The Upside of Protectionism

by Serban V.C. Enache

While everyone is bemoaning the US Administration raising tariffs on the ‘usual suspects’ and placing new tariffs on new players, like India, nobody’s talking about the situation’s upside or the upside’s potential to grow over time.

We constantly hear the mainstream bang in our heads the importance of trade, international trade in particular – bilateral agreements being seen as out of fashion. But we rarely hear the domestic market being brought up at all. Aren’t countries exposing themselves to numerous risks of varying degrees and different natures by allowing the unhindered flow of international capital to dictate their fate? Aren’t we, the people at grassroots, tired of politicians apologizing to trans-national companies about how they can’t give them sufficient tax breaks and other privileges in order to sway them to dismantle operations somewhere else and open them up here? Aren’t we tired with corporations outsourcing every little thing? Aren’t we tired of the narrow-minded focus on lowering costs while completely ignoring the necessity of giving people good jobs that pay big wages, from which workers can spend enough to secure better lives [without needing to use credit cards] while also allowing them to leave some money idle on their balance sheet for rainy days? [i.e. to postpone consumption into the future].

The home market is the most important of any nation, and for decades the prevailing orthodoxy is that capital knows best, that capital subservient to the Globalist outlook of world affairs. It’s dangerous to allow people to vote on their own fate. It’s dangerous to give people bargaining power, because then the State will surely become tyrannical as a result, will ‘oppress’ big capital, and that tariffs and Government industrial subsidies just end up raising prices, hurting the poor the most. I’m tired of this false empathy. The same analysts who are shedding [crocodile] tears for the poor and slamming tariffs are the same ones who, for decades, have relentlessly tried to conflate the stock-market with the real economy. Manufacturing jobs are vanishing? That’s great for the country, because the stock-market’s going up. Wages are stagnating, while big corporations have record profit? That’s great, because the stock-market’s going up and you can import very cheaply from China. Who decides international trade? Some democratic, accountable, and transparent forum? Of course not.

Richard Wolff, a Marxian economist, often tries to confuse the audience by conflating tariffs with economic warfare, citing WW1 and WW2 as the byproduct. It’s nothing short of sophistry. A tariff is slapped on foreign goods meant for the domestic market, with the aim to protect the market share of domestic firms and thus grow domestic industry, in both size and specializations [diversification]. It’s not the same as economic warfare. It’s not the same as stopping foreign economic agents and states from doing business [buying and selling] with third parties. It’s not the same as freezing or confiscating assets owned by foreign entities. It’s not the same as denying foreign shippers the right of passage or the right to dock, or seizing their cargo.

The argument about how much revenue tariffs can or can’t bring in is a red herring. The purpose of Government money taxation is threefold: a) to create permanent demand for Government currency, giving it thus extrinsic value, and allowing the Government to provision itself with labor and materials b) to drain income out of the economy, regulating thus the levels of Aggregate Demand and keeping prices in check c) to penalize and or incentivize various socio-economic activities and behaviors.

With the right type of taxation in place, economic agents pursue productive [wealth creative] activities, as opposed to unproductive ones [wealth extractive], and they are thus able to meet their tax obligations. The State’s goal should be wealth creation, full employment, and price stability. Real constraints for a sovereign state are: available land, available labor, available materials, and technology level. There will always be enough Government funds for this project or that program, so long as there’s political will for it.

Aren’t we tired of demand leakages at home, which make the country run far below maximum capacity? Aren’t we tired of exporting net aggregate demand, so that foreign actors can use those funds to bid up our asset prices? Aren’t we tired to compete against foreign enterprises who underpay and overwork their labor and rape the environment? Aren’t we tired of eroding national sovereignty by surrendering more and more of the country’s economy to trans-national, foreign interests? Let’s have businesses, large and small, invest in capital equipment and labor training, instead of expecting the State to do all the heavy lifting by itself, so that capital can get away with higher and higher markups while investing less and less. Let’s promote an economy in which land and labor are placed before finance – and in which finance serves public purpose, instead of subverting it.

