When I looked into why we might have any interest in Ukraine, I discovered that there may be minerals, maybe rare earths, etc. that could be desirable to those who could profit by having access to them. I am not sure of what Ukraine offers in resources but it would help make understanding the underlying motivations easier. What seems to happen is, those in power invent some stupid reason to go to war, but they do not tell the truth as to why we are really there.
New evidence shows that Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man suspected of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump, had been intensely preparing for his attack at the Clairton Sportsmen’s Club,
***a facility frequented by multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).***
I wish they would just level with us. The situation with respect to China is especially grating.
US foreign policy seems driven now in large part by the need to maintain the flow of goods, low tech and high tech, from China, rather than making goods at home. They tell us we might go to war with China, Workship to the World... over Taiwan.
What Taiwan produces is chips. Why are we fighting over these very special chips? Is that alone existential? And if so, existential for who? Main Street or Wall Street or the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley? Are we fighting over shipping lanes, also the "lane" through Iran?
So. We're pointing a gun at China telling them they can't stop making everything we need, but they have to keep their hands off Taiwan or we'll... we'll... shoot? Who do we shoot: China or Taiwan?
Thus our role as out-of-shape global mall cop, protecting free trade, seems to segue into the role of a global mob boss, running a protection racket.
Interesting that for 53% of respondents, they/their immediate families are current/past military, but 63% of respondents would not encourage ppl to join up.
So even if that 63% = all 47% not served + 16% w/ military service, fully 30% of those w/ military service would not recommend joining up.
Just watched a fascinating conversation that I think would interest many on this site. Brent Johnson, originator of the “Dollar Milkshake Theory,” talks with Michael Every about the “Geo-political Endgame.” Here’s the blurb from the video description:
“On this week's episode we have the pleasure of speaking with Michael Every, a true expert on the intersection of markets, geopolitics, history and philosophy. The Global Strategist in the Global Economics & Markets team at Rabobank shares his years of experience with the Milkshakes Markets & Madness audience at a time when understanding the Geo-Political Endgame becomes more important than ever.”
Every presents a compelling picture of the end of global “free trade” and the emergence of “protectionist” or “nationalist” economics that’s rooted in history and practical knowledge of the world “as it is” not as it “should be.” He has a surprisingly sanguine view of America’s long-term future in this new world order — though, he appears to believe that getting there will be… uh, bumpy. One of my quibbles with his analysis as presented here, is that it sidesteps issues of global demographic trends (dramatic birthrate imbalances, population declines, mass migration, etc). Still, a very thought-provoking convo.
In terms of international trade, Ricardo, who came up with comparative advantage (which is very clever and mathematically undeniable), he specifically says in his text he assumes that capital is immobile. So you can't move capital from one country to another to put your factory and your technology in another location. So he's talking about specialization internally; trade clears with both sides having a kind of a balance of trade: just making different things. Is that what we see today [globally]? No, we see some countries running huge trade deficits and some countries running permanent trade surpluses. So I said if you look at that and then you look at the fact that it hollows out the industrial base of the countries that are under trade deficit... and then you look at the fact that the country with the largest trade deficit is the US... and if it gets hollowed out it can no longer make aircraft carriers and F35s at volume in perpetuity... and if you don't have enough aircraft carriers and f35s you don't get to stay Top Dog forever because power abhors a vacuum the system will collapse.
On China's winning strategy,
/quote
[China is still trying to] leverage in as much foreign Capital as they can, as much foreign technology as they can, and there are still Western firms queuing off to do it; you wouldn't think there would be after everything that's happened! [But] there still are European firms, there are still US tech firms, who are very excited about going over [to China] despite the fact that firm after firm finds that their technology is cloned and it's sold back to them and they go out of business... [So China should] keep doing that, keep building your industrial production muscle and eventually get to the point where you think that the other side doesn't have the guts to really say "we're going to introduce the changes that we were alluding to prior." From a policy perspective, [in the US] you get voters saying "no I won't deal with five years of inflation while we make the transition back towards local production." Or you get Western businesses saying "I don't want to pay workers more to to on-shore, I like the fact that I've got the whip hand over the workforce even if it means that China rules the world; I don't really care, that's the world I prefer." So I think [China is] already onto a potential winning strategy as it is.
Sounds interesting. Luongo is also rather sanguine about America based on fundamentals. He's moving away from reflexive libertarian "world as it should be" thinking.
Dunno if you caught this - but capital is just one of the many subjects Martin Armstrong - whom I had never before listened to - touches on, and the picture he paints…well, it’s pretty bad…guest on the Duran! Maybe save it for tomorrow! The guy’s breadth of knowledge and first-hand experience with markets and those who “govern…” very impressive, and he confirms what has been discussed and analysed here on mih on any number of recent crises…
Very dense. But his basic premise that one can predict geopolitical events based on the movement of money makes sense. At least it has since for hundreds of years our economic system in the West has been a closed system with enough controls to be able to see such movements. That is now changing (with BRICS). Human nature, though, remains the same.
His other point, that we are now ruled by psychopaths who do not care about their fellow human beings and who also are idiots who do not have the mental capacity to understand geopolitics or economics, is something that has become apparent to a lot of us already. He just confirms it nicely.
Thanks very much for the link, ML. Fascinating for sure!
I wonder why the survey didn't ask if we would enjoy watching the executions of Miss Lindsey, Nuland, Vindman, et al on live TV or internet streaming?
When I looked into why we might have any interest in Ukraine, I discovered that there may be minerals, maybe rare earths, etc. that could be desirable to those who could profit by having access to them. I am not sure of what Ukraine offers in resources but it would help make understanding the underlying motivations easier. What seems to happen is, those in power invent some stupid reason to go to war, but they do not tell the truth as to why we are really there.
