Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

[blindpig]

Capture Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal
December 23, 8:39



In December, Trump voiced direct claims against the future US administration to:

1. Canada.
2. Greenland.
3. The Panama Canal.

In a rules-based world order, voicing territorial claims against neighboring countries is the new norm.

Trump also promised to expel transgender people from the US military after coming to power and to legislate 2 genders (not 47).

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9567236.html

Google Translator

Damn good thing the 'peace candidate' won, huh? Cause Trump gonna curb US imperialism cause he's an isolationist...Jfc, we amerikans got an excuse cause we've been subject to massive propaganda in all aspects of our lives and can't discern reality from showbiz. But all these bloggers and analysts who bought that bag of shit oughta be ashamed, the guy's as big a blowhard as PT Barnum and as honest too.

Leave those poor people alone, they got enough problems. Let the science of biology define gender and consign this silly metaphysical claptrap to that speculative field known as psychiatry which at best serves as a palliative for the disorienting madness of capitalist society.

******

The Panama Canal & Greenland Are Trump’s For The Taking If He Really Wants Them

Andrew Korybko
Dec 23, 2024



MAGA 2.0 is poised to be more geopolitically assertive than MAGA 1.0.

Trump threatened that the US might retake control of the Panama Canal if it remains under indirect partial Chinese management and continues to charge the US what he described as exorbitant rates for passage. He then posted shortly after that, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” Both are his for the taking if he really wants them, but it’s unclear whether he does.

As regards the Panama Canal, Trump’s immediate imperative appears to be rolling back Chinese influence over this crucial waterway, which he seemingly fears could be leveraged by the People’s Republic to cut the US off from transoceanic shipment in the event of a crisis over Taiwan. He might also want to coerce Panama into shutting down illegal migrant routes to the US via the Darien Gap. Both are sensible from the perspective of his MAGA worldview that aims to restore the US’ unipolar hegemony.

His objectives in Greenland might be similar in the sense of ensuring that Chinese companies don’t obtain a monopoly over that island’s critical mineral reserves as well as preventing the construction of “dual-use infrastructure” that might one day give Beijing military and intelligence advantages. Direct control over sparsely populated and practically undefended Greenland, which formally remains part of Denmark, is seen as the most effective means to that end.

Trump’s threat to the Panama Canal and his claim to Greenland are also likely meant to appeal to his supporters’ expectations that he’ll “Make America Great Again” in a visible geopolitical way. Even if he doesn’t impose formal US control over them, expelling Chinese influence from both and replacing it with US economic influence could be enough to satiate them. This could also solidify his legacy and lay the basis for his successor, who’d probably be JD Vance, to establish formal control sometime later.

Both are Trump’s for the taking if he really wants them since neither could meaningfully oppose the US military if he authorizes an invasion. They’d be low-cost operations with high economic and political returns even though they’d occur at the expense of the US’ international reputation. The global community would predictably decry them as imperialist invasions, but nobody would stand in the US’ way nor sanction it afterwards. The most that might follow is harsh rhetoric, nothing more substantive.

Trump wants to reshape the “rules-based order” to the US’ advantage after China masterfully used the prior system’s own rules against the West to turbocharge its superpower trajectory. He’ll therefore explicitly employ double standards to push back against the People’s Republic in pursuit of building what can be described as “Fortress America”. This refers to the reimposition of US hegemony over the entire Western Hemisphere following the expulsion of Chinese and Russian influence from there.

It remains to be seen which methods Trump will ultimately rely upon for reasserting US influence over the Panama Canal and Greenland, but military means can’t be ruled out due to the ease with which he can use them to achieve these goals if necessary. He’s willing to accept the costs to the US’ international reputation since he’d prefer for his country to be feared more than loved anyhow. Judging by Trump’s remarks on these two issues, MAGA 2.0 is poised to be more geopolitically assertive than MAGA 1.0.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-pana ... enland-are

It occurs to me that these demands might serve Trump to offset the anticipated defeat in Ukraine the way the invasion of Grenada did after the black eye in Beirut.

******

Lying Is A Requirement.

In the US politics. Trump is doing what he does best--BS.

(Video at link.)

Putin could never have said anything like this because he knows who Trump is and he has no intention whatsoever to "stop" the war in "24 hours". This is a pathological narcissism which breaks all limits of propriety and allows the guy to lie and sincerely believe his own lies. Obviously, Russians have no illusions about the US intentions whatsoever. Russians are also very good at math and they know US manufacturing capabilities of critical weapon systems as well as the starting levels of resources.

Remarkably, Trump, in some ironic sense, continues to reap what he and his admin, of which he had no control whatsoever, have sown--arming and training Kiev regime in earnest. Russians have a very good memory. Meanwhile--US tax dollars at work or rather not working.

(more...)

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2024/12 ... ement.html

You might have already seen it but watch that 29 second video for confirmation: not only a liar but stupid and ignorant to boot. And as stated he believes his own bullshit perhaps even more than most bourgeois politicians.

http://youtu.be/WOPDzD_P9gg

******

I Am Sorry for My Friends in USA
December 22, 2024


President Donald Trump speaks to Venezuelan-Americans on February 18, 2019, in Miami. Photo: Jim Watson AFP/Getty Images/file photo.

By Maria Páez Victor – Dec 20, 2024

The Global North, empire-like countries, do not think generally they have anything to learn from the smaller, weaker, or poorer ones. This is hubris, and this attitude is to their detriment. I recall that in Venezuela, when Hugo Chávez was elected at the end of 1999, he overthrew a plutocratic system whereby the business elites of that country had dominated the two main parties which had governed for 40 years dispensing oil revenues to themselves and their associates. They were governed by the rich for the rich. On his very first days in office, President Chávez received a visit from Venezuela’s richest man, Cisneros. He came to give him a list of the names of the people he said Chávez should name to his Cabinet. Chávez answered with indignation: (paraphrasing)“Who do you think you are talking to? I am the president of all Venezuelans and you and your list can leave my office now.” Chávez wanted no truck with the people who had been responsible for the greatest theft in the country’s history, to the tune of more than 15 times the Marshall Plan. His government was not to be a government for the very wealthy. And it wasn’t and it isn’t to this day under Nicolás Maduro.

In the USA, the situation is quite different with their incoming president who is more than welcoming the ultra-rich. The Congressmen & women, Republican and Democrats, have just negotiated together a deal for the mid-year budget. This is no easy exercise which takes time and much tact. When, in years past, they could not reach a timely agreement, the citizenship was greatly affected for lack of paychecks and services. So, this was good news. Until Elon Musk, an unelected super-billionaire, now the right-hand man of billionaire president-elect Trump, decided that it was not a good deal and so persuaded Trump. But that was not all: they had the temerity to threaten the Republicans, that if they voted for this, their political career was ended. This is beyond bullying; it is a threat to the legitimate representatives of the people. Did not the citizens of the USA realize this violence to their government? Are Congressmen & women serving unelected billionaires or the people who elected them? The situation has not yet been resolved.

If Musk feels he can threaten US representatives, I also fear what he will try to do with respect to other nations. Like Trump, Musk thinks he can wade in on the domestic affairs of other countries with impunity. This week he just described the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as the country’s only savior, which led to calls from Berlin for the US billionaire to “stay out” of their politics. Musk also dared insult Canada calling Prime Minister Trudeau insufferable and saying he would soon lose power, heedless of the fact that Canada is the staunchest US ally and main commercial partner.

It then becomes quite probable that Musk will once again try to destabilize the Venezuelan government now that Trump has been elected. Musk has shown himself quite an adversary of Venezuela. President Maduro has revealed that Musk has tried to overthrow the legitimate Venezuelan government by instigating deadly terrorist acts in the country spending $1 billion to that effect.

Venezuela is in a tight spot seeing how in Trump’s past term he instigated a false president, robbed Venezuela of its oil company CITGO, intensified to the extreme the illegal economic sanctions against Venezuela which, and by blocking it from buying food and medicines, led to the deaths of at least 100,000 Venezuelans.

However, to be fair Trump has campaigned on wanting to stop the US being involved in so many foreign wars. As well he is quintessentially a businessman. So, it would more likely appeal to him to give access to Venezuelan oil to the oil producers of Texas and Louisiana to keep the price of gasoline low, than to go on a wild military adventure in Venezuela that would, with absolute certainty, result in a regional quagmire, not to mention trouble with China and Russia which have defense accords with Venezuela. The oil refineries in the USA were built specifically to refine the heavy crude from Venezuela and it is not easy, or even possible, to change that configuration. In any case, while it is true that the USA can get oil from other parts of the world, none can beat the geographic advantage that Venezuela has: the oil is only 5 days away by ship.

The US, of course, has the capacity to invade and bomb Venezuela. After all, it destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya but that would mean the destruction of the oil infrastructure. More importantly, however, is the fact that the government of Nicolás Maduro is a very popular government. Its people are highly organized into many grassroots associations, the militia counts with more than 5 million civilians, and Venezuelans -historical liberators of South America- will intensely fight for their sovereignty. There will be no welcome for any invader there. It would be Vietnam redux.

Just how much Trump will heed his noxious billionaire advisor we have yet to see. If Trump continues to be advised, led and persuaded by the likes of Musk with such disdain for the normal political protocols and customs, the result can only be ad hoc chaotic governance. Democrats should be looking seriously at the issues that these two do not share. Trump basks in popularity; he wants to be admired and fawned over. He should beware because Musk, to put it mildly, is very light on charisma or popular appeal, and he may come between him and his fans. There is a toxic whiff about Musk.

History has examples and lessons that we should heed. All empires fall, and the fall of Rome holds ominous warnings for today’s empire:

“The final victory over Carthage in the Punic Wars led to rising economic inequality, dislocation of traditional ways of life, increasing political polarization, the breakdown of unspoken rules of political conduct, the privatization of the military, rampant corruption, endemic social and ethnic prejudices, battles over access to citizenship and voting rights, ongoing military quagmires, the introduction of violence as a political tool, and a set of elites so obsessed with their own privilege that they refused to reform the system in time to save it.” (Mike Duncan, “The Storm Before the Storm, the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire”, 2017)

Having spent so much time, effort, study and discussion criticizing and lamenting the way the US governments have mistreated Latin America, and specifically its criminal hybrid war against Venezuela, (as well as towards Cuba and Nicaragua), it feels strange to be feeling such sympathy for the US today. My personal friends there are admittedly, not a random sample of its population. They are from my same socio-economic sphere: professionals, academics, or writers, in other words middle class, whose friendship I treasure through so many years. Admittedly, I do not personally know many of the working classes there, but I find myself worried for them even more as they can be sorely taken advantage of by Trump and his entourage.

Do they all know what perils they are facing? The Republic of the United States some time ago gave way to the Empire of the United States. If not, what are those 800 military bases around the world for if not for domination? But this week we have witnessed how that Empire is now turning into an overt, openly, unabashedly, Plutocracy. That is, government for and by the rich. The very rich.

And none of my friends, acquaintances or people I respect, belong to that deplorable class. Beware, my friends, the barbarians have entered your gates.

https://orinocotribune.com/i-am-sorry-f ... ds-in-usa/

[blindpig]

What if… Musk is the real President?

Lorenzo Maria Pacini

December 23, 2024

Of shadow governments and hidden potentates there are enough of them around the world, this is certainly nothing new.

Let us start with a brief summary to answer the question: who is Elon Musk?

From what we learn on the web, Musk is a South African-Canadian-American entrepreneur, inventor and visionary, born on 28 June 1971 in Pretoria, South Africa. He is known as one of the founders and leaders of some of the world’s most influential technology companies.

Musk began his entrepreneurial career with Zip2, a newspaper software company, which was later sold to Compaq for $307 million in 1999. This success allowed him to found X.com, which later became PayPal, a pioneer in online payments. After the sale of PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion, Musk turned his attention to more ambitious projects.

In 2004, he co-founded SpaceX, with the goal of reducing the cost of access to space and colonising Mars. The company became the first private company to send a spacecraft, the Dragon, to the International Space Station. In parallel, in 2003, Musk invested in Tesla Motors, becoming its CEO in 2008, turning it into a global leader in electric vehicles and renewable energy.

Since then, Musk has founded or been involved in several other ventures: Neuralink, which aims to develop brain-computer interfaces; The Boring Company, focused on underground transport infrastructure; and xAI, a company dedicated to accelerating human scientific discovery through artificial intelligence.

The Pretoria ‘boy’ is also known for his active presence on social media, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), where he shares updates on his companies, memes, and opinions on various topics, often influencing public discourse. His futuristic vision and bold approach to solving global problems have made him a controversial but unquestionably influential figure in the contemporary technological and cultural landscape.