Comparative advantage is a state of affairs that works for the wealthy. So-called free trade has worked out great for those at the top, but not for those at the bottom. Mainstream media and mainstream think tanks portray less educated workers as stupid and dangerous [dangerous for the well-to-do woke], because they favor tariffs. They never mention the fact that this particular trade policy falsely touted as “free” has been used as a most proficient weapon against them in class warfare. Offshoring and outsourcing didn’t lower total production costs. More so, the national system of production was rendered more vulnerable and risky [in civilian and martial terms] when we take into account the loss of critical manufacturing facilities and know-how.

“Free” trade was quite good in transferring income from labor [direct human production factors] to the managerial classes. The lower working classes aren’t stupid or insane. They recognize the changes of the last two decades haven’t helped them and wish for a new deal. China’s admission to the WTO, in spite of it not meeting the criteria, was a big factor in the decline of manufacturing jobs.

Liberals and SJWs who insist the Trump phenomenon was caused by the racism of white, straight, men in the US are lying through their teeth. While much focus was put by Trump, Sanders, and others on NAFTA for its negative impact on US jobs, the major culprit was China. Many US factories that moved to Mexico did so in the logic of matching prices from China.

Professor Brad DeLong explained how the Ricardian [mythology] view is unrealistic and why it favors the rich.

“[…] comparative advantage is the ideology of a market system that works for the interest of the wealthy. For comparative advantage is the market economy on the international scale, and the market economy is […] a collective human device for satisfying the wants of the well off, and the well off are those who control the scarce resources that are useful for producing things for which the rich of the world have a serious jones [fixation].”

In the early ’90s, more and more manufacturing jobs in the United States went overseas. The trend amplified, as entry-level jobs in some white-collar professions like the law now share the same fate. In the realm of software, few positions are left in the US, which will be ceded to experts in India, because the ideological consensus holds that the training of a new generation of specialists at home is untenable. Meanwhile, countries like China, South Korea, and Japan – who practice protectionism – don’t have to worry about such issues. “Protectionism causes depression” is nothing short of fear-mongering. People at grassroots recognize this scam without being savvy in trade and econ theory. They vote on instinct and their instinct is correct.

Mainstream economics, the foundation of policy-making in most countries, isn’t grounded in scholarship. It’s propaganda, highly valued bs because its proponents put out fancy equations when challenged. There’s nothing wrong with their math, but everything’s wrong with their assumptions. See one stark example here.

Tariffs are one way to strive for economic and geopolitical independence, but they’re just an instrument. The larger scheme has to rest on investment, training, diversification, and development. A nation’s true wealth rests in the full and multifaceted development of its productive powers, not its current exchange values. A nation must never sacrifice the former for the latter, for the promise it will be assured an important and comfy role as a mere cog in the grand scheme of Globalization. Autarky or efforts toward autarky have been described by the mainstream and the wannabe anti-mainstream as the goal of racists, nazis or fascists, and misanthropes.

The hypocrisy is telling, no? It’s good for a household to be independent from the grid [from everyone else] in terms of electricity; but when countries attempt economic independence [through their State institutions and policies], it’s bad and dangerous – it’s a case of tyrannical Government, led by racist extremists. According to these enlightened Globalists [some of whom are capitalists, some socialists, and others, mixed – like DiEM25], a country, any country, should always be dependent on another’s labor, another’s equipment, another’s fuel, another’s know-how, another’s military. To try and minimize those relations of interdependence is a crime… a declaration of war against civilization itself. To these humanist jackals I say, don’t worry, you’ll all get comfy, prestigious jobs as controlled opposition in the next paradigm; so spare us the hyperbole, the doomsday scenarios, and your demonization of independent, national, political economies.