No, I'm not saying it's not coincidence:
New evidence shows that Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man suspected of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump, had been intensely preparing for his attack at the Clairton Sportsmen’s Club,
***a facility frequented by multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).***
I wish they would just level with us. The situation with respect to China is especially grating.
US foreign policy seems driven now in large part by the need to maintain the flow of goods, low tech and high tech, from China, rather than making goods at home. They tell us we might go to war with China, Workship to the World... over Taiwan.
What Taiwan produces is chips. Why are we fighting over these very special chips? Is that alone existential? And if so, existential for who? Main Street or Wall Street or the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley? Are we fighting over shipping lanes, also the "lane" through Iran?
So. We're pointing a gun at China telling them they can't stop making everything we need, but they have to keep their hands off Taiwan or we'll... we'll... shoot? Who do we shoot: China or Taiwan?
Thus our role as out-of-shape global mall cop, protecting free trade, seems to segue into the role of a global mob boss, running a protection racket.
Interesting that for 53% of respondents, they/their immediate families are current/past military, but 63% of respondents would not encourage ppl to join up.
So even if that 63% = all 47% not served + 16% w/ military service, fully 30% of those w/ military service would not recommend joining up.
Former Vet. Concur ...do not join up.
(16% ÷ 53% = 30.2%)
Just watched a fascinating conversation that I think would interest many on this site. Brent Johnson, originator of the “Dollar Milkshake Theory,” talks with Michael Every about the “Geo-political Endgame.” Here’s the blurb from the video description:
“On this week's episode we have the pleasure of speaking with Michael Every, a true expert on the intersection of markets, geopolitics, history and philosophy. The Global Strategist in the Global Economics & Markets team at Rabobank shares his years of experience with the Milkshakes Markets & Madness audience at a time when understanding the Geo-Political Endgame becomes more important than ever.”
Every presents a compelling picture of the end of global “free trade” and the emergence of “protectionist” or “nationalist” economics that’s rooted in history and practical knowledge of the world “as it is” not as it “should be.” He has a surprisingly sanguine view of America’s long-term future in this new world order — though, he appears to believe that getting there will be… uh, bumpy. One of my quibbles with his analysis as presented here, is that it sidesteps issues of global demographic trends (dramatic birthrate imbalances, population declines, mass migration, etc). Still, a very thought-provoking convo.
https://youtu.be/GWhiM9UrjKw?si=R_XyUuizhbNM8jcD
Thanks, that cheered me up.
On Comparative Advantage,
/quote
In terms of international trade, Ricardo, who came up with comparative advantage (which is very clever and mathematically undeniable), he specifically says in his text he assumes that capital is immobile. So you can't move capital from one country to another to put your factory and your technology in another location. So he's talking about specialization internally; trade clears with both sides having a kind of a balance of trade: just making different things. Is that what we see today [globally]? No, we see some countries running huge trade deficits and some countries running permanent trade surpluses. So I said if you look at that and then you look at the fact that it hollows out the industrial base of the countries that are under trade deficit... and then you look at the fact that the country with the largest trade deficit is the US... and if it gets hollowed out it can no longer make aircraft carriers and F35s at volume in perpetuity... and if you don't have enough aircraft carriers and f35s you don't get to stay Top Dog forever because power abhors a vacuum the system will collapse.
On China's winning strategy,
/quote
[China is still trying to] leverage in as much foreign Capital as they can, as much foreign technology as they can, and there are still Western firms queuing off to do it; you wouldn't think there would be after everything that's happened! [But] there still are European firms, there are still US tech firms, who are very excited about going over [to China] despite the fact that firm after firm finds that their technology is cloned and it's sold back to them and they go out of business... [So China should] keep doing that, keep building your industrial production muscle and eventually get to the point where you think that the other side doesn't have the guts to really say "we're going to introduce the changes that we were alluding to prior." From a policy perspective, [in the US] you get voters saying "no I won't deal with five years of inflation while we make the transition back towards local production." Or you get Western businesses saying "I don't want to pay workers more to to on-shore, I like the fact that I've got the whip hand over the workforce even if it means that China rules the world; I don't really care, that's the world I prefer." So I think [China is] already onto a potential winning strategy as it is.
Sounds interesting. Luongo is also rather sanguine about America based on fundamentals. He's moving away from reflexive libertarian "world as it should be" thinking.
I've been listening--not done yet. Both guys are talking, like Luongo but in more technical detail, about capital flowing to the US.
Dunno if you caught this - but capital is just one of the many subjects Martin Armstrong - whom I had never before listened to - touches on, and the picture he paints…well, it’s pretty bad…guest on the Duran! Maybe save it for tomorrow! The guy’s breadth of knowledge and first-hand experience with markets and those who “govern…” very impressive, and he confirms what has been discussed and analysed here on mih on any number of recent crises…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPFviQhpqw4
Listening. Had meant to get to it , but ...
It’s so dense I may have to listen again…
Very dense. But his basic premise that one can predict geopolitical events based on the movement of money makes sense. At least it has since for hundreds of years our economic system in the West has been a closed system with enough controls to be able to see such movements. That is now changing (with BRICS). Human nature, though, remains the same.
His other point, that we are now ruled by psychopaths who do not care about their fellow human beings and who also are idiots who do not have the mental capacity to understand geopolitics or economics, is something that has become apparent to a lot of us already. He just confirms it nicely.
Thanks very much for the link, ML. Fascinating for sure!