Musk has been able to do business and invest in the right place at the right time. Companies he has founded and/or directed include:

Zip2: Founded in 1995 with his brother Kimbal, Zip2 was a company that provided online content for newspapers. It was sold to Compaq for about $307 million in 1999.
X. com/PayPal: In 1999, Musk founded X.com, an online bank that merged with Confinity to become PayPal, a leading online payment system. Sold to eBay for $1.5 billion in 2002.
SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corp.): Founded in 2002, SpaceX aims to reduce the cost of access to space and to colonise Mars. It has developed reusable rockets such as Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and spacecraft such as Dragon.
Tesla Motors (now Tesla, Inc.): Musk joined as an investor in 2004, becoming CEO in 2008. Tesla has become a leader in electric vehicle production and battery technology, with models such as Model S, Model 3, Model X and Model Y.
SolarCity: Co-founded in 2006, SolarCity focuses on solar-related products and services. Acquired by Tesla in 2016 to expand the renewable energy portfolio.
Hyperloop: Although not a Musk company, it proposed the Hyperloop concept in 2013, a high-speed transport system, and several companies, such as Virgin Hyperloop, are developing versions of it.
The Boring Company : Founded in 2016, this company is dedicated to building tunnels to reduce urban traffic, with projects such as the Las Vegas Loop.
Neuralink: Founded in 2016, Neuralink develops neural interfaces to connect the human brain with artificial intelligence, with the aim of improving cognitive abilities and treating neurological diseases.
OpenAI: Musk was among the founders in 2015, with the goal of developing AI that is safe and beneficial to humanity, although he broke away in 2018 to avoid conflicts of interest with Tesla.
xAI: Founded in 2023, xAI focuses on creating artificial intelligence to accelerate human scientific discovery.
X Corp: After the acquisition of Twitter in 2022, Musk rebranded the platform to ‘X’, turning it into a broader communication platform.
That’s a lot of power, isn’t it? We are talking about some of the most avant-garde companies in technological research, with various market monopolies. All in the hands of one man.

A political unusual role

Now, it is interesting to note that the rise of these companies/projects occurred during the time of Trump’s first presidency, right at the time of his departure, with significant funding, including federal funding. Even more interesting is how instrumental Musk was during Trump’s 2024 election campaign. A veritable ‘atom bomb’ of election propaganda. Certainly a great investment, since Musk is now one of the richest men in the world.

Musk’s political methodology is well known: with his social media posts, especially on X, he powerfully influences various areas of social life, from markets to politics. If Musk says he likes orange juice, the next day the juice will cost twice as much on the New York stock exchange; if he says he dislikes a politician from a foreign country, that politician is guaranteed to have disadvantages. Musk falls into that transversal category of ‘state-men’, i.e. men who alone can talk to presidents and institutions as if they were states in their own right. It is curious that Trump’s electoral victory was matched by his election as a member of the government – a possibility that had only been described by very few American alternative channels, but not picked up by Western counter-information.

Musk has been put in charge of the Doge, the Department of Government Efficency, a name that plays on the cryptocurrency Dogecoin of which Musk is the big promoter as well as the owner. A Department of Government Efficiency in the hands of a turbo-capitalist promoter of transhumanism, owner of big tech companies and would-be coloniser of other planets… One legitimately wonders: why Musk?

There have been several moments when Musk has given pause for thought about his real political influence. Last Sunday, for instance, during a speech by Trump in Arizona, he intervened by scuttling the budget bill negotiated with Congress. The incident was the latest in which Musk took an atypical role in the new Trump administration, prompting criticism from Democrats and the Republican Party itself. In this regard, Trump praised Musk, before adding: ‘And no, he’s not going to take the presidency’. Musk’s regular presence at Trump’s side before his inauguration on 20 January has been causing concern among many political analysts for weeks. The billionaire was present when Trump spoke to Zelensky after his election victory, he also attended recent meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron in Europe, and it was he who honoured Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in New York.

Let’s try to think for a moment: what if Elon Musk is the real ‘president’? He was already there when Trump was first elected – a businessman who certainly does not have to learn from Musk how to make money -, he was ready to come on the scene in 2024 and take a leading role. The support in the election campaign was crucial. Elon Musk enjoys approval not only in America but all over the world. In Europe, he is revered as a kind of prophet of technology and a defender of democracy because he turned Twitter into X, clearing many freedoms of expression on ‘politically incorrect’ issues. Yet, there is nothing different from the usual American self-made man who periodically gets pulled out of a white garage of some American citizen and becomes a technology lord. He is simply presented with a different license of morality: he talks about the Deep State, he makes memes that go viral with which he influences markets and politics, he lives a ‘TV show’ life and not in a boring office. So why not trust him? After all, people need idols to worship and political certainties to lean on.

In reality, it matters little whether Musk is the ‘real’ President or not. Now the signature is Trump’s and successes and failures will be blamed on him. Whether Musk will emerge as the next candidate, we will find out later. Of shadow governments and hidden potentates there are enough of them around the world, this is certainly nothing new.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... president/

Mr Pacini is apparently unaware that Muskrat is not qualified to be prez as he wasn't born here. Otherwise we'd have had President Schwarzenegger a while back. Would that have been worse?

Muskrat

[blindpig]

Why does the US want to return the Panama Canal?
December 24, 2024
Rybar

Donald Trump has not yet formally become the President of the United States, but in recent weeks he has made a number of high-profile foreign policy statements.

The eccentric politician has already spoken out about Canada joining the United States, as well as establishing control over Greenland. Today, the future president's words about the need to regain control over the Panama Canal have been added to the treasury of such statements.

There has already been a rather heated exchange of words on social media between Trump and Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino over this issue .

During the meeting, Mulino said that every meter of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama. Trump, in turn, responded that “we’ll see about that” and followed up by posting a photo with a US flag and the caption “Welcome to the United States Canal! ”

In fact, Trump’s behavior is not just another PR stunt, but a consistent implementation of his “America First” political ideology.

The Republican has repeatedly said that handing over the canal to Panama in 1999 was foolish because the United States lost a strategic asset that controlled a vital global trade route.

In addition, Trump believed that owning the canal gave the United States leverage over trade, especially with respect to countries in Asia and Latin America .

Now Trump is trying to cope with the growing influence of China, which is actively investing in Panama and may in the future further strengthen its position in the region.

https://rybar.ru/zachem-ssha-vozvrashha ... kij-kanal/

Google Translator

******

Panamanians Protest Against Trump in Front of the U.S. Embassy


A Panamanian citizen burns a photograph of Donald Trump, Dec. 24, 2024. X/ @radioplatinumec

December 24, 2024 Hour: 1:55 pm

‘We’ll stay alert to defend our canal, sovereignty, and self-determination,’ SUNTRACS leader said.

On Tuesday, Panamanian workers protested in front of the United States Embassy in Panama City to denounce statements made by President-elect Donald Trump, who threatened to demand the return of the Panama Canal to the United States.

“The Panamanian people have consistently and resolutely rejected this. We must state clearly that Trump’s remarks are unacceptable,” said Saúl Méndez, the secretary of the National Union of Workers of Construction and Similar Industries (SUNTRACS).

The workers also called on President Jose Raul Mulino to summon U.S. Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte—appointed under the administration of President Joe Biden—to “hold her accountable” for Trump’s comments.

“The elites have always sought to ensure that the Americans remain in Panama, on our territory, and in our canal. The people have rejected this, which is why we must remain vigilant and united against any act of betrayal. We will stay alert to defend our canal, our sovereignty, and our self-determination,” said the leftist leader and former presidential candidate.


Earlier, on December 21, the Republican candidate posted a message on his social media account indicating explicitly what his foreign policy toward the Central American nation and its infrastructure would entail.

“The Panama Canal is considered a vital national asset for the United States, due to its critical role in America’s economy and national security. A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. commerce and the rapid deployment of the Navy from the Atlantic to the Pacific, drastically cutting shipping times to U.S. ports,” Trump stated.

“When President Jimmy Carter foolishly gave it away, for one dollar, during his term in office, it was solely for Panama to manage, not China or anyone else. It was likewise not given for Panama to charge the United States—its Navy and corporations doing business within our country—exorbitant prices and rates of passage. Our Navy and commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way.”

“The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially given the extraordinary generosity that the United States has bestowed on Panama. This complete ‘rip-off’ of our country will immediately stop. The U.S. has a vested interest in the secure, efficient, and reliable operation of the Panama Canal, and that was always understood. We would and will NEVER let it fall into the wrong hands! It was not given for the benefit of others, but merely as a token of cooperation between us and Panama,” Trump said.

“If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question. To the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!,” he threatened.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/panamani ... s-embassy/

ALBA-TCP Rejects Threats from Donald Trump on the Panama Canal


Image protest in front of the United States Embassy this Tuesday in Panama City. Dec 24, 2024 Photo: EFE

December 24, 2024 Hour: 6:55 pm

The Panama Canal, a strategic point in international trade, is protected by international law and historic agreements such as the Torrijos-Carter Treaty and the Permanent Neutrality Treaty.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) has issued a strong statement in response to recent statements by the U.S. President-elect, Donald Trump, who threatened to take control of the Panama Canal.

This statement has been unanimously condemned by the member states of ALBA-TCP, who consider these statements to constitute a serious attack on Panamanian sovereignty.

The Panama Canal, a strategic point in international trade, is protected by international law and historic agreements such as the Torrijos-Carter Treaty and the Permanent Neutrality Treaty.

These treaties state that the canal is an inalienable part of Panamanian territory, which makes Trump’s threats a direct violation of national sovereignty, according to the statement.

In its communiqué, ALBA-TCP reaffirms its support for the government of Panama in defending its territorial integrity and its right to self-determination. In addition, 200 years after Simón Bolívar’s call to the Anfictionic Congress of Panama, member countries reaffirm the importance of regional unity as an essential mechanism for confronting imperialist aggression.

The Bolivarian Alliance firmly opposes any attempt at external intervention and stresses the need for solidarity among the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean to preserve their autonomy and sovereign rights in the face of threats from imperial powers.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/alba-tcp ... ama-canal/

If Trump goes 'full on' will the Panamanian people fight a people's war? The last time they had little interest in going to the wall for Noriega but this time could be different, the 6000 deaths from the last time being one factor.

[blindpig]

Trump and Political Realignment: Twirling Toward Freedom?
Posted on December 26, 2024 by Yves Smith

Yves here. albrt below discusses how to test whether Trump and Vance are in the process of implementing a political realignment, or whether his pro-working class talk will amount to empty promises. albrt focuses on concrete material benefits as the measurement standard and discusses whether particular Trump initiatives, such as immigration, are likely to deliver.

By albrt. Originally published at his website

I said back in November there are reasons to believe that Trump might represent the end stage of a historic political realignment. That post did not attempt to define the nature or the likely course of the realignment, which leads to today’s hypothesis and counter-hypothesis: Trump and Vance could either consolidate power by improving the alignment of the Republican party with the working class, or they could further entrench the current model of a DC uniparty that works for the oligarchs, with two superficially warring factions carrying on a phony fight to the death over issues the oligarchs don’t care about. As usual, it has taken me a long time to write the post.

The original impetus came from this lovely chart that was posted on Xitter right after the election. I can’t vouch for the method or the sources, but the chart gives a very nice sense of twirling toward freedom, or circling the drain, or whatever it is the United States is doing as a country.



Since November, even the dumber organs of the mainstream media have recognized that the Republicans and the Democrats have started down the road of swapping core constituencies. The Democrats have more of the over-educated and the wealthy than they did 20 years ago, while the Republicans have more of the working class. Here’s another version of the realignment argument. At least one persuasive commentator, Musa al-Gharbi attributes this to the takeover of the Democratic party by the professional managerial class (PMC), who (to oversimplify) are not actually very good at managing things in the real world because they prefer to deal with abstractions. Al-Gharbi refers to the PMC as “symbolic capitalists.” His thesis would seem to tie in with the themes of this blog pretty well.1

Scope

The first assumption this post makes is that a long-term realignment is in play. The second assumption is that the realignment has not yet been fully accomplished. The third assumption is that it should be possible for a non-expert (like me) to look at how the Trump-Vance administration implements its policies and tell whether they are serious about delivering concrete material benefits for working class citizens in order to consolidate the realignment. I’m going to try to identify some benchmarks in different policy areas that can be used to evaluate what happens over the next few years. Along the way I will inevitably express disgust with both factions of the legacy uniparty in the United States, but/and the point of the post is not to express support for Trump-Vance or any other U.S. politician.

So my test hypothesis is that Trump and Vance might make relatively rational decisions on a multi-year time frame with the goal of delivering real benefits to working people. The bar for achieving this is set very low—if the Trump-Vance administration does a barely competent job of delivering material benefits for the working class, that would be better than what the two factions of the legacy uniparty have done for the past 30 years, including what Trump did during his first term.

Note that I’m talking about material benefits such as higher wages, better housing, price stability, or health care (as distinguished from “access” to health care through a corrupt intermediary a.k.a. insurance company). For purposes of this post it is important to distinguish material benefits (which the oligarchs want working people to have very little of) from culture war conflict and entertaining stunts that give supporters a dopamine rush (which we get plenty of precisely because the oligarchs do not care about these issues).

The test hypothesis seems at least somewhat plausible to me because Trump and Vance might be unusually motivated to create a scenario where Vance can win the 2028 election. Among other things, Trump probably does not want to retire with the threat of another round of prosecutions hanging over his head. I’m calling it the Trump-Vance administration because I think showcasing Vance will be an important goal (in contrast to what the Biden administration did with Harris). If that does not happen, it will be the first indication that my test hypothesis is false.