Boeing is Cheap & TBTF

Maximizing shareholder value at the cost of someone else’s injury

by Serban V.C. Enache

About five months ago, Trump intervened to ground the 737 Max in North America, even though that’s not his job. That realm is the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Agency [FAA]. Sadly, the FAA is your typical institution that plays two, conflicting roles: regulator and lobbyist. After the two plane crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia, the FAA continued to insist the aircraft was safe, hinting toward pilot error…

Ethiopia refused to hand over the crashed 737’s red boxes to the FAA, as is normal with US-manufactured planes. Instead, the gadgets were sent for analysis to France; a clear sign the Ethiopians lack confidence in the ability of the United States to be serious and impartial.

Analysts expect Boeing to recover from its PR disaster unless the 737 Max’s center of gravity is thoroughly unstable. Faulty software is one thing, but faulty hardware is or should be the moral and legal cause for termination. The company’s recovery in terms of PR is highly debatable, given the recent class action lawsuit: 400 pilots seek millions of dollars in damages for what they insist was Boeing’s “unprecedented cover-up” of the 737 Max’s “known design flaws.” The court hearing is scheduled for October this year.

After the fatal crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia, states and airlines around the world grounded the aircraft in question, deeming it unsafe to fly. Airlines are attempting to cancel their orders of the 737 Max, invoking public safety concerns. Despite it all, this particular plane is a best seller for Boeing, with nearly 400 delivered and more than 4500 scheduled orders, but undelivered. American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines are among the top clients, ahead of carriers like Air Canada, European Ryanair, and Air China.

In May, the White House cancelled an Iranian order to Boeing worth 20 billion dollars in airliners, order originally signed by the Obama administration. Iran has to replace its fleet of passenger planes manufactured in the ’60s. Given Trump’s change in policy toward that country, I don’t know if Teheran would have went through with the purchase anyway. Someone who wants to strangle your economy and effect regime change won’t abstain from selling you faulty merchandise.

While the inquiry is ongoing, evidence shows the two fallen planes lacked optional “extra” safety features that might have prevented them crashing. Both planes were not equipped with sensors or software to prevent engine stall. These “extra,” but essential safety systems are sold separately by Boeing, and, obviously, it charges airlines a premium for them. Some of these “extra” features are simple luxury [unnecessary] items, but others are directly related to vehicle or passenger safety. It’s obvious these corporate giants have traded safety for higher profits, despite all the technological gains in productivity and efficiency [which lead to lower business costs]. Such progress means little, when the usurer, the rent-seeker, the patent holder, and the cartel captures virtually all the benefits.

Other corner cutting methods include decreasing staff wages and deteriorating working conditions. The famous US pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, testified before Congress that he had suffered a 40 percent pay cut and that most pilots aren’t able to maintain a middle class life without having to take other jobs on the side. Sullenberger warned that if this situation persists, the frequency of crashes will increase. To avoid any confusion for the reader, pilot error in the Ethiopian and Indonesian cases are ruled out. This raises the issue of man vs machine. Half a century ago, three people in charge of flying the craft was the norm: two pilots and one flight engineer. But the advance of the “automatic cockpit” eliminated the latter. Concord, with all its feats and problems, was one of the last if not the last airliner to require a flight engineer on board. Planes today are so electronically complex that pilots shouldn’t be expected to be computer wizards too. When the software goes haywire, a third guy needs to be there and resolve the problem. But employing one more specialist per plane, plus training, costs money; and big cartels, de facto monopolists, hate the word cost and love to place risk onto someone else.

It is not uncommon for pilots to be on food stamps. In their training, pilots incur high levels of debt, thus their bargaining power is severely curtailed. On low budget airlines as Ryanair, pilots are not full time employees, but on temporary contracts – which means smaller pay and fewer benefits. No pilot or other staff member at Ryanair is allowed even a free bottle of water while working; and the staff is threatened if it doesn’t reach established sales goals.

