opportunity to lead in the Asia-Pacific.  The alternative to this agreement is to let other powers, like China, carve up the region and drive down standards through bad trade agreements.  We cannot stay on the sidelines while China and other countries write the rules of the road.  We have to seize this opportunity to help American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field in the world’s largest markets in the decades to come. To help us secure the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we are working with Congress to enact Trade Promotion Authority, which allows Congress to put forward its priorities for negotiating trade agreements.  The new version of Trade Promotion Authority Congress is considering guarantees that future trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will have progressive, pro-worker, and pro-environment standards.  This gives us the leverage to bring home the best possible agreements for the American people. The new Trade Promotion Authority mandates unprecedented transparency by requiring that any trade agreement be published online for 60 days before I sign it, and Congress will then have months to review, debate, and hold hearings on the details of the agreement before they vote on it.  And while we have not yet finalized the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the current agreement is available for all members of Congress to read and review, and we have conducted over 1700 regular briefings with members of Congress on the status of the negotiations and have provided full similar briefings for labor groups, environmental groups, and other interested parties. With a highly educated workforce, an entrepreneurial culture, strong rule of law, and abundant sources of affordable, clean energy, the United States has what’s required to be the world’s manufacturing hub.  My Administration is working every day to help businesses locate, grow, and hire here so that our businesses ship goods all over the world stamped with "Made in the U.S.A." The good news is that this is already beginning to happen—over the last few years, our manufacturers have been steadily creating jobs in the U.S. for the first time since the 1990s.  Good trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue that trend and ensure that jobs are not outsourced, but rather are created here at home.  We will continue to push forward on these efforts because we know that when the playing field is level, American workers and businesses don’t just compete, they win. Again, I appreciate your message.  I am confident we can support job growth at home and boost exports while promoting our values and raising standards around the globe. Sincerely, Barack Obama

While the prospects of trade agreements that benefit all parties are indeed a noble goal worthy of the support of all, such outcomes are difficult to achieve.  In principle there is nothing wrong with the goals or efforts to achieve these goals.  But the president, I fear, is being a bit disingenuous when he maintains that ‘fast track’ authority mandates ‘unprecedented transparency’, for the process has been anything but transparent.  Additionally citing the ‘1700 briefings’ of members of congress does not include the fact that members are brought into a room, alone, and given not only time limits on when they can read, but are presented with only select documentations.  For instance, documents concerning the shifting positions of other parties to the agreements are not part of the portfolio.  Additionally, they are not allowed to bring staff, take notes, nor speak with the press concerning the content of the agreements.  Several Senators, including Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have loudly complained about the process, the secrecy and the difficulty in getting timely information that envelope this process.  The shroud of secrecy that has descended upon these proceedings only raises the suspicion that something untoward is in the works. 

What we have ‘learned’ about the content of these agreements have come through ‘leaks’ to select spokesman and from what critics have been able to glean from the proceedings.  It still begs the question: if these agreements are such a boon to America, and such a good deal for the manufacturing sector and the middle class, why then have the details not been forthcoming?  Why has such a shroud of secrecy been cast over the proceedings?  Lastly, why is it necessary to ‘fast-track’ these agreements?  The history, of which this administration is most assuredly aware, is that these kinds of agreements have proven bitter pills for Americans to swallow.  If the current agreements under discussion do in fact address the lingering rancor that previous trade agreements have engendered why then isn’t this administration releasing the draft agreements and speaking openly and honestly with the American people about the benefits contained therein?  Instead the Administration maintains a studied silence.

Perhaps this explains why it has taken nearly six weeks to send a pro forma response to a concerned citizen who harbors deep suspicions that no good will come of this.   I hope I am wrong; but I fear I am not.

April 19, 2015: Email to the White House, This is not, Mr. President, why we sent you to Washington.