The null hypothesis I’m testing against is that Trump and Vance will continue the legacy uniparty scam in which both factions have basically the same macro-policies cloaked in divisive culture-war language, psyops, and stunts. Trump is well-suited by personality and by experience for the stunt politics of the recent past so the sensible thing would be to expect more of the same. If Trump and Vance continue with that approach then the Democrats will be in a better position to make a comeback in 2026 and 2028. Instead of Trump-Vance consolidating a realignment, the swing voters will keep swinging back and forth meaninglessly and we’ll continue following our current trajectory on every issue that matters to the oligarchs.

To put it another way, to hold the swingy members of the working class on the Republican side, Trump and Vance need to take actions that help the working class have a viable path to prosperity. If material conditions don’t get better for that elusive segment of the working class that shifts its allegiance in each election based on personal economics rather than media narrative, then nothing will really change. We’ll be looking at more 50-50 elections determined by stunts versus Taylor Swift endorsements rather than a fundamental realignment.

As a final note on scope, this post only considers domestic policy benchmarks. U.S. foreign policy is insanely chaotic right now, especially in Eurasia and north Africa, but it seems unlikely to get much better or worse under Trump-Vance, and will probably be hard to distinguish from the delusional, pro-genocide approach practiced by the Biden administration. A nuclear war could start at any time, but I haven’t thought of a rubric for evaluating that yet.

Immigration

Immigration was one of Trump’s biggest hot buttons on the campaign trail, and is also one of the areas where it will be easiest to tell if Trump and Vance are serious. I think the immigration issue works particularly well as a litmus test, and Trump and his followers have been making a big deal out of it since the election.

I accept as self-evidently true that reducing the number of undocumented non-citizens who are able to work in the United States would help the employment prospects of working class citizens. The economists who claim that immigration helps to increase GDP are not necessarily wrong. The problem is that all the gains go to the oligarchs and the cadre of sub-oligarchs and PMC oligarch-servicers who benefit from cheap labor. If nothing else, reducing the number of undocumented non-citizens who are able to work in the United States would require employers to pay somewhat more to get American citizens to mow lawns, pick crops, or work in chicken processing plants. Americans still might not want those jobs very much, but higher pay would give them a somewhat more viable fallback option when they can’t find work in their chosen trades (which happens to a lot of working class people nowadays).

The obvious way to reduce the number of undocumented non-citizens working in the U.S. is from the employer side, through administrative measures such as requiring employers to use E-Verify for real and cracking down on duplicate use of social security numbers. Trump actually did this for a little while late in his first term. If this type of enforcement is not expanded, then Trump is not serious about stopping employment of undocumented immigrants.

Trump did not campaign much on administrative measures involving employers, and instead promised massive deportations. Forcibly deporting enough people to make a difference would be extremely difficult. I have some experience dealing with the immigration service, and bureaucratic gridlock is one of the only things holding the entire edifice together. Unless Trump can get his bare majority in the House to approve a big budget increase to hire a deportation force on the scale of the TSA, mass deportations are simply not going to happen. A handful of highly visible PR raids would entertain hardcore Trump supporters in the short-term, and could reduce incoming numbers by scaring immigrants, but would not lead to a noticeable structural change in the economy for the disillusioned members of the working class who the parties will be trying to persuade in 2026 and 2028.

Lately Trump has shifted from talking about deportations to talking about ending birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship is a red herring at best. It is unlikely to succeed, and unlikely to make any immediate difference in the labor market if it did succeed. There is no process in American law for revoking the citizenship of people born in the United States. Even if Trump were somehow successful in eliminating birthright citizenship, it would only apply to babies born after the change. Fussing about birthright citizenship is a stunt – it may make Trump’s hard core supporters happy, but it will not create any tangible benefits for the working class in the time frame we are talking about.

In the past few weeks Trump has dismayed some of his supporters by talking about expanding legal opportunities to work in the United States such as H-1B visas. This is the opposite of what he should to do consolidate a working class based. H-1B visas are for “specialty workers” to fill jobs when employers claim there are shortages, so H-1B immigrants compete more with the PMC than with wage workers. Still, using H-1B workers to proletarianize the PMC does not help Trump-Vance earn the loyalty of the working class in the long run because it means that the children of the working class have less chance at upward mobility. Telling working class kids to learn to code becomes an even crueler joke if you’re going to import masses of people to take those jobs at lower pay for an 80 hour work week.

Peter Turchin has said that in order to restore stability in the U.S, we need to “bring the relative wage up to the equilibrium level (thus shutting down elite overproduction) and keep it there.” End Times at 202. “Equilibrium level” means working class wages and conditions need to improve enough that a somewhat larger percentage of working class people decide it is OK to be working class, so they don’t need to go to college and try to become PMC. But some of the youngsters still want to move up. Importing a bunch of people to take existing PMC slots makes it much harder to achieve a stable equilibrium. You’re basically clogging up the pressure relief valve for the already dysfunctional class system, and giving elite aspirants more reasons to identify with working class immigration grievances.

As with many other issues addressed in this post, the number of desperate people trying to immigrate could be significantly reduced if the United States adopted a less bloodthirsty and piratical foreign policy, and stopped robbing, bombing, and destabilizing other countries. Unfortunately there is no prospect of that happening, which is why I said I would not try to address foreign policy.

In short, there are two tells with immigration. If Trump and Vance want to benefit citizen wage laborers, they need to require all employers to start using E-Verify or something similar, with real social security numbers. In order to benefit citizens who aspire to the next steps up the economic ladder, Trump and Vance need to reduce H-1B visas, not expand them. I don’t think either of these indicators can easily be fudged. If Trump and Vance limit immigrant work opportunities in this way, then I think the effects will be visible, and may even lead to significant inflation, particularly in food and construction. I don’t think there is a way to avoid the risk of inflation if you’re trying to induce a broad increase in wages at the lower end of the scale.

If Trump and Vance don’t do these things, then I think it is fair to say they are not serious about consolidating a working class realignment.

And just to emphasize it once again, I am not saying this is my preferred policy outcome. The United States is a profligate and unethical nation on a path to collapse, and I have accepted that my preferred policy outcomes are not at all plausible in my lifetime. All I am saying is that this is what I think Trump and Vance would do if they were serious about consolidating a working class base in a multi-year time frame, given the promises they made and the coalition they established during the campaign, and given a realistic assessment of the economic background.

Tariffs and Re-Shoring Manufacturing

For about 40 years, both factions of the oligarch-controlled uniparty have been in favor of free trade and outsourcing American industrial jobs to places where people work cheap. The Americans who previously held those jobs obviously wanted the jobs to stay here. Working class people lost that battle, and the United States has been largely deindustrialized as a result. This is not only causing economic distress for working people in flyover country, it has reached the point where the United States can’t manufacture things considered vital for national defense and other priorities.

Economists argued that free trade would increase America’s GDP, but they forgot to mention that the oligarchs would not only skim off all the gains from trade for themselves, they would steal even more by driving down the standard of living for working class Americans. Economists also forgot to mention the part about needing to import practically everything at a time when the uniparty wants to start wars with all the major exporters. Protectionism has a bad name, but things have gotten so far out of balance that some type of industrial policy is clearly needed.

A few weeks ago the big story was that Trump was going to restart American manufacturing by imposing massive tariffs. That story has now disappeared from the headlines in favor of immigration scare stories and whatever else Trump tweeted in the past 24 hours. Tariffs and industrial policy are difficult to do well. Imposing tariffs on goods that the United States has very little capacity to produce for itself will lead to short-term inflation and shortages followed by demand destruction rather than plentiful jobs.

Success on this issue will be harder to judge than immigration, because it requires evaluating whether Trump is appointing serious people and whether the solutions they come up with are working. Those evaluations can easily fall prey to partisan biases and ad hominen attacks. One thing to look for is whether Trump can stop picking fights over tough-guy sanctions and move toward tariffs or other measures that actually give a boost to viable American businesses. That is hard to do because the main presidential tariff authority is based on national security, but the task at hand is to figure out how to do it.

The other thing to look for is whether re-shored businesses (if any) actually start offering jobs Americans would take. It’s not just wages—we need to see more private sector working-class jobs that offer benefits, or else we need to see socialistic benefits to replace employment-based benefits. Either one would make working class life more acceptable to many people, helping to create Turchin’s equilibrium and consolidate the potential political realignment. If re-shoring occurs but it only produces jobs nobody would want (except perhaps an undocumented immigrant) then tariffs will not help Trump and Vance consolidate a working class Republican base.

Drill baby drill

In the latter part of the campaign, Trump repeatedly said that one of his highest priorities would be a “drill baby drill” energy policy. On its face this does not make a great deal of sense, at least not as it relates to gas prices. “Drill baby drill” is an inherently boom-bust policy that would most likely lead to big swings in fuel prices over a multi-year time frame.

I was in Ohio when I started working on this post, and gas was as low as $2.39 a gallon. That is as low as it’s been for a while, so Trump does not get to start from an easy benchmark. Gas has gone up a little since then, but it will be very difficult for Trump to keep gas prices at current levels for four years, much less lower them, and there is little reason to believe that U.S. shale operations are interested in developing overcapacity to reduce the prices they receive. Meanwhile, Trump’s early focus on recruiting Iran hawks for his foreign policy team suggests that world oil prices could go up drastically rather than coming down.

If Trump were serious about boosting the economy through domestic energy production, he would develop a long-term plan to stabilize American energy prices using shale production at a target price to help decouple the U.S. from the wild swings of the world oil market. If you want to encourage business confidence, you need to allow businesses to plan for longer term investment. This is especially true in capital intensive industrial sectors. Trump probably won’t be able to use Biden’s method of depleting the strategic oil reserve because Biden is leaving it pretty depleted, and anyway that isn’t a long-term plan.

Coming up with a plan to use domestic supply to stabilize energy prices for the next ten years or so would do far more to encourage domestic industrial investment than encouraging a boom-bust cycle. That doesn’t sound very Trump-like, but it’s something to look for to see whether Trump and Vance are serious about consolidating power for 2028 and beyond. Alternatively, if Trump and Vance would quit bombing the middle east and provoking wars and color revolutions near Russia then worldwide oil markets would probably stabilize quite a bit, but as I said earlier, that probably isn’t going to happen.

Like the tariff issue, this one is hard to judge because it requires Trump and Vance to do something difficult and complicated. Nevertheless, if they start to shift the energy rhetoric toward stability rather than driving prices down, that would be a sign they are serious. Within two years I think it should be possible to evaluate the Trump-Vance energy policy by whether thay adopt some kind of mechanism to decouple domestic oil and gas production from a boom-bust price cycle, and by whether prices actually remain relatively stable.

Firing Federal Workers

Trump and his boy-wonder DOGE sidekicks Elon and Vivek have made a lot of idiotic statements about cutting the federal budget by firing huge numbers of people. My most constructive suggestion is to start with the National Endowment for Democracy. That’s the CIA sponsored organization that funds anti-democratic “color revolutions” in countries all over the world and was substantially responsible for starting the Ukraine war. If Trump and Vance actually succeeded in eliminating the National Endowment for Democracy, I would consider becoming a late-stage MAGA convert myself. Not because of the modest direct cost savings, but because it would reduce U.S. war-mongering and support for terrorism abroad. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is what will happen.

Instead, the DOGE rhetoric lends itself to stunts that will not bring any net benefit to the working class. Many federal programs are distributed around the country, especially the ones that deliver federal benefits. Cutting those jobs will disproportionately hurt employment and government services in low-tax red states that don’t have much in the way of state-level programs to pick up the slack. Elon and Vivek can undoubtedly find a few offices full of DC wokesters to sacrifice, but that’s just another stunt. It won’t have a big impact on the budget, much less an impact on material conditions for the working class.

Based on summary numbers at federalpay.org, most federal employees (around 3 million) are associated with the Department of Defense, which Trump fans are stereotypically supposed to support. The next two biggest departments are the departments of veterans’ affairs (over 400,000) and Homeland Security (over 200,000). Again, big cuts to these departments are not likely to play well with Trump fans, and the number of Homeland Security employees will need to go up, not down, if Trump is serious about deporting large numbers of people.

The Department of Education, a favorite target of Republicans even before Trump, only has a little over 4,000 employees. The department has a $45 billion budget, but most of that is pass-throughs to local schools to pay for things like special education. Anything that intereferes with those pass-throughs will not ultimately play well in rural areas that have no funds for such luxuries other than federal dollars.

It is also important to remember that a $100,000 a year job in Washington DC might not be considered all that great, but it looks pretty darn good in Wichita. At the end of the day, the biggest thing the working class cares about is the availability of living wage jobs. Cutting many of the best-paid and most secure jobs throughout the country does not provide an immediate net benefit to the working class, it mostly just provides cover for giving more tax-cuts to the rich. As we know very well by now, those tax cuts do not trickle down in ways that provide stable job opportunities for the working class.

It may be theoretically possible to improve the economy by making the federal government more efficient, but it is fiendishly difficult to do in practice. I don’t see how this promise is likely to produce any material benefit for the working class in a four-year time frame. The most likely positive tell here could be if the Trump-Vance administration appears to ghost this promise and do very little. Highly visible stunts with chainsaws are more consistent with the null hypothesis that Trump and Vance intend to continue the kayfabe of the existing uniparty scam.

