Dotard Doubles Down On Crashing The Economy By Imposing Escalating Mexico Tariffs.

"I know I'm a stupid pig!  But I love tariffs even if the economy crashes"

It now appears certain that Donnie Dotard is determined to destroy the only remote reason for his re-election:   the economy,  We know a marginal number of independents are willing to give this slime a pass if the once roaring economy (mistakenly attributed all to Trump) preserves their 401k balances.   We also know the Republican voters will put party over country whichever way the economy goes. Hence, Trump's ability to escape indictment  for his obstruction crimes in 2021 hinges on his re-relection.

But he's on a tear to destroy it with his latest gambit, an absurd escalating tariff on Mexico.

Unable to control himself as a group of 1,306  migrants were apprehended crossing the border in El Paso, fleeing brutal conditions in Central America, he pulled the tariff trigger.   This as thousands of people remained stranded in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, unable to obtain immigration documents, while asylum seekers waited in northern Mexican border cities .  So unable to use his "border wall" (since a federal judge blocked it) Trump lashed out using his old standby means of  retribution: tariffs.. Thus he bellowed in a  belligerent tweet:

"Mexico has taken advantage of the United States for decades. Because of the Dems, our Immigration Laws are BAD. Mexico makes a FORTUNE from the U.S., have for decades, they can easily fix this problem. Time for them to finally do what must be done!”

All of which is bollocks and B.S. given the U.S. enjoys as much or more trade benefits, namely in lower prices for many fruits and vegetables (especially those precious avocados). And yes, cars too - which will now cost an extra $1,300 each on importation.  Bear in mind these are American automobiles but made in Mexican plants set up by U.S. auto companies. Trump, Wharton grad that he is, still hasn't grasped that tariffs do not punish the nation on which they are imposed but the consumers of that nation's goods.  For perspective, a  5% tariff would amount to a tax increase of more than $17bn that will largely be passed on to U.S. consumers. (Last year Mexico sent about $346.5bn of goods such as avocados, tomatoes, clothes and cars across the border.)   As a piece in today's NY Times points out:

"The United States imported more than $345 billion in goods from Mexico last year, and shipped $265 billion the other way. But if anything, those numbers understate the interdependence. American refiners process crude oil from Mexico, then sell it back as gasoline. Automakers ship parts back and forth repeatedly during manufacturing. About 30 percent of the content of Mexican exports originated in the United States, according to a recent study."

Further noting:

"General Motors has three Mexican plants that make some of its most important models, including the highly profitable Silverado and Sierra pickup trucks and the new Chevrolet Blazer sport-utility vehicle. G.M. and Fiat Chrysler rely on Mexico for about a quarter of their North American production, and Ford for 10 percent."

So Dotard is actually firing at AMERICAN car makers, but is clearly too dense to see it.

Nonetheless on Thursday Dotard announced that he was placing a 5% tariff on “every single good coming into the United States from Mexico” starting on 10 June, to pressure the country to do more to curb immigration into the U.S.   Worse, this buffoon who somehow broke into high office with Russian help and covering up lies about payoffs to porn stars, intends to escalate the tariffs every month thereafter. Thus, by July 10%, then August 15%, September 20% and October 25 %.  Avocado toast? Millennials won't even be able to afford the damned toast, let alone the avocado..

Even before Herr Swine's reckless tariff announcement investors were skittish and seeking safety. According to a WSJ Business & Finance front page report (May 30, p. B1) nervous investors fled to bonds and cash, as opposed to a stock market (equities)  that would surely be riled by this asshole's words. Sure enough,  as he blurted out his decision to  impose new tariffs on Mexico  stock markets worldwide suffered a selloff, with the DOW going down nearly 355 pts. and below 25,000 for the first time in years.  This as  the FTSE 100 in London dropped 0.8% according to The Financial Times.

At least a few Republicans  (like Sen. Charles Grassley) appear to have summoned a few micrograms of testosterone to mount complaints. It's wondrous to hear these cowards at least complain about something Trump does. Meanwhile, The Business Roundtable-  one of Washington’s most influential lobby groups-   called the decision a grave error.  A statement put out stated in part:

“Business Roundtable strongly urges the administration not to move forward with these tariffs, which would create significant economic disruption and tax US workers, farmers, consumers and businesses,

Unilateral tariffs on all Mexican imports will not solve the urgent problems of securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system. We urge the administration to engage constructively with our neighbors and allies to resolve trade, migration and security issues in ways that will benefit Americans, not cause economic damage."

Trump’s insanity - which is what it is, let's call a spade, a spade - comes as the U.S., Mexico and Canada are still negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a trade pact to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It also comes on the heels of ramping up the trade war with China which has now threatened to use its "nuclear" option, i.e. withholding trade in any rare earths. These are the critical ,materials for a host of electronic gadgets, including those iPhones millions are so mesmerized by. Well, enjoy them while you can, kiddies!