The United States is currently in the process of negotiating two major trade agreements with our Asian and European trading partners. The first is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the other, currently more controversial agreement, now looming is referred to as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Bill Moyers posted on his website "Moyers and Company" an article on March 20, 2015 by Michael Nevradakis entitled "Proposed TTP Agreement is Profoundly Undemocratic". Citing previous attempts by major national and multinational corporations to end-around various "restrictions" to trade and, therefore, profits, beginning in 1995 under the Clinton administration a group calling itself the Transantlantic Business Dialogue was formed with the intent of creating a "customs union" where they could "trade and invest without any restrictions on their profits". (1) This effort ultimately failed but with negotiations currently being completed we are presented once again with yet another looming assault not only on the middle class but on the very sovereignty of our Republican form of government.

"The first thing to recognize is that TTIP is not your traditional trade agreement. In the past, trade negotiations were about border tariffs to goods, which are exported from one country and imported to another country. But already, the level of tariff barriers between the EU and the US is very low, so this time, it’ll be more about non-tariff barriers, and particularly getting rid of the regulatory barriers, as they call them, to trade. That means any regulations [that] will prevent corporations from being able to maximize their profits when they trade and invest across the Atlantic." (1)

" One of the main areas of contention surrounding TTIP are the so-called "investor-state dispute settlements," which would allow multinational corporations to sue sovereign governments over policies that they do not agree with, in special courts" . These are tribunals, as with the WTO that are not subject to the jurisdiction or oversight of national governments, national courts or, for that matter, the United Nations or any international agency. Rather disputes will be resolved in newly minted legal tribunals consisting of ‘judges’ appointed by the newly created treaty with extraterritorial power. This means that any national, state or local government imposing any regulation could find itself dragged before this tribunal and sued by a national or multinational corporation to be reimbursed for the costs of complying with any said regulation. Similar efforts beginning with the attempts in the mid-90's have been rejected but the momentum is growing for the adoption of this and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as we speak.

It is difficult to write about these treaties and their details. Both of these treaties have been negotiated in secret with corporate attorneys who have heretofore been mostly employed as lobbyists in Washington now meeting behind closed doors with European and Asian representatives to revamp the rules of international trade in what threatens to manifest itself, like the NAFTA agreements of the 1990's, as yet another assault on the beleaguered working people of all nations so obligated; but it has been done through the most undemocratic and most non-transparent process imaginable.

There are no good reasons for these negotiations to be conducted in secrecy. Not only have the press been excluded but United States Senators cannot get vital information concerning the content of the emerging negotiations. Senators are allowed to view only select documents for limited times and not allowed to bring staff with them.

Secondly there are no good reasons why this administration should seek, let alone demand, so-called ‘fast-track’ authority regarding the passage of this legislation. "Fast-Track" here refers to a process wherein the Senate must vote up or down, without amendment and without conducting any hearings the treaties that are presented to them. Such a procedure is a grievous abrogation of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, and profoundly undemocratic inasmuch as the process does not allow anyone else a voice in the outcome.

That the process surrounding these negotiations have been kept so close to the vest, and that the administration is demanding ‘fast-track’ authority means that like the NAFTA and other agreements we are about to be presented with yet another assault on our sovereignly, further limiting the ability of elected governments around the world in their efforts to reign in on the egregious abuses of Capital through the establishment of rudimentary rules and regulations. The time is upon us when our elected officials, be they county commissioners, state representatives, congressmen or presidents will be left with nothing to decide. Our economy will have been privatized, our public domain given over to private administration, and our ability to establish rules and regulations and to sue in our national courts for proper redress will no longer be possible.

No good can come from this. That this administration should not only be involved with these negotiations but openly embrace not only the content but the process by which these agreements are being fashioned is an affront to every American. That this administration should demand "fast-track’ authority to pass these noxious and obnoxious treaties is a deep betrayal of every person who campaigned and voted for this President of the United States.

Last Friday I sent off an email to the White House questioning the administration’s actions regarding these treaties. In it I said that I would expect as much from a Mitt Romney, a John McCain, and especially a Herbert Hoover. This is not, Mr. President, why we sent you to Washington.

 

I have yet to receive a response.
____________

1. http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/20/john-hilary-proposed-ttip-agreement-profoundly-undemocratic/

2. http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/09/robert-reich-worst-trade-deal-youve-never-heard/