Legalizing Marijuana

This is an easy one. Trump toyed with this issue during the campaign, but did not commit. If Trump and Vance are really serious about doing something for the working class, they need to not only legalize marijuana at the federal level, they also need to erase past prosecutions and allow those convicted to rejoin polite society and qualify for decent jobs. There is probably no other step on this list that could boost the short-term economic viability of the working class of all races more cost-effectively than an aggressive marijuana legalization policy. I don’t think this will happen, but if it does then it counts as a serious material benefit for the working class, not just a stunt.

Promoting Alternatives to the College Path

This is an issue that Trump did not campaign on at all as far as I could see, but Trump often points to academia as an example of everything that his followers believe is wrong with America. Telling young people that college is the only path to economic prosperity basically reinforces the power of the PMC, which is the real base of the Democratic party today and is Trump’s main enemy.

Trump hasn’t made any promises about this and I don’t think anybody has any particularized expectations, so the field is wide open. Pushing trade schools (assuming you can find some that aren’t scams) would help, and would also help fill the open jobs if undocumented immigrants in the construction industry disappear from the labor market, or if re-shoring of industry starts to happen on any scale. Increasing the size of the military (or developing an immigration enforcement army) is a possibility, but that takes a big budget, and only works if more people want to join. Making a play to co-opt unions might help, but only if the oligarchs will allow it.

In the long run, even if Trump and Vance consolidate their gains among working class voters, they have a serious problem with exercising power so long as the PMC retains a stranglehold on post-secondary education. Going to college is widely believed to be the only path to prosperity in this country, and college graduates are hired to manage all of our major institutions. If the Trump-Vance administration figures out a way to break the iron grip of college on our culture and our economy, then a substantially bigger realignment is possible.

What About the Democrats?

Frankly, the Democrats are irrelevant to the question of whether Trump and Vance will consolidate a working class realignment in the next four years. Anybody who was paying attention figured out long ago that Democrats “represent” the American working class in about the same way a slave auctioneer represents slaves, and the Democrats have sold their working class constituencies down the river for thirty years without pause.

The Biden senility scandal has driven home just how useless and dishonest the Democrats are, and they are not going to be able to pick themselves up off the mat in the next couple of years without help from the Republicans. Even among the PMC, the core constituency of the Democrats for the past two decades, it has become impossible to conceal the foul smell emanating from the Democratic corpse. Former Democrats among the PMC are increasingly labeling themselves “centrists” or some similar poppycock, rather than risk continuing their affiliation with the Democrats.

The credibility of the Democratic party is completely shot at every level, and Democrats are not in control of whether it can ever be regained. The only way the Democrats have a chance in 2026 and 2028 is if Trump and Vance blow it. That could certainly happen, but it won’t be the result of anything the Democrats do between now and then. Instead, the Democrats will probably carry on with their most important role of blocking and tackling for the oligarchs by using dirty tricks and litigation to prevent any viable third party from emerging. That will leave the field completely open for Trump and Vance. We’ll see what happens as a result.

_____________

1 Musa al-Gharbi recently published a book that I’m very excited about – I‘ll probably read the book over the holidays and if it lives up to expectations, the review will jump the queue and appear before a bunch of other things I’m working on.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12 ... eedom.html

Pretty good analysis. Given Trump's business history and class I think it safe to assume that he's never given a flying fuck about the working class, just their votes. And he don't need them anymore. Vance does though, and he appears to be a very ambitious slime ball. But Donnie could give a fuck about Vance's career, not on his radar and sycophants are a dime a dozen in Trump's world. So I see the possibility of the new regime delivering anything but cheap rhetoric to the working class slim to none. He could do it, dragging reluctant Republicans along by threat of primary but it would go against a lifetime of class arrogance and possible financial loss. Despite his non-stop threats, given his primary business interest is the 'hospitality' industry which is probably up there with construction and agriculture in hiring so-called 'illegals'. That, and tooth and nail opposition from those and other business groups makes that aspect of capturing the working class on a sustained basis a longshot.

[blindpig]

Will Trump Take On the Housing Cartels?
Posted on December 27, 2024 by Conor Gallagher

Albrt had an informative piece cross posted here at NC yesterday focusing on ways to measure whether Trump is improving the alignment of the Republican party with the working class or selling out his supporters and continuing uniparty rule for the oligarchs. Albrt focuses on the policy areas of immigration, tariffs and manufacturing, energy, firing (certain) federal workers, drugs, and alternatives to the college path.

One that should be added to the list is antitrust policy, namely will Trump continue the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in so-called “information sharing”?

Oddly, Biden officials outside of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Lina Khan-led Federal Trade Commission rarely ever talked about it, and the Kamala campaign certainly didn’t campaign on it.

Front and center in the information sharing arena is a big case against RealPage. The DOJ and eight states on August 23 sued the private equity-owned company that allegedly operates as the middle man in a national property management cartel that has sent rent through the roof. The civil lawsuit accuses RealPage of using the software it sells to real estate management companies to orchestrate an illegal price-fixing scheme, which all but eliminates competition among mega landlords, allows them to boost prices, and acted as a major factor in skyrocketing rents in recent years.

RealPage and the rental management companies, many of which are private equity-owned, are also facing dozens of class action lawsuits from tenants. A separate lawsuit against Santa Barbara-based Yardi, a company similar to RealPage, accuses it of using its RENTmaximizer (now Revenue IQ) product to do exactly what RealPage is accused of doing.The DOJ also opened a criminal investigation into RealPage, and the large apartment owners and managers that use the company’s pricing software, to determine if the firm is facilitating price fixing.

The DOJ crackdown on RealPage came as part of a major antitrust shift that closed Clinton-era loopholes on “information sharing.” That decision was a major win for Americans as it lowered the bar for antitrust cases — a bar that was previously so high you could drive a double decker bus through it and have room to spare.

In addition to RealPage, there is also the open DOJ antitrust lawsuit against Agri Stats Inc. for running anticompetitive information exchanges among broiler chicken, pork and turkey processors. Agri Stats allegedly collects, integrates and distributes price, cost and output information among competing meat processors, which allows them to coordinate output and prices in order to maximize profits. The fact discovery in the Agri Stats case is set to close on January 24, with dispositive motions due by July 2.

What will come of the RealPage case and wider efforts to rein in cartel behavior under Trump 2.0? To fully appreciate the stakes let’s first take a deeper look at what RealPage does and how now-closed Clinton-era loopholes (propagated by every administration after up until Biden) opened the floodgates to cartel takeovers of the American economy.

Why the Rent Is Too Damn High

In 2011, Warren Buffett said told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission the following:

“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power. If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business. And if you have to have a prayer session before raising the price by 10 percent, then you’ve got a terrible business.”

That type of pricing power came to many multi-family rental markets in recent years where major Wall Street owners turned to rental management software that essentially acts as collusion software. It sets prices and vacancy rates and helps the bottom line because property managers know that their “competitors” are also using RealPage’s system and will not undercut them. Company executive Andrew Bowen once said that the software was “driving it,” referring to rental price increases. He added: “As a property manager, very few of us would be willing to actually raise rents double digits within a single month by doing it manually.”

That pricing power from collusion allow RealPage and its peers like Yardi to play a role in the student loan crisis and students sleeping in cars. They play a role in the homelessness crisis. And they almost certainly play a role in your rent being so high — whether your landlord uses their software or not.

To really get a feel for the effect of the RealPage and property management company cartel, it’s best to look at individual metro markets. That’s because in cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Nashville, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. the market can be dominated by large (oftentimes private equity-owned) companies, and if all of them are colluding using RealPage, the effect can be enormous. In Los Angeles County, for example, 79 percent of all multifamily rental units are being listed using collusion software.

Speculative investment vehicles have taken over much of the housing market, a trend that took off during the foreclosure regime of Obama when predatory billionaire investors increasingly began to buy up an unprecedented share of single-family homes, apartment buildings, mobile home parks, and the government-subsidized affordable housing sector. They have also been the most eager adopters of collusion software which effectively allows them to act as a cartel over many metro housing markets.

What happens with RealPage under Trump won’t just be confined to shelter. The DOJ’s updated stance on “information-sharing” affects other necessities like health care where Americans pay more than anyone else in the “advanced” world for the worst outcomes and food where cartel behavior contributes to the eye-watering cost of a trip to the grocery store nowadays.

Since the new administration will inherit the DOJ’s RealPage litigation, what direction it takes will tell us a lot about its wider position on the exchange of competitively sensitive information through the use of algorithmic software and potentially AI.

Closing Clinton-Era Loopholes Wide Enough to Drive a Truck Through

Between 1993 and 2011 the Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a trio of policy statements (two during the Clinton administration and one under Obama) regarding the sharing of information in the healthcare industry. These rules provided wiggle room around the Sherman Antitrust Act, which “sets forth the basic antitrust prohibition against contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce.”

And it wasn’t just in healthcare. The rules were interpreted to apply to all industries. Companies increasingly turned to data firms offering software that “exchanges information” at lightning speed with competitors in order to keep wages low and prices high – effectively creating national cartels. The end result was RealPage, Yardi, and others like a long-running conspiracy among poultry producers to exchange information about wages and benefits for plant workers and collaborate with their competitors on compensation decisions.

In Feb. of 2023 the DOJ closed the information-sharing loopholes. From the statement announcing that decision:

After careful review and consideration, the division has determined that the withdrawal of the three statements is the best course of action for promoting competition and transparency. Over the past three decades since this guidance was first released, the healthcare landscape has changed significantly. As a result, the statements are overly permissive on certain subjects, such as information sharing, and no longer serve their intended purposes of providing encompassing guidance to the public on relevant healthcare competition issues in today’s environment. Withdrawal therefore best serves the interest of transparency with respect to the Antitrust Division’s enforcement policy in healthcare markets. Recent enforcement actions and competition advocacy in healthcare provide guidance to the public, and a case-by-case enforcement approach will allow the Division to better evaluate mergers and conduct in healthcare markets that may harm competition.

Essentially, the Biden DOJ took the logical approach that longstanding antitrust principles barring competitors from using human interaction to fix prices and wages applies equally to the use of software algorithms or AI.

But no judicial decision has yet adopted the DOJ’s position, and the incoming Trump administration can simply reverse the Biden DOJ decision. It remains unclear which way the Trump DOJ will go, but the search for signs is on. From Mintz, a “a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private equity, energy, and technology”:

As January 20, 2025, approaches, antitrust practitioners and the business communities are searching for clues whether the incoming Trump Administration and its antitrust officials will continue the Biden Administration’s approach to the exchange of competitively sensitive information, particularly through the use of algorithmic software.

Will Trump side with the billionaires seething over the DOJ and FTC efforts to rein in their rapaciousness ever so slightly or his working class supporters seething over their long decline in living standards caused by those billionaires?

Reasons for Skepticism

Trump has promised to unleash AI upon taking office, which includes getting rid of the minimal Biden administration protections:
During the campaign, Silicon Valley figures like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen helped shape the President-elect’s tech policy agenda. To “take the lead over China” on AI, campaign allies said the new administration will discard Biden’s AI guardrails and go full steam ahead on autonomous weapons, intelligence, and cybersecurity.

Still, it remains to be seen if that will apply to collusion software.

Pam Bondi
Any hope that Trump’s first pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, would usher in a “Khanservative” DOJ looks like it’s circling the drain with Trump’s new pick Pam Bondi. Gaetz sexual proclivities were used to torpedo his nomination, likely due to his antitrust views.

Meanwhile, everything about the corporate lobbyist and foreclosure fraudster Bondi says that it’ll be open season for information sharing again.

3. Trump 1.0 and RealPage

It’s worth remembering that RealPage really took off following a crucial decision by the first Trump administration: the 2017 merger between RealPage and its largest pricing competitor. According to ProPublica, some DOJ staff raised concerns about the merger but were overridden by political appointees of Trump.

Reasons for Guarded Optimism

The GOP is changing
As the failed nomination of Gaetz showed, Republicans are no longer universally opposed to antitrust. Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for example, hold similar views as Gaetz. George Washington University Law School professor William Kovacic, who served on the FTC from 2006 to 2011 and was chair from 2008 to 2009. With more via Roll Call:

Kovacic pointed out that Trump’s antitrust enforcers filed one of the cases against Google and Meta and started the investigation into what eventually became the case against Apple in the first term.

“I cannot readily imagine them pulling the plug on those cases, because you have this coalition that wants that kind of scrutiny to continue,” Kovacic said.

Kovacic said a throughline for both the Biden administration approach to antitrust and conservative criticism of big tech companies is that a traditional antitrust approach that emphasizes prices is not enough.Biden administration cases have discussed concerns around competition for small businesses and protection for local communities, while conservatives have criticized tech companies for allegedly censoring conservative voices online — both things have little to do with prices.

However, he pointed out that Republican commissioners on the FTC have objected to several of the agency’s moves and rulemakings and could reverse them in the second Trump administration, including its rule banning noncompete agreements. Kovacic also said that the Biden administration’s more aggressive approach on mergers — suing to stop them rather than accepting settlements to lessen the antitrust problems created by a deal — could fall by the wayside for both the FTC and DOJ.

If — and this is a big if — Trump wants to do right by his voters, he would not only continue the Biden administration’s antitrust action but ramp it up.

