The Domestic Front--Did Dimon Just Weigh In?
Tom Luongo did a fascinating 50 minute interview with MelK just the other day, Cutting Through The Fog:
As usual, Tom covers a lot of ground. The first 18 minutes deal with Garage Gate. Tom freely admits that there are at least three credible theories for what’s going on, to explain who did the hit on Zhou and why. A key here is that he expresses in his own way what I pointed out just the other day. Recall, I stated that Nothing Is Getting Better For Zhou. Tom points out: This isn’t going away. That’s all driven by the MSM, and it’s a sign that powerful forces are at work behind the scenes. If this were just some rogue actor leaking this information, the MSM would have buried this scandal, just as they’ve done repeatedly in the past when leftist interests were at stake. But this isn’t going away, so something much bigger must be up.
Luongo’s favored theory is that the New York banksters are behind this move to dump Zhou. He even suggests that the possibility for this move was put in place during the Trump years when Jay Powell got his first term at the Fed and the US broke free from Libor. These were moves that were intended to restore the US to some form of fiscal and economic sanity. When a direct threat to such sanity emerged with the installation of Zhou, the Fed took action. With the forced re-up of Powell at the Fed, the Fed took the offense with interest rate hikes—a blunt but effective instrument aimed at an irresponsible Congress. This freedom from Libor has also given the NY banks that are the major shareholders of the Fed much more leverage in US politics—as we’re starting to see.
Luongo also seems to agree with my view that the fact that the hit on Zhou took place only after the GOP gained control of the House works against the notion that the hit is an internal party matter, because it creates all sorts of difficulties centered around Kama Sutra. Tom’s view is that the banksters can probably use Kama Sutra for their own purposes, and that she will have no love lost for the Dem politicians who made her a laughing stock. She could well clean house, at the behest of her backers. YMMV. The other side to this is that Powell and the NY Guys probably also believe they can work with the GOP. Why would they think this?
Recall what Matt Gaetz said the other day. The Speaker needs to raise, on average, $1 million dollars a day. That means going to the Deep Pockets guys and begging, and who has the deepest of deep pockets? The NY Guys. I believe it was Luongo who said, not long ago, that Kev McCarthy is “owned” by the NY Guys—somebody said that, and it makes sense. That consideration—that certain DC players are “owned” by the banksters—also plays into the question of: Who did the hit on Zhou? It also plays into the question of how to deal with the reality that Kama Sutra will be part of the mix going forward.
Recall that my original idea was that the Deep State led the coup/hit because they saw Zhou’s incompetence—as well as that of his entire regime—as an existential threat to the US that is involved in a world war that has monetary, economic, and military fronts. Well, these are the guys who could set this hit on Zhou up, if they wanted to. I posited that that would take bipartisan cooperation. There are likely elements of that in play, because political participation will be required to pull this off. But …
Getting the ball rolling is the first step. Now, what if the NY Guys “own” some of the Deep State players? That’s not a far fetched idea. The mechanisms for such ownership are numerous—too numerous to detail. Use your imagination and you’ll see it. Once the NY Guys got involved, it all became possible. All the coordination necessary became possible. Alternatively, what if key Deep State players approached the NY Guys and solicited their support? It works the same.
Now, in line with Luongo’s idea of peak Davos, that Davos 2023 is turning into something of a shambles, Tom also discusses the fact that, unlike in recent years, the NY Guys showed up at Davos this year—and rained on the garden party. I’m not sure if that’s the right metaphor for a winter meeting in the Alps, but you get the idea. JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon took center stage in that regard, touting oil’s continued essential relevance as well as the need for more interest rate hikes. All wormwood for the Globalists. Stay with me here, because this all hangs together.
Way back on January 3, when most of us were just getting back in the saddle after the New Year, Jamie Dimon wrote an op-ed for the WSJ: The West Needs America’s Leadership. It reads for all the world like preparation for a run for the presidency—a political platform. Well, Dimon’s not going to run for president, but he was certainly letting the world know what he’s looking for in a presidential candidate. And I’ll bet there were ambitious possible candidates who took this op-ed to heart. Check this out—I copied the text from Reddit. There’s some of the expected boiler plate stuff in it, and even some echoes of MAGA. I mean, for example, he bows to the idea that American can’t stand alone—hey, it’s a multi-polar world now! But who else will stand with us? Let’s be real—we’re seeing the destruction of NATO in Ukraine. So take some of this with a grain of salt, but take some other things seriously.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine punctured many assumptions about the future of the world and thus was a pivotal moment in history. America and the West can no longer maintain a false sense of security based on the illusion that dictatorships and oppressive nations won’t use their economic and military powers to advance their aims—particularly against what they perceive as weak, incompetent and disorganized Western democracies. In a troubled world, we are reminded that national security is and always will be paramount, even if it seems to recede in tranquil times.
It should also lay to rest the idea that America can stand alone. U.S. leaders must always put America first, but global peace and order is a vital American interest. Only America has the full capability to lead and coalesce the Western world, though we must do so respectfully and in partnership with our allies. Without cohesiveness and unity with our allies, autocratic forces will divide and conquer the bickering West. America needs to lead with its strengths—not only military but also economic, diplomatic and moral. Here’s what we can do:
• Rededicate ourselves to the qualities and principles that made America great. These principles are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the idea that all people are created equal. Democracy and human freedom are inseparable from freedom of speech, freedom of religion and free enterprise. It would help to educate all Americans about the sacrifice of those who came before us for democracy at home and abroad.
