Recently commenter Brother Ass recommended a video interview with Michael Every. Every does high level analysis for Rabobank, which is a Dutch global bank. Every is well known for taking geo-political realities into account, as well as for being a skeptic of neo-liberal economic ideas (The Great Game of Global Trade). Basically, Every sees a conflict between Neoliberal ideology and its fantasy of how the world should work, and the realist view of the world as it actually is. By “the world” feel free to substitute “human nature”.
Every has an insider’s knowledge but doesn’t share the insider viewpoint. I’ve compiled a series of recent tweets from Every’s X account and have arranged them in date order, to give a flavor for Every’s views. This is important at this time of global economic and military tension. Every predicts a “blowup”.
We begin with a few tweets that illustrate the disconnect of the financialized ruling class from the concerns of normal people.
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 4
Today’s Global Daily: The end of the beginning
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning .”
- Churchill
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 4
We have war in Ukraine and war in Gaza. We are now close to war in much of the Middle East. And North Korea just deployed hundreds of new missile launchers at its border with South Korea. Where next?
Thankfully, we can rely on rate cuts to save us, right(?)
Squawk Box @SquawkCNBC
Aug 5
"I'm calling for a 75 basis point emergency cut in the Fed funds rate, with another 75 basis point cut indicated for next month at the September meeting - and that's minimum," says Wharton's Jeremy Siegel:
**********
The next several tweets arise from Trump’s suggestion that, as president, he should have more say in setting interest rates. Every is not opposed:
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 8
Have central banks done a good job? NO! Would politicians do a better job now? No(?) Have they done a better job in the past? Yes. IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES.
In a supply-driven economy, does it matter who sets rates? No(?)
Can we get back to one with our central banks?
Most successful period of monetary policy was 1935-1951 when the President directly controlled interest rates. Low inflation high output during two different massive wars.
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 9
For years anyone with could see Central banks were making political economy choices with winners & losers. Maybe they couldn’t see it due to their “education”, but they were. Now, politicians who gained power on the back of said policy want an overt say. “How dare they?”
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 9
This doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons for concern, or that it will end well. But the same is arguably true for the status quo that made epic policy errors, and which picks winners & losers without being democratically accountable. There is no “perfect” system. Ever.
-----------
Giovanni B. Ponzetto - @gbponz
Donald Trump’s assertion that as president he should have more say over how the Federal Reserve sets interest rates would, if carried out, reverse a longstanding custom https://wsj.com/politics/elections/trumps-plans-stir-fears-for-fed-independence-inflation-689bc113?st=d43eqrgu1w8trj0… via @WSJ
you mean Central Banks spending two decades straight giving free money via #ZIRP/ #NIRP to governments and privileging the financial sector over the people has produced an environment where political control of the central banks would be overt instead of self determined?
Oh, the OUTRAGE !!
*********
Next, some analysis of the Yemen situation, which is has placed a significant geostrategic stymie on US freedom of force projection:
Not Every Michael Every @TheMichaelEvery
Aug 9
From day one it was clear the only logical geostrategy is to stop Iran sending weapons to the Houthis - which the US won’t do due to fear of escalation. Or to give in to their demands. Whichever, we are in Deep Ship in terms of supply side inflation, it seems.
-------------
Elbridge Colby @ElbridgeColby
What a fiasco.
"Admiral Wikoff, who heads the U.S. naval efforts in the Middle East, shared the blunt assessment, saying that not only have U.S. strikes and defensive efforts done little to change the Houthis’ behavior, it now appears unlikely the group will be swayed by military force." 1/
"“The solution is not going to come at the end of a weapon system,” Wikoff said. “We have certainly degraded their capability. There's no doubt about that. We've degraded their ability,” he said. “However, have we stopped them? No.” 2/
"An unclassified report issued this past June by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, found container shipping in the region plunged by 90% from December 2023 through mid-February 2024." 3/
"“It's very difficult to find a centralized center of gravity that we can hold at risk over time and use that as a potential point of deterrence,” Wikoff said. “So, trying to apply a classic deterrence policy in this particular scenario is a bit challenging.” 4/
"“We have very little leverage over the Houthis, and air strikes are unlikely to deter them,” according to Elisabeth Kendall, a Yemen specialist at the University of Cambridge in Britain.
“They have a high tolerance for casualties, they are highly adaptable, they do not need sophisticated weapons to wreak havoc, they just need to keep going" 5/
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