J.D. Vance.
During the campaign, Vance on his “populist crusade”, made promises to continue antitrust enforcement, often sounding more like Bernie Sanders than a traditional Republican, but does he mean any of it? Or, as Thomas Frank has long highlighted, are Republicans like Vance simply adopting the language of the putative American Left to effectively attract voters long abandoned by the Democrats?

While smart politically (there’s a reason Bernie was popular and the Democrats had to use dirty tactics to kill his campaigns) there could be limits to Vance’s “populist crusade” and they’re set by Silicon Valley. Vance hails from both the venture capital world and the poverty of West Virginia. Who will he prioritize?

And here’s where this point becomes another one for skepticism. From The Verge:

Vance has played at being a man of the people, but he owes his place on Trump’s ticket to Silicon Valley’s billionaires. After all, he is a pet of Thiel, who put forward $15 million for Vance’s Ohio Senate campaign. (There were other wealthy donors, too, including Oculus founder Palmer Luckey.)

While reassuring Silicon Valley it will still have access to “high-talent, high-quality” workers, Vance is leading the charge in shifting the blame for Americans’ long decline in living standards onto immigrants, which could work for a short period until people notice that their lives aren’t improving all that much. It could also divert attention away from antitrust issues and cases like RealPage.

Still, it’s a low bar to clear to be better than the sanctimonious Democrats at this point. An end to all the lectures might be welcome even if it doesn’t necessarily result in an improving quality of life.

If we’re counting, that’s four points for skepticism and 1.5 for optimism. Thankfully, some tenants aren’t waiting for the Trump administration to fix things.

Tenant Action

Regardless of what happens with RealPage, housing policy in the US is so geared towards rent seeking and the fixes needed are so numerous that the path forward is unlikely to originate in DC.

Tenants across the country are increasingly taking matters into their own hands.

A growing number of tenants’ unions across the country are coordinating rent strikes to protest rent increases and decrepit living conditions. And they’re finding some success. A union in Kansas City, for example, used a rent strike to get millions in overdue repairs to their building. Other Kansas City tenant unions are emulating that successful rent strike, and more action like this could be on the way according to Ruthy Gourevitch and Tara Raghuveer of the Tenant Union Federation:

Absent meaningful action from the government, the question is not whether tenants will revolt, but whether the revolt will be from a place of desperation or a place of power. To ensure the latter, tenants are organizing unions, from Bozeman, Montana, to Louisville, Kentucky. Unions are uniting across geography, and aligning through groups like the newly launched Tenant Union Federation, which we launched this year. Drawing inspiration from the labor movement and community organizing, tenant unions reflect the urgency to build a new kind of power to seriously contest the forces of real estate capital.

Tenant unions seek a different system entirely, where homes are not treated as commodities but guaranteed as public goods, and where our lives are not reduced to line items in a landlord’s budget. This vision isn’t a radical fever dream; it is the only way out of this mess. Ultimately, achieving this vision will require rejecting the market as we know it today and creating publicly backed, nonmarket alternatives. Before we get there, tenants need protections. As tenants build local power within buildings and across neighborhoods, these unions are also demanding a regulatory agenda.

Gourevitch and Raghuveer go on to outline that regulatory agenda, which includes national rent caps, anti-eviction protections, habitability standards, and antitrust action to prevent consolidation and collusion in the rental market.

Even better would be tenant-owned housing, such as what happened in Maine recently when residents of Linnhaven Mobile Home Center, a community of nearly 300 occupied homes in Brunswick, banded together to buy their trailer park to prevent it from falling into the hands of private equity.

Actions like that and tenant organization are likely to prove far more effective than relying on Trump, Bondi, or whatever ghoul the Democrats put in office next.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12 ... rtels.html

Hoping a mega slumlord would attack his own wallet...what is it with all the hopium going around?

[blindpig]

(To be sure CNN is a ruling class anti-Trump outlet. Nonetheless the facts of this piece, regardless of the wishful thinking, speak for themselves. Entirely predictable and predicted. Looks like the honeymoon is about to end.)

MAGA opponents of Elon Musk claim he stripped them of their X badges
By Donie O'Sullivan, CNN

—
The debate roiling the MAGA world in recent days over visas for highly skilled workers shows no signs of abating. Some prominent online personalities are now accusing Elon Musk of using his social media platform, X, to retaliate against those who disagree with his support of the H-1B visa program.

Musk, who was tapped to lead President-elect Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, has clashed with Trump supporters over H-1B visas. While Trump has taken aim at the visas, Musk - the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX - has defended the program and argued that tech companies need foreign workers to compete.

“If you want your TEAM to win the championship, you need to recruit top talent wherever they may be,” Musk wrote on X, saying in another post on Thursday that “bringing in via legal immigration the top ~0.1% of engineering talent” is “essential for America to keep winning.”

But loyal Trump backers like far-right activist Laura Loomer, conservative pundit Ann Coulter and former Rep. Matt Gaetz have criticized Musk and his incoming Department of Government Efficiency co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy, over their pro-H-1B visa stance.

Musk, in turn, stripped Loomer and other members of the right-wing Conservative PAC, of their verification badges, members of the PAC said.

Loomer, a far-right provocateur and a vocal Trump supporter on Thursday claimed that Musk had removed her verified status on X and shut down her ability to gather paying subscribers because of her opposition to the H-1B program.

Musk, she posted, “is a free speech fraud.”

CNN has reached out to Loomer and X for comment.

Loomer has more than 1.4 million followers on X. It is not known how much money Loomer was making through the paid subscriber service on the platform.

Before she lost her verified badge, Musk posted that “Loomer is trolling for attention.”

Preston Parra, the chairman of Conservative PAC, told CNN that approximately 53 accounts affiliated with his organization lost their verified badges, including Loomer.

“If anyone thinks for one minute the REAL backbone of the right wing and MAGA is gonna stand idly by while these big tech gillionaire Silicon Valley dweebs who didn’t get bullied enough in high school, steal our country, they’re mistaken,” Parra said in a statement.

Conservative PAC also posted on X: “We spoke out against HB1 visas and it appears that @elonmusk intentionally shut us down?”

https://us.cnn.com/2024/12/27/tech/maga ... index.html

(Do you think Trump relies upon social media to direct his politics? Do you think Muskrat is trying to control his input? Muskie is doing what every capitalist does, promoting his profit over everything else in the universe. Trump didn't see that coming? That comes of believing your own bullshit.)

******

ALBA-TCP Condemns Trump’s Statements About Panama Canal
December 28, 2024


The Panama Canal. Photo: Federico Rios/The New York Times.

On Tuesday, the member states of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) expressed their strongest condemnation of United States President-elect Donald Trump’s statement in which he threatened to take control of the Panama Canal.

Through a statement published on Telegram, the multilateral bloc condemned this new threat to the Latin American and Caribbean region. It also reaffirmed its support for the Republic of Panama in defending its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination.

In the statement, ALBA-TCP points out that the Panama Canal is an important commercial passage protected by International Law, the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, and the Treaty Relating to Permanent Neutrality and the Operation of the Panama Canal, which, as an immutable law, establishes that the maritime route is an inalienable part of Panamanian territory. Thus, Trump’s statement represents an aggression against Panama’s sovereignty.

An unofficial translation of the full text is provided below:

ALBA-TCP condemns statements by the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, regarding the Panama Canal.

The member states of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) express their strongest condemnation of the statements by the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, in which he threatened to take control of the Panama Canal.

The Panama Canal is an important commercial passage protected by International Law, the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, and the Treaty Relating to Permanent Neutrality and the Operation of the Panama Canal, which, as an immutable law, establishes that the maritime route is an inalienable part of Panamanian territory, so this claim represents an aggression against the sovereignty of that country.

The Bolivarian Alliance categorically condemns this new threat to the Latin American and Caribbean region and supports the Republic of Panama in the defense of its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination.

Nearly 200 years after Simón Bolívar called the Congress of Panama, the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance reaffirm the validity of the union as the only way to confront the voracity of the empires and ratify all their solidarity with the Panamanian government against this new grievance.

Caracas, December 24, 2024

https://orinocotribune.com/alba-tcp-con ... ama-canal/

[blindpig]

How MAGA Can Stuff DOGE Back in Its Box and Win the Day on H1B
Posted on December 29, 2024 by Lambert Strether
By Lambert Strether of Corrente.


Somebody tell Steve Bannon: Here is a strategy for MAGA to win on H1B. Congress is so closely divided that even a few members hold veto power over the House’s choice of a Speaker. Take these steps: This week, form a MAGA caucus (minimum size: four. See below). Then, when Congress reconvenes at noon ET on January 3, the MAGA caucus should deny their votes to any Speaker nominee. No speaker can be elected. Without a Speaker, the House cannot function, let alone count and certify the results of the Electoral College so that Trump can take the oath of office on January 20. The only way out: The Republican Party agrees to the MAGA caucus demands on H1B policy. The MAGA caucus then allows the vote for a speaker to proceed to a conclusion.

That’s it, really. That’s the post. But I’ll expand a bit on details of the strategy, comment on H1B controversy over the past few days, discuss what the demand might be, and conclude.

Strategy Background

The idea of using the Speaker’s election as leverage comes from Chad Pergram, who covers Congress for FOX. He writes in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to failing to elect a House speaker quickly” (an earlier version appeared in Water Cooler)

[T]he speaker’s election on Jan. 3 poses a special challenge. Here’s the bar for Johnson – or anyone else: The speaker of the House must win an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name. In other words, the person with the most votes does not win.

The head-count:

The House clocks in at 434 members with one vacancy [Gaetz]…. This is the breakdown when the Congress starts: 219 Republicans to 215 Democrats…. But the speaker’s election on Jan. 3 poses a special challenge. Here’s the bar for Johnson – or anyone else: The speaker of the House must win an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name. In other words, the person with the most votes does not win.

This is why it took McCarthy so many ballots to win in January 2023.

So let’s crunch the math for Mike Johnson. If there are 219 Republicans and four voted for someone besides him – and all Democrats cast ballots for Jeffries, the tally is 215-214. But there’s no speaker. No one attained an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name. The magic number is 218 if all 434 members vote.

By rule, this paralyzes the House[1]. The House absolutely, unequivocally, cannot do anything until it elects a speaker. Period.

Therefore, the Maga Caucus should consist of a minimum of four members. More:

This also means that the House cannot certify the results of the Electoral College, making Trump the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 6.

The failure to elect a speaker compels the House to vote over and over…

And over… and… over…

Until it finally taps someone.

McCarthy’s election incinerated 15 ballots over five days two years ago.

Of course, nobody wants that. Which is why the Republican Party should accede to the MAGA Caucus’s demands. In writing, naturally.

* * *
I am by no means an expert in Republican politics or factions; I came up as a Democrat. But following the H1B controversy on the Twitter, it struck me forcibly than many MAGA supporters were in fact very well versed in policy, history, and data, and deployed their knowledge effectively against Musk and his tech bros. For example, H1B is not about importing workers who are “highly skilled” (a pervasive, unexamined, and dishonest, tech bro talking point). That’s why, for example, Trump brought Mar-a-Lago waiters into the country under H1B. Rather, H1B is about importing workers who are cheap and compliant, because management can hold the threat of visa removal over their heads. That means that other things being equal, management will always prefer H1Bs over citizens (the power imbalance, as idpol types would say).

If MAGA is a party faction whose salient feature is loyalty to Trump, the MAGA caucus strategy just outlined will never be adopted. If MAGA is about policy, there is at least a chance. Here, the contrast between Democrats and MAGA is very great. It’s hard to imagine a furious debate over policy taking place among Democrats in public, one with very little deference to leaders shown. It occurs to me that Democrat charges of authoritarian followership and cultishness are, well, projection. It’s also hard for me to imagine any Democrats having the stones to adopt the MAGA caucus strategy. But perhaps MAGA does!

H1B Controversy

Axios has a good timeline of the controversy, in “Trump sides with Musk in H-1B fight“:

The MAGA-DOGE skirmishes started last Sunday, with anti-immigration and anti-Indian vitriol against Trump’s pick of venture capitalist Sriram Krishnan as his AI advisor.

I missed the Krishnan “vitriol.” Sad to say, but when so many “body shops” (InfoSys, etc.) are based in India, and important Indian cititzens, it’s easy to see why animus might develop.

It escalated into full conflict Thursday when Musk ally and DOGE co-lead Vivek Ramaswamy took to X to blast American “mediocrity” culture. Musk defended Ramaswamy, and the two sides started engaging in an increasingly bitter war of words.

I entered when Vivek posted his screed. Suffice to say that you could have swapped out Vivek’s words and swapped in Hillary’s “deplorables” speech, and nobody would have noticed. On the bright side, it’s wonderfully clarifying to see that leadership in both parties hates the working class.

On Friday afternoon, Musk doubled down, saying MAGA adherents who continued to blast immigration and the tech community were “contemptible fools,” later clarifying he was talking about “racists” who would “absolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.”

That “later clarifying” is doing a lot of work; it’s almost as if somebody handed Musk the talking point. And then:

Just before midnight Friday, Musk once again defended the H-1B program in vulgar, all-caps terms, saying the program was the key to the success of his (and other big American) companies.