The large business owners have been historically averse to improving the working conditions and wages of their workers and improving the quality of their products and services to the benefit of consumers. One of the most outrageous examples in history, to prove just how vile these practices were, they even opposed open doors in production plants. Workers were literally trapped while on the job. See the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City.

Another example of the folly of shareholder capitalism [as opposed to stakeholder capitalism] is the Ford Pinto episode from the ’70s. Ford knew the Pinto’s gas tank was highly predisposed to burning or exploding, but management factored in the costs of potential lawsuits and concluded it cheaper instead of spending a few extra dollars per car to fix the problem. This cold, crude, calculated logic of “maximizing shareholder value” led to hundreds of avoidable fatalities.

There’s good red tape [having to put in an effort to make something worthwhile and wait for the impartial green light, which benefits the consumers and the manufacturers] and then there’s bad red tape [when the regulators and assessors are, in fact, lobbyists for the very corporations they should be policing]. One thing is clear, to eliminate key regulations means to devolve passenger safety, turn the whole business into a law of the jungle affair.

The shallow logic of rentier market capitalism is perfectly on display in the Boeing case, with the business press urging their readers to buy more of that company’s stock, because it’s a Too Big To Fail institution. History is on their side, however. From the bailouts after the Great Finance Crisis, to the cases of Pfizer in 2009, and Bayer in the early ’80s. Pfizer paid 2.3 billion dollars, the largest health care fraud settlement in the Justice Department’s history. That sounds punitive, but not when you factor in a company profit of over 8 billion for that same year. When Bayer’s Cutter Laboratories realized some of their blood products were contaminated with HIV, the money investment was considered too great to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the inventory to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America. Consequently, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS. Needless to say, Pfizer and Bayer execs had nothing to fear. And on the rare occasion the bent authorities put someone from Wall Street in jail, they’re offered first class accommodations, unlike the rest of the prison population.

The case of Boeing is no different – and under current circumstances – it can’t be anything else. Trump might try to milk the situation to push up his numbers ahead of the election. He might announce some punitive measure against the aerospace giant – but Trump’s word is like quicksand, ever shifting. After he gets reelected, he’ll just go back on his promise, just like he did with [his criticism of] the CIA and his support for the American Patients First plan. Trump passed measures to allow the CIA to operate with even more impunity, and he scrapped the latter plan, in effect screwing over households and giving another boon to the cartels. I don’t believe the swamp can be drained. Perhaps it should be purged…

France & Germany, Shameless

by Serban V.C. Enache

“The haggling around rescues in the Mediterranean has to be ended.” German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas.

“We cannot continue to do nothing as thousands of men, women and children who’ve left behind everything fall into the hands of human traffickers. We cannot simply abandon them to face either shelling in Libya or drowning in the Mediterranean.” French President, Emmanuel Macron.

The West toppled Gaddafi, favoring Islamist factions to take over, and since Gaddafi’s death on November 2011, the slave trade was resurrected, the country was was carved up in numerous fiefdoms and engulfed in a civil war between the Tripoli faction and that of General Haftar. Currently, foreign powers are selling weapons and ammunition to both sides, in the attempt to hedge their bets. Whichever faction wins, the war profiteers win with them.

Other countries like Italy, who had no stake in the conflict, and even argued against regime change in Libya, are now expected to accommodate refugees and migrants, in effect, subsidizing the business of human traffickers, while some NGOs have started playing the role of intermediaries. But it’s a matter of compassion, they say, of human rights. Indeed. So why are you dumping the problem on a third party? How would you like it if a stranger came at your house with a trailer of human beings from abroad, making it your responsibility to offer them shelter, food, water, basic amenities, hire translators to communicate with them, check them for diseases etc? Then, of course, the delivery men or women take off into the spotlight, obtaining praise, and returning to their comfy houses or apartments, where nobody disturbs them.