We need to acknowledge the critical role that government plays—and we need government to be more competent and accountable. We must build stronger safety nets to care for the poor, the old and the disabled, and to cushion adjustment to economic change, while also maintaining economic dynamism, individual responsibility and the dignity of work. We must confront crises and failures of public policy by developing better policies and by dealing with realities. We can recognize the mistakes America has made without disparaging the nation.
We support global human rights and stand on the side of liberty, but we also have to be realistic about the compromises necessary to accomplish long-term goals. Remember Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill allied with Stalin against Hitler’s imminent threat.
• Develop a Marshall Plan for global energy and food security. This will be critical both in keeping the Western alliances together and minimizing the global suffering caused by starvation. Global energy and food supply chains are precarious by their nature. And it should be self-evident that energy security and preventing climate change aren’t contradictory: Secure and reliable oil and gas production is compatible with reducing CO2 over the long run, and is far better than burning more coal. It should also be self-evident that global food and energy security relies on realistic trade policy and American military strength.
• Increase military spending, along with our allies, as much as necessary to protect the world. Not only is America a bastion of freedom; it is still the arsenal of democracy, and economic sanctions are no substitute for an effective military. “We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak,” as Ronald Reagan said in 1980. Military strength needs to be combined and coordinated with strong diplomatic and economic aid for the developing world. Thoughtful policies would help many nations lift up their people, develop their human rights and join economic unions that are good for all involved.
• Recover our economic dynamism. A strong economy is the foundation for American power, and we haven’t focused enough on economic growth. Between 2000 and 2020, real U.S. gross domestic product grew at an average rate of only 1.7% a year. Had we grown at 3%, last year’s GDP per person would have been $15,000 higher. That would help pay for much of what we need to do as a nation.
Economic growth will repair the fraying of the American dream, particularly if we share the wealth by improving education and wages for lower-paid citizens. There are many effective ways to do this, such as raising minimum wages and expanding the earned-income tax credit. We must also fix the immigration policies that are tearing us apart, dramatically reducing illegal immigration and dramatically increasing legal immigration. Economic growth will reduce inflation, reduce the deficit, and make it easier to afford the strong military we need. We aren’t going to have the economic growth we need with the legal, regulatory and bureaucratic system we have today.
Global trade will necessarily be restructured so that we don’t rely on potential adversaries for critical goods and services. This will require more “industrial planning” than America is used to—and we must ensure it is properly done and is not used for political purposes. Yet America should also open its arms, through trade and aid, to all other nations. Most developing countries would prefer to align economically with the West if we help them solve their problems. We should develop a new strategic and economic framework to make ourselves their partner of choice.
• Deal with China thoughtfully and without fear. America still has an enormously strong hand—plenty of food, water and energy; peaceful neighbors; and what is still the most prosperous and dynamic economy the world has ever seen, with a GDP per person of more than $75,000 a year. We can have faith that our system will maintain the economic dynamism we need. China has done a great job lifting up its nation and bringing its GDP per person up to $13,000 a year. Yet any fair assessment must recognize its challenges—not enough food, water and energy; a very complex geopolitical situation with tough neighbors; a lack of freedom that creates economic rigidity and malinvestment.
Whether you think it is a competitor or a potential adversary, we, along with our allies, should firmly negotiate with China (where my company and its predecessor firms have done business for more than a century). We should acknowledge that we have common interests in combating nuclear proliferation, climate change and terrorism. Tough but thoughtful negotiations over strategic, military and economic concerns—including unfair competition—should yield a better situation for all. If America leads well, China will be better off forming partnerships with a strong Western world than with Russia, Iran and other such nations.
Together, we can ensure America’s leadership for the next 100 years.
Mr. Dimon is chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The question is: Where does the boilerplate BS end and the serious stuff begin? Luongo is completely forthright in stating that the NY Guys are not our friends. Any fair reading of that op-ed should convince you of that. On the other hand, Tom maintains that Dimon is preferable to the alternative:
The real bottom line here, for our purposes, is that the program Dimon sketches out is incompatible in some very important respects with the policies of the Zhou regime, of the Davos crowd, and of the Woke left in America. Dimon has come out in the open about that on several recent occasions. At a minimum we can be sure that the NY Guys would be happy to give Zhou the boot he so richly deserves. So maybe we need to consider whether the NY Guys are involved in this take down.
Now, on January 17 Dimon followed up that op-ed with an interview with Maria Bartiromo:
WSJ Opinion: Jamie Dimon on Leadership, the Debt Ceiling and his WSJ Op-Ed
Highlights from a Fox Business interview with Jamie Dimon, in which the J.P. Morgan CEO discussed issues surrounding his WSJ op-ed, 'The West Needs America's Leadership.'
In many ways Dimon strikes a rather Trumpian tone in this 5 minute interview (follow the link). I took some notes of the major themes. You’ll see immediately that he’s no advocate for small government—in fact he advocates “comprehensive” planning repeatedly. “Rational policies”—more government planning? Immigration? Stop the illegals but bring in lots more legals—what’s his problem with hiring Americans? How does that tie in with education?
On the other hand he emphasizes a Trumpian theme repeatedly: competence. Make the trains run on time. Oh, wait … no, he wants pipelines and competence in education, health care, infrastructure. I think you get the picture. It’s the typical outsider’s appeal—over the heads of politicians to the people—for common sense and competence. Trust the private sector, the big banks and corporations know best.
This is not an endorsement. In fact, far from it. What I’m saying is that I think Luongo’s theory is far from far fetched. We need to know who we’re faced with.
Another plug for the Luongo interview--he has some interesting takes on Elon Musk. It fits in, in a way, with Musk's C19 revelations re injection harm.
It all seems very convoluted and long-winded to me. I think I'll stick with Occam's Razor for the time being: massive in-fighting between a bunch of power-crazed psychopaths.