“Take a big step back and F–K YOURSELF in the face.I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend,” Musk wrote.

Oh? How exactly? The Axios timeline gives out before a series of engagements between Musk and MAGA, where MAGA beats Musk like a gong on data and policy. This is a very long thread, but gives the flavor:



And:




Robert Sterling
@RobertMSterling
·
Follow
You can see that salaries are disproportionately weighted toward the lower bands:

17% are < $75k (blue)
21% are $75-100k (orange)
22% are $100-125k (pink)
15% are $125-150k (teal)

In other words, ~75% are jobs paying < $150k. Only 25% are $150k+, and, of those, only 2.5% are…



Oh look. Labor arbitrage! To which Musk responds, meek as a lamb:

Elon Musk

@elonmusk
·
Follow
Replying to @RobertMSterling
Easily fixed by raising the minimum salary significantly and adding a yearly cost for maintaining the H1B, making it materially more expensive to hire from overseas than domestically.

I’ve been very clear that the program is broken and needs major reform.

Quite the change in tone, eh? From ” F–K YOURSELF in the face” to “easily fixed”! It’s almost as if Musk got a call, isn’t?

Of course, if H1B were that “easy to fix,” it would have been fixed along ago. And it’s quite revealing that it took multiple blows to Musk’s head and body over many hours by MAGA with skin in the game who actually understood the data and the policy issues to get whoever in Susie Wiles’s office monitors Musk’s tweets to pick up the phone.

The Demand

Based solely on having consumed vast numbers of Tweets on H1Bs, my conclusion is that Musk is wrong to want “reform.” The purpose of H1B is, after all, labor arbitrage: cheap, compliant labor. If labor arbitrage is reformed away from H1B, then there’s no reason for it in the first place. If not, it should be abolished entirely. If Elon wants to import brain geniuses instead of waiters for Mar-a-Lago, we have another category for that: O-1 (“O-1 Visa: Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement“).

So that is my demand, ill-informed though it may be: Abolish H1B; reform O-1 as needed.

However, get the commitment to meet the demands in writing, for three reasons:

First, my takeaway from the controversy is that the H1B supporters — i.e., DOGE — are fundamentally dishonest; they held onto their “highly skilled labor” talking point like grim death, even that MAGA was easily able to show it was a lie (Sterling’s thread was the best response, but there were many, many others that were good too). Anything not reduced to writing will be gamed or not delivered on.

Second, it was amusing to see the cuddle puddle of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and media service providers — i.e., DOGE — acting as enforcers as soon as Elon took the “reform” line; they used the same phrases and tactics Democrat enforcers do! (“Now is not the time,” “one team,” “time to move on”). So, with dishonest party enforcers, yes, get it in writing.

Finally, I’m sick of DOGE just tweeting it out. It’s amazing to see a heated policy argument play out in public, but Elon’s commitments are worth the digits they’re written with. Elon tweeting “Reforming H1B is good, actually” and a whole cheering section chanting “The controversy is over” just doesn’t make it[2]. Get the commitment to meet the demands in writing.

Conclusion

Let me close with words from the candidate who, if the Democrats hadn’t stabbed him in the back, might have forestalled Trump:


Will Donahue
@realwilldonahue
·
Follow
When Bernie is more MAGA than the tech bros we’ve got a problem.

I realize companies want cheap foreign labor but investing into technical education for Americans is the actual America first policy I’m not sure why this is controversial.
(Video at link.)

I’ve gotta say, quoting the President of College Republicans wasn’t on my Bingo card. But I don’t think quoting Bernie Sanders was on his Bingo Card either.

So far — Hello, President Romney! — Republicans have become more like MAGA, not MAGA like Republicans. Perhaps the H1B controversy will show whether this tendency will continue, or stall.

NOTES

[1] It may be that in extreme situations — and multiple votes for Speaker are not extreme — there are ways out. From “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House“:

Under the modern practice, the Speaker is elected by a majority of Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being present.

As Pergram says. More (citations omitted):

In two instances the House agreed to choose and subsequently did choose a Speaker by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by majority vote. In 1849 the House had been in session 19 days without being able to elect a Speaker, no candidate having received a majority of the votes cast. The voting was viva voce, each Member responding to the call of the roll by naming the candidate for whom he voted. Finally, after the fifty-ninth ballot, the House adopted a resolution declaring that a Speaker could be elected by a plurality. In 1856 the House again struggled over the election of a Speaker. Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted a resolution permitting the election to be decided by a plurality. On both of these occasions, the House ratified the plurality election by a majority vote.

So if history is any guide, 129 ballots is the baseline for changing the procedure Pergram describes. Comments from Congressional rules mavens welcome.

[2] Re: President-elect Trump, once a Speaker is chosen, the election is certified, and he takes the oath of office, a happy ending would look like this: “Congratulations, you’re still my agent.”

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12 ... n-h1b.html

[blindpig]

Trump’s threat of a tariff wall

By Prabhat Patnaik (Posted Dec 30, 2024)

Originally published: Peoples Democracy on December 29, 2024 (more by Peoples Democracy) |

DONALD Trump is threatening to use tariffs as a weapon against other countries. He has already made three threatening statements: first, he threatened the BRICS countries that if they dared to move away from the dollar, then they would have to face 100 per cent tariff in the U.S. market. Second, he has threatened the European Union that unless the EU bought more American oil and gas as a means of reducing its trade surplus vis-à-vis the U.S. (the surplus on goods trade was $208.7 billion in 2023), it would face high tariffs in the U.S. market. Third, he has announced that there will be a 10 per cent tariff anyway on global imports into the U.S. and a 60 per cent tariff on Chinese goods. (China had a $279.4 billion surplus on goods trade vis-à-vis the U.S. in 2023, which was lower than earlier, e.g., the $418 billion surplus in 2018, but quite substantial nonetheless).

Each of these proposed measures has important economic implications. For instance, while EU’s replacing its residual reliance on Russian gas by the purchase of American gas may not lead to cost escalation within EU, it will certainly raise gas prices within the US; in fact it has been estimated that U.S. gas prices will rise by as much as 30 per cent in such an eventuality. Trump’s response to this has been to say that gas production will be raised within the U.S. to cope with the increased demand for it. But raising gas production requires investment, and that too private investment in the U.S., which cannot be ordered to happen. Besides, given the environmental damage associated with oil and gas, and hence the general commitment to move away from them, such investment may not actually occur; and even if it does, the environmental concerns will only become more acute. Likewise, if 100 per cent tariffs are levied on BRICS countries, they would certainly retaliate, whose effects can be quite serious for American exports.

All this however is still in the realm of mere possibilities; what is more certain is the 10 per cent tax on global imports and the 60 per cent tax on imports from China; and I would like to discuss one obvious impact they would have on the world economy. Let us assume that such tariffs do not lead to any retaliation by other countries (and if they do, then this fact will only modify the argument presented below, not negate the thrust of it). They would however increase the demand for American goods within the U.S. which should raise the level of output and employment within that country. In fact Trump has been complaining that while Americans buy large numbers of European cars, the reverse is not true; the imposition of tariffs on European cars will increase the demand for American cars within the U.S. and hence raise their production (and employment in that industry).

As against this however the rise in the cost of living because of tariffs on imported goods, will reduce purchasing power in the hands of the consumers which will have an employment-contracting effect, that would be even more pronounced if the Trump administration undertakes anti-inflationary “austerity” measures to counter the rise in prices. But let us assume, as is more likely, that there would be a net increase in employment and output in the U.S. because of this tariff measure of Trump.

In the rest of the world however by the same token the loss of American markets would reduce employment in the absence of any counteracting measures to boost demand. The U.S. in such a case would simply have exported its unemployment to the rest of the world; it would have pursued through tariff measures a beggar-thy-neighbour policy towards the rest of the world. True, the rest of the world would not be actually affected adversely if there is a boost to its domestic demand through the pursuit of an expansionary fiscal policy (monetary policy for expansion is a blunt instrument); but this is not possible in economies other than China.

Such an expansionary fiscal policy must take the form of either a larger fiscal deficit, or heavier taxes on the capitalists, and the rich in general, who save a large proportion of their incomes; taxing the working people who consume the bulk of their incomes anyway and using such tax proceeds for boosting government expenditure would only change the composition of aggregate demand (less working people’s consumption and more government spending), but not its magnitude. But such fiscal measures as would actually increase the magnitude of aggregate demand are precisely the ones that international finance capital opposes; it opposes fiscal deficits beyond a stipulated limit (typically 3 per cent of the GDP) and it obviously opposes any taxes on the rich, for such taxes fall heavily on the financiers themselves. An economy pursuing such demand-boosting measures therefore becomes a victim of capital flight and hence gets destabilised, which is why such fiscal expansion cannot occur within a neoliberal regime characterised by the hegemony of globalised finance.

Even if the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. entails a certain shift away from neoliberalism, the essence of such a regime consists in the free cross-border movement of capital, especially of finance, and no compromise on this score will be tolerated by international finance capital; in fact it is significant that Trump, while championing protectionism has not said a word in favour of capital controls. The absence of capital controls exposes countries to the threat of capital flight in the +event of fiscal expansion which they would therefore like to avoid.

The case of China however is altogether different. In fact, successive U.S. administrations have been protecting the U.S. market from the entry of goods produced in China for quite some time, as is evident from the decline in China’s goods trade surplus vis-à-vis the U.S. mentioned earlier. China has managed to counter to a great extent this loss of the American market by expanding its domestic market. The reason China has been able to do this, while other countries cannot, is because China, notwithstanding all the “liberalisation” it has undertaken, still remains essentially a “command economy” where the political leadership’s writ runs in economic matters: there is a substantial presence of public sector, and generally non-capitalist, enterprises in the Chinese economy, whose investment decisions, and even wage policy, can be influenced by the government. Indeed it is not surprising that even as there has been a general stagnation in real wage-rates over much of the world, including in the countries of the global north, China has seen increases in real wages as a result of government directives. The expansion of the domestic market in China therefore is not constrained by the dictates of international finance capital, unlike in the case of capitalist countries.

Hence, leaving aside China where the effects of American protectionism can in principle be countered, the rest of the world would see an aggravation of recession because of it (unless it moves away from a neoliberal regime). This effect will be particularly sharp in countries of the global south. The Bretton Woods institutions that remain silent in the face of trump’s protectionism will lecture to countries of the global south about the virtues of free trade and prevent them from adopting any protectionist policies of their own; at the same time they would be made to adhere strictly to “fiscal deficit norms” while avoiding any heavier taxation of the rich (so as not to disincentivise capital inflows). They would therefore be made to face American protectionism meekly and hence bear the brunt not only of the recessionary tendency it would generate but also of a drying up of capital inflows into their shores for relocating plants for producing export goods.

The accentuation of the recessionary tendency in the rest of the world would also entail a further strengthening of the neo-fascist tendency that is currently sweeping the world. Since neo-fascism gets a boost because of the alliance between corporate capital and the neo-fascist elements in a period of economic crisis, any aggravation of crisis will only lead to a further strengthening of the neo-fascist tendency, of the “othering” of some hapless minority group in each such crisis-affected country in an attempt to divert the discourse away from issues of material life.

Rosa Luxemburg’s statement that the development of capitalism ultimately leads to a denouement where mankind is presented with a choice between socialism and barbarism is thus coming true with a vengeance. The dead-end of neoliberal capitalism, which is the latest phase of capitalism, is bringing mankind to a situation of pervasive and barbaric neo-fascism, from which only a transition to socialism, effected in stages, can provide a way out.

https://mronline.org/2024/12/30/trumps- ... riff-wall/

******

6 Fracking Billionaires and Climate Denial Groups Behind Trump’s Cabinet
Posted on December 30, 2024 by Lambert Strether

By Joe Fassler, a writer and journalist whose work on climate and technology appears in outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times, and Wired. Originally published at DeSmog.

Since winning the U.S. election, president-elect Donald Trump has been filling his cabinet with conservative ideologues that could set back progress on fighting climate change and shifting to cleaner forms of energy for years – if not decades.

Many of Trump’s picks aren’t necessarily household names, but they’re backed by major players in the world of climate obstruction. They include fracking billionaires and powerful conservative organizations that for decades have sought to block climate solutions and confuse the American public about climate science.

These anti-climate networks and fossil fuel executives are loudly expressing their support for Trump’s cabinet selections – and in some cases actively lobbied for them. Here are the top six power players behind the scenes you should be paying attention to.

America First Policy Institute (AFPI)

Trump’s cabinet picks so far have more direct links to AFPI than any other organization. And that’s no surprise. Founded in 2021 by members of the former president’s cabinet, AFPI has been viewed as a hotspot for long-time allies vying for their place in a second Trump term – what some have called a “White House in waiting.”

AFPI’s policy agenda looks a lot like Project 2025, the controversial conservative wishlist catalyzed by the Heritage Foundation that was attacked by top Democrats and others during the U.S. election. However, it lacks the Heritage-backed effort’s brand recognition and political baggage. In addition to advocating for vast cuts to the federal government workforce and broad deregulation of industry, AFPI calls for dramatic expansion of domestic oil and gas production – despite broad scientific consensus that doing so would be incompatible with a livable future.