Where does humanitarianism stop and human trafficking being? But most importantly, when will the hypocrisy end? Giving people asylum is one thing; but expecting the host countries to give them citizenship and integrate them [which is a lot harder compared to simply giving them ID cards] is another thing entirely! The rational process would be temporary asylum, conflict in source country ends, then they’re repatriated, where they’ll contribute to rebuilding their homelands.

Even the Dalai Lama supports this basic, reasonable plan of action. But the liberal elites in the West do no agree. Think just for a second the level of moral degeneracy we’re living in. The authors of a country’s destruction and dismemberment are lecturing third parties about what it means to be kind and have mercy; this pathetic appeal to humanitarianism, which exists in name and name only! It’s the same in the US. The bleeding heart liberals arguing for unlimited immigration and no borders, while their favorite political party, the Democratic Party, is waging covert and overt economic and military operations against these states from which the migrants and refugees stem. The conservatives only distinguish themselves from the liberals, in that they want secured borders and regulated immigration, but their favorite political party, the Republican Party, is busy perpetrating the same crimes abroad, adding to the numbers of refugees and migrants.

Sarkozy’s France, perchance the most rabidly determined to get Gaddafi out of power, shoulders the moral responsibility first. And now French and German political elites are lecturing other heads of state about what’s just and humane. Ditto for Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela. Salvini told them to come to Rome if they want to discuss the matter. But will they? I don’t think so. The EU establishment proved time and time again it won’t concede an inch to dissenting factions or dissenting member states, no matter how valid the argument is. We often hear about “our European” way of life, “European culture,” the Western civilization… and we hear this narrative from the center and the far right. Well, I don’t resonate with your brand of “Europeanism.” It’s been the violent chessboard of some of the mightiest empires in history and of some of the longest and bloodiest wars to boot – the spring of two world wars… I am not in favor of federalism [albeit I used to be], not with these elites in charge. I am not in favor of this neoliberal Tower of Babel suppressing the nations of this place and those nations outside Europe. I don’t favor this Satanic construct, built on falsehood, usury, rent-seeking, and war profits. To hell with it! May it collapse and join the broken graves of past, brutish empires. I want a Europe, indeed a world, of sovereign states: the Westphalian Sisterhood of Nations.

Articles I & II of the Peace of Westphalia:

“[…] And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other… A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.”

“On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven. What has from the beginning of the unrest, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility, so that neither because of that, nor because of any other reason or pretext, should commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, the status, goods, or security himself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority of the law, or by the way of violence within the Kingdom, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier contradictory treaties should not stand against this. Instead, all and every, from here as well as from there, both before as well as during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and costs, without regard of the person or the issue, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever the one could demand from the other under his name, will be forgotten in eternity.”

Why Alex Jones is a Fake Anti-Globalist

by Serban V.C. Enache

Disclaimer. I’ve never been a fan of paleoconservatism, and I’ve never held Alex Jones’ brand of journalism in high regard. That being said, he did do good things in his career, he did fight the so-called ‘good fight’ for a time; and I didn’t hold back to give him credit when he had good ideas. Like in the case of public utility social media; and I was opposed to him being deplatformed. Unfortunately, Jones’ channel has become a cesspool of hawkish intoxication. I’ve been watching his show up on Infowars for a good many weeks now, and I’ve made a personal, final assessment on the narrative he’s pushing.

I’ll make a list of points and, if readers disagree, they can watch or listen to Infowars to see that I’m not arguing a strawman or making stuff up. By the way, I love Gerald Celente’s segment on Infowars. He’s great.

Alex Jones says that Iran could have been permitted to have a nuclear bomb by now, if Iran didn’t threaten nuking people all the time. And Jones questions whether or not the first oil tanker incidents were false-flags. He is inclined to believe that Iran may have been behind them, because the Iranians “are crazy.”