It’s promoted the myth that renewable energy is unreliable and weather-dependent, and that only fossil fuels can provide power consistently, a bad faith assertion with no basis in fact. And it’s called for a halt to new policies that would “disproportionately target one sector at the expense of another” – a stance that would hobble the clean energy transition.

At least 11 Trump cabinet nominees have ties to AFPI, including some of his top posts. Former Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin (Environmental Protection Agency) is currently a chair at AFPI and a board member at its lobbying arm, America First Works, which publicly congratulated him on the nomination. Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi (Attorney General of the U.S.) is chair at AFPI’s Center for Litigation. Linda McMahon (Department of Education) is the chair of AFPI’s board. Brooke Rollins (Department of Agriculture) is currently AFPI’s President and CEO.

Economist Kevin Hassett (National Economic Council) serves as chair of AFPI’s Board of Academic Advisors. Former Republican congressman Doug Collins (Veterans Affairs) is chair of AFPI’s Georgia chapter. Former Trump director of national security John Ratcliffe (Central Intelligence Agency) is co-chair of AFPI’s Center for American Security, where Kash Patel (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is a senior fellow. Former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (NATO chief) is co-chair of AFPI’s Center for Law and Justice.

Project 2025 – Heritage Foundation – Texas Public Policy Foundation

Project 2025 generated plenty of controversy during the 2024 election cycle, and was quickly disavowed by Trump despite his numerous close ties to the effort. But the organizations that co-signed or contributed to the 900-page “Mandate for Leadership” blueprint for reshaping the federal government, a massive white paper overseen by the Heritage Foundation, are still well-represented among Trump’s pending appointees.

The most prominent links are to the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a think tank that routinely downplays the dangers of anthropogenic climate change and calls clean energy policies “catastrophic.” It’s been heavily funded over the years by the network of foundations linked to oil and gas billionaires Charles Koch and his later brother David, according to DeSmog’s review of financial disclosure forms. Five other family fortunes have funneled over $120 million into Project 2025 advisory groups since 2020, a DeSmog analysis earlier this year found.

At least twelve Trump cabinet nominees have ties to groups that signed on to the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” document, or were involved with the initiative directly.

Rollins (Department of Agriculture) spent 15 years running the Texas Public Policy Institute, which itself has been a feeder organization for the Heritage Foundation; TPPF’s past president, Kevin Roberts, went on to lead Heritage. Wright (Department of Energy) spoke at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in 2022, and was congratulated on his nomination by Kevin Roberts. Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio (Secretary of State) was also praised for his nomination by the Heritage Foundation.

Russel Vought (Office of Management and Budget) wrote Project 2025’s chapter on reconfiguring the executive branch. James Braid (legislative affairs) a legislative director for incoming vice president J. D. Vance, is an advisor to Project 2025 nonprofit American Moment, and also appeared in an instructional video for the Heritage-backed effort. Karoline Leavitt (Press Secretary) also made one of the training videos, according to ProPublica. Federal Communications Commission commissioner Brendan Carr, whom Trump seeks to promote to chair the agency, wrote Project 2025’s section on his employer.

Former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tom Homan (border czar), a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was listed as a contributor to the “Mandate for Leadership” document. Michigan Republican party chair Pete Hoekstra (Ambassador to Canada) was also listed as a contributor, as was Ratcliffe (Central Intelligence Agency).

Tim Dunn

Dunn, the Texas oil and gas billionaire and pastor who was one of the Trump campaign’s biggest donors in 2024, has numerous links to recently announced cabinet nominees — starting with the fact that he sits on the America First Policy Institute’s board and reportedly helped found the organization. But he’s also a director of Convention of States, a focused, well-funded effort to rewrite the U.S. constitution in ways that would “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” and shift the country towards his vision of a theocratic petrostate. Critics call it a conservative Christian Nationalist plan for America.

In addition to pushing for policy that would hamper the federal government’s ability to respond proactively to environmental crises, Convention of States has published blog posts that call climate change a “hoax” and a source of “irrational hysteria.”

At least two Project 2025 organizations also have close ties to the Convention of States effort supported by Dunn. Mark Meckler, co-founder of Project 2025 signee Tea Party Patriots, currently serves as president of the effort’s lobbying arm, Convention of States Action. And Michael Farris, who co-founded Convention of States with Meckler, recently left to lead Alliance Defending Freedom, another Project 2025 signee.

Its effort to force a constitutional convention has been supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization that works with corporations like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries to supply lawmakers with templates for legislation.

In addition to those linked to him through AFPI, four other cabinet nominees have connections to Dunn. Pharmaceutical billionaire and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (Department of Government Efficiency) has endorsed the Convention of States, as has Trump campaign press chief Leavitt (Press Secretary). Fox News host Pete Hegseth (Department of Defense), whose nomination is embattled after sexual assault allegations and questions about relevant military experience, is also a “long-time” endorser of the Convention of States.

Harold Hamm

Harold Hamm, who made billions drilling for oil in North Dakota’s Bakken Formation, gave more than $1.6 million to Trump’s re-election campaign this year. The company he founded, Continental Resources, where he currently sits as executive chair, donated another $2 million to the campaign.

Hamm, who has downplayed the threat posed by climate change in numerous past statements, advocates for “opening up more federal lands to drilling, easing the Endangered Species Act, and curbing numerous regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency,” according to The Washington Post. He reportedly gave at least $1 million as a part of the donor network run by Charles Koch and his late brother David Koch, a key actor in the funding and dissemination of climate disinformation.

At least two Trump cabinet appointees were directly endorsed by Hamm: Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright (Department of Energy) and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (Department of Interior).

Alliance for Responsible Citizenship

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), launched by conservative influencer Jordan Peterson in 2023, includes several individuals on its advisory board who deny or downplay the threat of anthropogenic climate change.

These include Center for African Prosperity director Magatte Wade, whose organization is a project of the Atlas Network coalition of free-market think tanks with a decades-long history of promoting climate denial; Bjorn Lomberg, a political scientist and activist who argues against “climate alarmism” in his writings; Michael Shellenberger, Breakthrough Institute co-founder and political hopeful, who called focusing on the dangers of climate change a form of “crying wolf”; and Peterson himself, who has likened climate activism to a mostly baseless “psuedo-religion” that is really about imposing socialist control on society.

Other anti-climate activists affiliated with ARC events include fossil fuel evangelist Alex Epstein, former BP scientist Steve Koonin and Dennis Prager, founder of the rightwing media outlet PragerU. Epstein has enthusiastically backed Wright as Trump’s pick for Department of Energy, saying that he was “thrilled” about the nomination, while both Koonin and Prager have previously engaged with or promoted the fossil fuel executive.

In addition, Wright (Department of Energy) has called both Bjorn Lomborg and Magatte Wade his friends, and taped a panel discussion for ARC earlier this year. Ramaswamy (Department of Government Efficiency) is also on ARC’s advisory board.

CO2 Coalition

Many of the organizations in DeSmog’s Climate Disinformation Database simply downplay the threat of climate change. The CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) established in 2015, actually embraces it. In materials ranging from white papers to children’s books, the Coalition argues that planet-warming emissions only serve to make plants healthier, the world more livable, and people more prosperous. “Life-giving CO2 should be valued, not demonized,” a staffer argued, in an indicative blog post.

Over the years, the CO2 Coalition has been funded by donors working to obstruct progress on climate change, including the 85 Fund, the Charles Koch Institute, and the Mercer Family Foundation.

At least one Trump cabinet appointee has been shown to have links to the CO2 Coalition, according to DeSmog’s previous reporting: Wright (Department of Energy), who has received the organization’s endorsement. “I had a chance to sit down one-on-one with Chris in 2022 in his Denver office and was impressed with his knowledge and views on energy philosophy, which aligned closely with those of the CO2 Coalition,” wrote Gregory Wrightstone, the group’s executive director.

“The main thing that [Wright] and I and the CO2 Coalition agree on is that increasing CO2 is a net benefit,” Wrightstone told DeSmog in a recent interview. “It’s not the demon molecule, it’s the miracle molecule.”

Taken together, these cabinet nominees suggest a disturbing pattern for how the new administration plans to govern: At a time when scientific and policy experts broadly agree that climate action is urgently needed, Trump’s picks are backed by some of the most reactionary obstructionists in American politics.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12 ... binet.html

US climate 'policy' from either party is bullshit of one kind or another: either the denial of the Republicans or the phony capitalist 'solutions' promoted by the Democrats. The Dems version might be said to at least do no harm but that ain't so cause positive action must be taken but that will never happen with the capitalists in control. The Repubs would reverse the very meager progress that has been made and accelerate the damage to line the pockets of the Few.

We gotta kill capitalism before it kills us and time's a wastin'.

[blindpig]

Trump’s Push To Shut Down the Axis of Upheaval Starts With LNG
Posted on January 2, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. We sometimes run articles by Simon Watkins because they epitomize a sadly-common hard-core neocon school of thought in policy circles. Unfortunately, given the number of hawks that Trump has appointed to foreign policy and defense positions, it seems likely that the views Watkins set forth below have a strong following within Team Trump.

Here we see Watkins as a true believer who builds his vision of how to beat Russian, China, and Iran on shaky foundations. The first is the depiction of all of them as belligerents. Larry Wilkerson, who has over his long career often had a seat at the table, forcefully disputed that notion in his latest talk on Nima’s Dialogue Works. He describes how the US military is so weak that it can attempt to maintain its dominance only through proxies, and that is has been a matter of explicit policy not to allow any competing power to threaten that position.

The entire video is very much worth your time, but consider in particular the section that starts at 27:50:

The real reason is we do not want peace! Period. We want everything from the Baltic to the Persian Gulf to be in turmoil and chaos. We want it that way by proxy wars and proxy conflicts so that the power shift is arrested, so that we maintain our American empire imperium and it is not taken over and subjugated by China. That’s what it’s all about.



A second unfathomable reading is Watkin’s insistence that Russia is economically weak and can be broken by a further tightening of Western sanctions to hurt Russia’s energy sector to the advantage of US LNG. Has he missed the IMF data that shows Russia having one of the highest GDP growth rates among advanced economies? That since the Special Military Operation started, Russia has advanced to become the fourth largest economy in PPP terms? The sanctions of Russian energy have done far more harm to US allies, particularly in the EU. Since when does weakening your allies make you a stronger power?

We’ll stop our critique here in the interest of encouraging readers to apply their knowledge and analytical skills.

However, it does seem that the prevalence of articles like Watkins’, that recommend yet more aggressive US action, first and foremost against Russia, provide yet more confirmation of the notion that Trump’s end the war plans for Ukraine are dead on arrival. The official information is so polluted that his emissaries, and almost certainly Trump himself if he meets Putin, simply will not believe that Russia is in a position to get its way in Ukraine with respect to the disposition of territory. And they also seem convinced that the Russian economy is flagging and can’t keep up the war effort for much longer.

The only reason to hope that Trump might still walk away from Project Ukraine is his extreme antipathy towards NATO and other spending that he regards as welfare for Europeans…compounded by the fact that European leaders during his first term and to this date keep making clear that they loathe Trump personally.

By Simon Watkins, a former senior FX trader and salesman, financial journalist, and best-selling author. He was Head of Forex Institutional Sales and Trading for Credit Lyonnais, and later Director of Forex at Bank of Montreal. He was then Head of Weekly Publications and Chief Writer for Business Monitor International, Head of Fuel Oil Products for Platts, and Global Managing Editor of Research for Renaissance Capital in Moscow. Originally published at OilPrice.com

Trump’s second term aims to counter the Axis of Upheaval.
Plans include tightening sanctions on Russia’s LNG sector and transshipment methods, and extending similar sanctions to Iraq for aiding Iran’s oil exports.
Broader sanctions and measures on Iraq, Iranian proxies, and Chinese financing networks indicate a U.S. strategy to curtail economic and logistical support for adversaries.

As Donald Trump’s new advisory team prepares for his second term in the U.S.’s highest office, the general feeling is that the much-vaunted ‘Axis of Upheaval’ is at its lowest ebb to date. The aim of this axis – driven by Chinese money, Russian military aggression, and the respective destabilising Middle East and Asian presences of Iran and North Korea – is to replace the primacy of the U.S. and its key allies’ influence in global geopolitics with a multipolar version, albeit in reality with Beijing at its centre.

However, according to a senior source who works closely with the new presidential team: “China’s finances are failing [with struggling economic growth], Russia’s military has failed [in Ukraine and Syria], Iran’s proxies have been incapacitated [Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis et al], North Korea is on the sidelines, and now Trump is back.” Consequently, although many observers expect a continuation in Trump’s second presidential term of the neo-isolationism evident in several key respects in his first term this is unlikely to be the case. Instead, the Washington-based source exclusively told OilPrice.com, the second term is going to be about reasserting the primary influence of the U.S. and its allies in the world through whatever means necessary in order that Trump can be seen by his voters as keeping his promise to ‘Make America Great Again’. In essence, it will be a bold reassertion of the original 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine. This was modified slightly in 1994 for public consumption, but the original version is the one that Trump’s second-term vision will most closely approximate.