Sometimes Jones makes funny voices to ridicule various people he dislikes. One of those voices he does sounds awfully close to Netanyahu’s. There’s nothing wrong with that, albeit it’s ironic, given the fact that Jones and Infowars have shilled so much for Israel and Netanyahu. Jones claims that the Rothschilds [and by implication the Globalists] want Netanyahu dead. As always, Jones finds the ‘enemy’ only on the Israeli left; because the Israeli ‘right’ are incapable of pulling off dishonorable deeds, no? Israel, under the Netanyahu administration, is selling technology, including military technology to China – to the “Chicoms” [Communist Chinese] as Jones calls them. Yet you won’t hear Jones mentioning this fact, let alone criticizing it. In fact, Jones will go out of his way to cut off callers or people he’s interviewing, if the dialog hints at putting the spotlight on Israeli meddling and crimes.

Alex Jones thinks the Palestinians are “invaders,” who are all about invading other people’s lands. He said that even those Palestinians who had their land taken away are invaders – and Jones said “quote” in the sense that they really weren’t push off the land [by American and European Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. What a travesty. So much bile, so much ignorance and manufacturing of history.

Alex Jones believes the Globalists have cornered the US, trapped it into an inevitable war with China. Last time I checked, there were no Chinese military units in proximity to US borders, land or sea. Rather, it’s the other way around. And he always demonizes China for what US secret services and US big tech are doing, not just in the US, but in foreign countries, including allied states. Jones is more concerned with a spy agent from another continent, than he is about the spy in his own country. As if Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China were responsible for US companies deplatforming him. China is militarily encircled by the US, and Jones would have Americans believed the Chinese are an existential threat to the United States. Whether he realizes it or not, Jones is making the case for US hegemonic [imperialist] policy and wants it strengthened.

Alex Jones keeps pushing the “socialism kills” narrative, and often cites Venezuela as the perfect example of this; but just as you might expect, makes no mention of how US sanctions [levied by the Trump Administration two years ago, combined with Western European sanctions and confiscation of Venezuelan assets abroad] impact the daily lives of ordinary Venezuelans. If all the blame lies with Maduro’s party, why would you support sanctions against that country? It’s like seeing a handicapped person on the street, and then tripping him up to fall flat on his face and break his nose and teeth. Instead of condemning US-sponsored regime changes in South America and US-led economic warfare against these countries, Jones is silent as a snake. But then likes to complain about foreigners storming the border and lays all the blame on Soros propaganda outlets, enticing foreigners to come to the US, where they’ll be given free stuff. Isn’t Alex Jones and his ilk part of the problem on this issue? You know, the two sides of the same coin? The two wings of the same bird?

Alex Jones often puts up scenarios in which the [conservative] people in the US will rise up to overthrow the tyrannical Government. He’s made numerous statements, albeit of a theoretical nature, that someone has to intervene with a gun to stop what he deems an injustice. Infowars features written and audio-video material about a coming civil war in the United States, triggered by the leftists, the liberals, the communists… While Jones is clever enough to put disclaimers, “I’m not saying launch an offensive war,” his narrative ultimately radicalizes conservatives. He’s using the same tactics Antifa uses, and then blames Antifa for fomenting “terrorists” and “terrorism.” It is staunch hypocrisy and he can’t claim the moral high ground.

Alex Jones used to criticize the bubble economy; the economy that’s kept from tanking via “artificial” means. But now, since Trump’s in office, Jones is attacking others for making the same criticisms. Jones labels this as a conspiracy to kill confidence in the economy, to topple Trump. Jones claims that the age of fiat money is nearing its end, that crypto currencies will take its place, and that’s important for the US Government to channel fiat funding into the military sector primarily, for the inevitable battle with the Chicoms, lest the US be invaded and conquered. Alex Jones is cheering for Trump to engage in military keynesianism, despite the fact Trump has already engaged in it. It’s not enough according to Jones.

Alex Jones is pro-life. He thinks that the lives of children and of the unborn are sacred. Yet his fiscal conservative stance runs counter to his professed beliefs. What happens to the children of the poor? What happens to the children of those in the middle class, who weren’t poor when they had the children, but have become poor due to circumstances beyond their control? And food is just one part of the problem. What about housing? What about electricity and running water? What about health care? What about education? What about access to jobs and job security? Alex Jones has nothing on this front. His sympathy for children ends after they’re born. The “free market” will handle it from there. Meanwhile, the so-called free market is only free for rent-seekers, usurers, and cartels.

I don’t mind different ideologies as much as I mind ideological inconsistency. You can’t call yourself pro-life and be against the Welfare State. Call yourself what you are: a social darwinist. And since Jones likes to invoke Adolf Hitler and the Nazis all the time in his dialogues and monologues – I clue him in on Nazi socio-economic policy. The Nazis, even though they practiced eugenics, they had full employment and welfare policies in place. The Nazis would have discarded individuals based on their genetic value, not based on their economic condition like Alex Jones. He’s the typical conservative fraudster. Unlimited Government money for the military. Little or no Government money for the civilian economy. In his view, the former is capitalistic, free-market, and patriotic; the latter is socialistic, communistic, and treasonous.

At the beginning of the month, Jones had someone on his show, who hinted at a secret liberal conspiracy between Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin. Jones didn’t cut him off, didn’t challenge him on that point in any way. The only times I’ve heard Jones commenting about Putin, at least recently, was on the submarine incident, hinting that there’s likely something sinister behind it – insert your preferred secret alien tech theories here…

In a most recent episode, a self-proclaimed right winger [not a republican] called in to suggest that Trump is a ruse. Jones cut him off immediately and talked over him like he had a severe case of verbal diarrhea, then Jones pretended the caller had shut the phone on him. He’s so desperate, he won’t allow a critical POV on Trump whatsoever. Censoring your audience isn’t productive; it looks as though you have something to hide / fear.

I believe these points are enough to prove my case. Alex Jones is a false anti-Globalist. He doesn’t condemn US economic warfare, responsible for creating waves of migrants and refugees. He doesn’t condemn Israeli Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians – on the contrary, he squares all the blame on the Palestinians. His invectives for the neocons pale to insignificance when contrasted with the invectives used against the upstart ‘radical left.’ He’s a pathetic cheerleader of Netanyahu. Never attacks [Jewish] Zionism or Christian Zionism. In fact, Jones went so far as to justify and defend Jewish ethno-centric influence over US national and foreign affairs. But God forbid the Jew in question should be an anti-zionist. No, that would make that particular Jew a servant of the Globalists. Meanwhile, Trump’s using the US military in the interests of a foreign state, Israel, doing Netanyahu’s dirty work. But that doesn’t count as “globalism” in Jones’ book. You see, the Iranians, and the Iraqis, and the Libyans, and the Syrians, and the Afghans own all the liberal media outlets and Democrat politicians in the United States and formulate the country’s foreign policy and its domestic agenda [sarcasm]. That’s why Alex Jones is a despicable shill and propagandist for the other half, the other face of the Establishment. American exceptionalism is nothing without tanks, guns, bombs, and lies.

Trump’s Wall is on the Fence

by Serban V.C. Enache

Trump’s Government hasn’t put in a single mile of new wall, pardon me, fence, in the clear part of the US-Mexico border in the 30 months since he took office. And no, Mexico didn’t pay for it either. Is it any wonder that ‘white nationalists’ like Richard Spencer are totally disillusioned with Donald Trump? And even conservatives like Ann Coulter are equally disappointed by the “wimp.” Only Alex Jones, who in the past equated Trump to Moses, remains unshakable in his support for the president. But with his vile character assassination campaign against Ilhan Omar, effectively equating her with Satan, Jones proves how dishonorable he can be and a complete shill for Netanyahu and his Apartheid regime to boot. He only manages to cast a more negative light on Donald Trump, which is what the Mainstream media craves really. But I digress…

Last week, the Customs and Border Protection confirmed that all the fencing done since Trump took office is “in place of dilapidated designs,” because the existing fence required replacement. The agency said it built 51 miles of steel bollard fence with funding given in the last two fiscal years. But while the funds were meant to both replace outdated barriers and put new ones in, only the replacement projects were carried out.