Top of the Trump team’s list of priorities internationally is ending the war in Ukraine, which they are still confident of being able to do relatively quickly through the methodology previously outlined by OilPrice.com. From there, the aim will be to dramatically reduce Russia’s capability to mount any credible conventional military invasion of further European territories by severely degrading its financial ability to do so. The immediate focus here, according to the Washington source, will be continuing to reduce Russia’s gas and oil export receipts to as near to nothing as can be managed. As liquefied natural gas (LNG) became – and remains – the key global emergency energy source following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia’s ability to monetise these exports will be the first in Washington’s cross-hairs, to be hit hard not just by the U.S. but by its European allies as well. “Early on, the [presidential] team will expand the actions taken in August, with many more key LNG targets hit by new sanctions,” said the source last week. In this context, the day before the 24 August commemoration day of Ukraine’s Declaration of Independence in 1991, the U.S. Treasury and State departments expanded their sanctions-related designation of individuals, companies, projects, and trading and delivery mechanisms involved in developing key energy projects and associated infrastructure including the Ust Luga LNG Terminal, the Vostok Oil Project, and the Yakutia Gas Project, among many others. This aligned with earlier comments from the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt that: “We’re going to keep tightening the screws [on Russia’s major LNG sector projects, including the cornerstone Arctic LNG 2 project].”

The Trump team has already been busy laying the groundwork with the U.S.’s allies in Europe to support this tightening of the screws on Russian energy exports. These arguments are even more forceful now, as the warnings Trump’s team made in his first term to key European Union (E.U.) states – especially de facto leader, Germany — of the political and economic dangers of becoming over-reliant on Russian gas and oil were proven correct with its second invasion of Ukraine in less than 10 years, as analysed in full in my new book on the new global oil market order. The same E.U. states have already reduced these energy imports considerably, but just over a week ago they agreed the organisation’s 15th sanctions package against Russia aimed primarily at disabling the ability of Russia to move oil and LNG through a shadow fleet of tankers. According to industry figures, over 80% of Russia’s seaborne crude exports are currently moved by tankers not flagged, owned or operated by companies based in the G7, the E.U., Australia, Switzerland and Norway, and not insured by Western protection and indemnity clubs. Consequently, the new shipping sanctions greatly expand the number of individuals and entities to the previous sanctions list. These dramatically increase the list of entities not just in Russia but in third-party countries and organisations in Russia that indirectly contribute to Moscow’s military and technological enhancement through the avoidance of export restrictions. At the same time, similar E.U. sanctions are being introduced to prohibit the transshipment of Russian LNG through E.U. ports as from March, alongside further bans of the import of Russian LNG into terminals not connected to the E.U. gas pipeline network. All these moves – and more to come, according to a senior E.U. energy security source exclusively spoken to by OilPrice.com last week – are ultimately geared to completely end Russian fossil fuel imports into the E.U. and non-E.U. European countries by 2027.

A similar idea of degrading the ability of Axis of Upheaval members to side-step direct sanctions by utilising ‘useful idiot’ states to help them is also under consideration for Iran’s key accomplice in this regard – Iraq. As highlighted recently by OilPrice.com, the Trump team is considering imposing similar-style sanctions on Iraq as it has in place for Iran, including on individuals and entities connected to the financing, movement, and logistics involved in moving Iranian oil and gas, and the money relating to it.

A precedent for this was set in the first Trump presidency when, after Iraq signed a two-year contract gas and electricity import deal with Iran despite pledging to reduce the length of such deals, Washington responded with swingeing targeted sanctions on 20 Iran- and Iraq-based entities. The State Department cited them as being instruments in the funnelling of money to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) elite Quds Force. It added that the 20 entities were continuing to exploit Iraq’s dependence on Iran as an electricity and gas source by smuggling Iranian petroleum through the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr and money laundering through Iraqi front companies. And it said that Iraq was continuing to act as a conduit for Iranian oil and gas supplies to make their way out into the world’s major export markets. As nothing whatsoever has changed in this complicity, there is every reason to expect the threat of such sanctions on Iraq early in Trump’s second term, according to the Washington source last week, followed by the imposition of further sanctions if the threats are not heeded.

Extending such measures on Iraq – and increasing their scope – would also signal to Iraq, and to other members of the Axis of Upheaval, that a much greater degree of accountability for acts deemed hostile against the U.S. and its allies is in the offing. Again, there is recent precedent here as a year ago the U.S.’s Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) applied sanctions against Iran to a broader part of its international support network, especially to those entities and officials involved funding the Islamic Republic’s proxy terrorist organisations – Hamas and Hezbollah. Those sanctions were focused on 20 individuals and entities for their involvement in financial facilitation networks for the benefit of Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) and Iranian Armed Forces General Staff (AFGS), and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Interestingly, among the long-suspected list of names and companies that were sanctioned at that point were companies in Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates that were suspected of being part of the network that sells billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian commodities to customers in Europe and East Asia. “It flagged that the U.S. can and will go after the major financing centres that China uses if Washington thinks Beijing is consistently overstepping the line in challenging key areas of strategic interest for the U.S., in addition to the scalable tariff rates to be applied on China’s critical export flows,” the Washington source concluded.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/01 ... h-lng.html

******

Prospects and consequences of the trade war between the U.S. and Canada

Lorenzo Maria Pacini

January 2, 2025

Canada plays a decisive role in the import of indispensable raw materials. But can the U.S. really get by without this trade?

Trump has not yet taken office in the White House and is already threatening 25% duties on all products entering the U.S. from abroad. Canada plays a decisive role in the import of indispensable raw materials. But can the U.S. really get by without this trade?

Political market power

The big voice on the part of Donald Trump had already been raised at the end of November, in the context of some statements against China and against illegal American immigration, in particular from Mexico, and now it is back again: Trump has spoken of 25% duties on goods from Mexico, China and Canada, linking this not only to immigration but also to Fentanyl.

The latter is an extremely powerful synthetic opioid drug, mainly used in the treatment of acute pain, about 100 times stronger than morphine and 50 times stronger than heroin, but extremely harmful even in small doses if mismanaged outside of a specific treatment. In the United States, it has become a very serious social problem, because it is the number one cause of overdoses, and although it is a drug that is subject by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to a controlled prescription-only release, it is nonetheless available illegally on the black market, often passed off as a drug cut with other substances such as cocaine, or in counterfeit pills under false pretenses such as oxycodone or the famous Xanax.

Trump spoke about this on the social Truth, where he has already announced that on 20 January, among his first executive orders, he will sign the document for customs duties on all products imported from open borders.

The lunge by the next tenant of the House Bank could not fail to provoke reactions from countries affected by the threatened protectionist wave. ‘The idea that China knowingly allows fentanyl precursors to enter the United States is completely contrary to facts and reality,’ said Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu, adding that ’on the issue of U.S. duties, China believes that economic and trade cooperation between China and the United States is mutually beneficial. No one will win a trade war or a tariff war’.

For its part, the government of Canada recalled that its country is essential to U.S. energy supplies. ‘Our relationship is balanced and mutually beneficial, especially for American workers,’ explained Canadian Vice-Premier Chrystia Freeland, pointing out that Ottawa ‘will continue discussions on these issues with the new administration’.

With regard to Mexico, government officials had already signalled that they were ready to respond with retaliatory tariffs. ‘If you impose 25 per cent tariffs on me, I have to react with higher tariffs,’ Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s economy minister, assured in recent days.

Trump’s threats come as arrests for illegal border crossings from Mexico are falling. Data show arrests remain near four-year lows, with the U.S. Border Patrol making 56,530 apprehensions in October, less than a third of last year’s October count. Meanwhile, arrests for illegal border crossings from Canada have increased over the past two years. The Border Patrol made 23,721 arrests between October 2023 and September 2024, up from 10,021 in the previous 12 months. More than 14,000 of those arrested at the Canadian border were Indians, more than 10 times the number two years ago.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2024, through October, the U.S. exported more than $293 billion worth of goods to Canada, while imports from its neighbour totalled nearly $344 billion. Canada has thus become the U.S.’s second largest trading partner after Mexico, accounting for 14.4% of total trade.

The problem goes beyond immigration

The war against Canada is an old one: Trump had already imposed tariffs and complicated trade relations in 2017 and 2018, making relations with Justin Trudeau rather stormy.

The trouble Trump was pointing his finger at is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a trade treaty signed between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which entered into force in January 1994 with the aim of creating a free trade area between the countries, gradually eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers, so as to encourage trade and investment. The elimination of tariffs is one of the main provisions of the agreement.

NAFTA has had a significant impact in terms of increasing trade flows and integrating supply chains, but it has also favoured the relocation of labour and penalised certain occupational categories.

In 2020, the agreement was replaced by the USMCA, United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement – in Canada called CUSMA and in Mexico called T-MEC – which included the most modern e-commerce systems and imposed stricter rules for the protection of workers.

The trouble is that the U.S. no longer has domestic production and is the world’s largest importer.

From Canada, they mainly buy oil, cars, industrial machinery, plastics, paper and wood.

Crude oil imports reached a record 4.3 billion barrels per day in July 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. We are talking about really big figures, because that is 60 per cent of oil imports, about double the amount in 2022. As the New York Times writes, ‘Mexico, China and Canada together account for more than a third of the goods and services imported and exported by the United States, supporting tens of millions of American jobs. The three countries together bought more than $1 trillion of U.S. exports and supplied nearly $1.5 trillion of goods and services to the United States in 2023′.

Analysts therefore agree on one thing: highly ‘punitive’ tariffs could jam supply chains, eventually hitting even U.S. industries that depend on the goods of close trading partners. The proposed measures could hit several strategic U.S. industries hard, add about $272 billion a year to tax burdens, raise asset prices, raise interest rates, and weaken already fragile households.

An October report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab found that Canada is the largest export market for 34 U.S. states, making them ‘surprisingly dependent on Canadian trade’.

Trevor Tombe, professor of economics at the University of Calgary, noted, for example, that Montana’s trade with Canada accounts for 16% of the state’s economy, while Michigan’s is 14%. Even in Texas – the seventh strongest economy in the world – trade with Canada accounts for 4% of the state’s economy.

Trudeau has emphasised the need for dialogue and cooperation, Trump’s warning has thrown Canadian politics into turmoil: last week, Canadian Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned due to a disagreement with Trudeau over how to handle Trump. The Canadian Prime Minister himself held talks with Trump on the very evening of the tariff threat. ‘This is a relationship that we know we have to work on, and that’s what we’re going to do,’ he said, adding that he emphasised to Trump the importance of maintaining strong ties between Canada and the U.S.

In late November, Trudeau made a surprise visit to Mar-a-Lago, Florida, to talk to the U.S. president-elect about the way forward, and as a recent response, the Canadian government unveiled a series of measures it said would strengthen security at the U.S.-Canadian border.

Canada is thus risking an economic shutdown, a veritable retaliatory political attack that would collapse exports and affect the nation’s gross domestic product, sending inflation soaring, with disastrous consequences for the entire commercial and employment fabric.

In the logic of Trump and his MAGA, this push will put an imbalance in international negotiations with Canada. We can interpret this as soft power also vis-à-vis Europe, with which Trudeau has been very well received over the past four years during Biden’s presidency, but also with regard to the extension of Canadian trade to South America, forcing Canada to mediate new routes with the U.S.

Or perhaps there is much more we do not yet know….

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... nd-canada/

Us Capital gets what it deserves...

[blindpig]

(A selection of the prognostication of 'Da Judge'. He is fairly tolerable until it comes to his idealistic regard for bourgeois democracy.)

Office Pool 2025
January 3, 2025

Andrew P. Napolitano offers 20 multiple-choice predictions concerning the Trump team, the U.S. government, the Supreme Court, popular culture, an array of politicians — and more.

No. 2 — On Jan. 1, 2026, Donald Trump will still be

a) Blaming JD Vance for something.

b) Appealing the civil judgments against him.

c) Defending the war he has started in Iran.

d) Sick and tired of giving Bibi Netanyahu everything he wants and getting nothing in return.

No. 3 — In January 2026, JD Vance will

a) Be getting the Mike Pence treatment from the Trump White House.

b) Wish he had stayed in the Senate.

c) Realize that he has become Trump’s poodle.

d) All of the above.

No. 5 — During 2025, the Trump administration will

a) Spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in taxes and fees.

b) Start a war with Iran.

c) Continue supplying Ukraine with military equipment, ammo and cash.

d) All of the above.

No. 6 — The first of President Trump’s Cabinet to leave will be

a) Marco Rubio, in a principled dispute with the President over Ukraine.

b) Pam Bondi, because she will refuse to seek indictments of persons as to whom there is no evidence of criminal behavior.

c) Tulsi Gabbard, when her own intelligence community drives her from office.

d) Pete Hegseth, because he misses being on air at Fox.

No 12 — In 2025, Trump will

a) Rescind Executive Order 12333, and the intelligence community will go berserk.

b) Have signed legislation repealing FISA and the Patriot Act.

c) Have banned all domestic spying.

d) None of the above, but while I breathe, I hope.

No 13 — In 2025,

a) The military-industrial complex will have gotten fatter, richer and more powerful.

b) The U.S. Defense budget will have exceeded $1 trillion.

c) The Trump administration will have started or substantially financed three more wars.

d) All of the above.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/01/02/office-pool-2025/

Remember when he was Bill O'Reilly's bud?