Of course, the Democrats obstructed and the approval process for environmental and zoning permits is a bureaucratic drag, but still… Trump’s other deals with the traditional oligarchic interests, within and without the US, were not only given the green light faster, but they were also brought to completion or are nearing completion. Last year I gave some suggestions with regard to how Trump can boost demand, revive manufacturing, and get things done without getting bogged down with the [arbitrary] fiscal and debt to GDP ratio constraints.

Trump’s 2020 campaign kicked off last year at a rally in Texas with the slogan, “Finish the Wall.” Utterly duplicitous; he really thinks we’re all fools, including his base. Finish the wall that you haven’t started? Try starting it first, building at least 50 percent, then you can proudly say, let’s finish it. He didn’t give the crowd any ‘wall’ numbers, though. When Trump doesn’t have numbers to back up his claims, he makes recourse to hyperbole – even when reality is diametrically opposed to his claims.

Currently, if the Iranians don’t take mercy on him and agree to a slightly edited JCPOA, like Mexico and Canada did with NAFTA/USMCA, he’s going to look foolish, a softer war hawk than Bolton, but a war hawk nonetheless and one without bearing. By the way, while Trump is busy not building a wall or a fence, the CIA is busy training MEK [Mujahedin-e Khalq] mercenaries/terrorists in Kosovo and Macedonia to use against Iran.

Meanwhile, Trump’s foreign policy toward South America is creating more economic migrants and refugees. If it really is entirely the fault of countries like Venezuela, why does the US bar economic agents from these countries from trading with its economic agents and with the rest of the world, particularly the West, over which the US has tremendous political and military leverage? Economic warfare produces suffering and casualties and creates migrants and refugees. To correct the president, socialism hasn’t been faithfully implemented in Venezuela [since the private sector still accounts for most of the GDP], but US-sponsored economic sabotage has certainly been faithfully implemented – especially since Trump took office.

The Trump administration was sued this year after diverting 6.6 billion in military and other department funds to use for border wall construction. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next few weeks. Why get mired in so much technical and legal stuff to achieve a very simple, albeit unpopular objective with more than 51 percent of the country? Trump could send the Army Corps of Engineers to build the fence immediately, if he really did regard it as a national security issue. Ditto for the lead-water poisoning in Flint. As for money, he could just issue a Government loan toward the institution tasked with the project. The loan would appear on the asset side of the Federal Government’s balance sheet, so it wouldn’t add to the fiscal deficit or the national debt. The accounting is no different than when a regular bank makes a loan to a customer. When the loan is approved, the bank doesn’t take a hit to its equity. For that to happen, the loan has to go bad first, all things being equal. Since a wall, pardon me, a fence, doesn’t have a money yield attached to it, the institution who received the loan won’t have the funds to pay it back – but who cares? Let the bankruptcy court take care of it, and any exposure to the Federal Government will be handled, in the usual, technical, boring manner in the future; but at least the barrier and Trump’s campaign pledge will be complete.

There are numerous gimmicks Trump can pull to bypass financial constraints on the Executive. Another way would be to have the Federal Reserve purchase IOUs emitted by the agency responsible with building the fence. The FED would accept the IOU and in turn, credit the agency’s account with reserves. No budgeting rules broken. Just like the FED needed no political agreement from the two branches of Government, when it decided to engage in an Alphabet Soup of special lending programs during the Great Financial Crisis.

In conclusion, Trump is a master of dissimulation. He has failed on many of his promises, while on others he did complete 180s. Where’s that declassification of the 9/11 report? I’m sure the families of the victims and they’re friends are still waiting. At this point, all I’m hoping out of Trump’s first term is a smaller death tally compared to his predecessors. I’m hoping that Trump was and is the lesser evil.