Mexico’s President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador,  responded to Trump with a two-page letter in which he wrote: “The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol … With all due respect, even though you have the right to say it, ‘make America great again’ is a fallacy because, until the end of times, and beyond national borders, universal justice and fraternity should prevail.”

López Obrador, however, was also blunt about the crisis. “President Trump, social problems aren’t resolved with taxes or coercive measures,” he said, defending his administration’s handling of the migration issue."

The news elicited support for Mexico from China, the other target of Trump's imbecilic tariffs., In Beijing, the foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said: “The United States has repeatedly taken trade bullying action. China is not the only victim.”  He didn't say so in any veiled threats, but the Chinese also hold the ultimate weapon: the rare errths.

Will Trump back off an avoid calamity? Doubtful, his ego is too invested and he has to "win" - even if the majority of Americans lose.

See also:

read more | Ilana Novick's blog | login or register to post comments | 97 reads

Bob Burnett

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Economic Policy

Trump’s Road to Armageddon

by Bob Burnett | June 1, 2019 - 6:27am | permalink

Americans Lost Faith In Democratic Institutions Traced To The Kennedy Assassination

One of thousands of 'Wanted for Treason' posters retrieved from Dallas streets on the day of John F. Kennedy's assassination. Our civic decline and mistrust in government commenced almost from the instant of Kennedy's killing.

More and more articles, op-eds have been shedding light on the retreat of American voters from embracing democracy and democratic institutions and many even distrusting the voting process entirely. For reference, a Pew Research Center Poll barely a month ago showed the "trust in government" at 19 percent, compared to 89 percent in 1959.  Meanwhile, Gallup's research  has: Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low.

One article kept from The International New York Times, from when we traveled eastern Europe last September, stated that not only have citizens liked democracy less than they once did but also "the democratic game itself"  has been eroded. The level of discourse citizen to citizen has coarsened as well as the discourse within and between branches of the government itself.  We now see, for example, procedures like the filibuster - once reserved for extraordinary circumstances -  employed with regularity.

Most astounding to me was the observation (ibid.)

"When asked by the World Values Survey to rate how democratically their country is being governed on a 10 point scale, a third of Americans responded at the low end - 'not at all democratic"

Even more astounding and veering into the appalling - a recent public opinion poll showed that 43 percent of Republicans, 20 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents would support a military coup against the United States government under certain circumstances.

What has happened between 1959 and the present to degrade civility and political civic space to this extent? Writing as one who has lived those years and observed carefully the nation's political arc, I can put the down slide almost from the time of the Kennedy assassination, on Nov. 22, 1963. 

Most savvy and politically aware people, paying any attention at all, knew from the instant LBJ was sworn in (later on the 22nd) that he had had a hand in at least accepting a plan for the kill.  When he set up the phony Warren Commission,, everyone with  politically savvy eyes and ears could smell a rat, a ruse to cover up the bastard's tracks. With the  cover up's assistance of Operation Mockingbird, the metastasizing cancer of government distrust had begun its long and sordid track. As Steve Kornacki reported in his ‘UP’ journal on MSNBC, the morning of Nov. 23, 2013, the "fix" was in even before JFK arrived in Big D. Using tapes and media documents, Kornacki showed that Johnson was about to be exposed as an influence peddler in conjunction with the Bobby Baker scandal by LIFE magazine in its upcoming issue. Johnson knew this months in advance and also he had no choice other than to place his future fortunes with the several interests that wanted Kennedy dead, especially the CIA.

A paper trail of bank statements and payments was to have been included in the LIFE expose, and as Kornacki pointed out a Senate investigation would have ensured LBJ being dumped from Kennedy’s 1964 ticket.  In other words, LBJ had by far the most to gain from JFK’s assassination, since he’d then be next in line as President, and not have to face justice in the Baker scandal. What most don't say is that many of us were already aware of Johnson's nefarious background at the time and we didn't trust him.   Philip Nelson, whose book ‘LBJ – The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination’ – was even cited by former British intelligent agent and author John Hughes-Wilson,  observed (Chapter 6: The Conspirators, p. 317):

“The crime could only have been accomplished with at least the acquiescence and foreknowledge of the only man capable of choreographing the massive cover-up which was immediately launched. It is axiomatic that since the cover-up started before the shots were fired, the order for JFK’s assassination could only have come from his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.”

By 1984, LBJ's propensity to remove obstacles by murder was finally uncovered in a Dallas Morning News headline article, e.g.

Billie Sol Estes reported that Johnson had Henry Harvey Marshall, a USDA official in charge of the federal cotton allotment detail,  killed because he had attempted to link Estes’ nefarious dealings to the then Vice-President.  While Estes ended up doing prison time, he did have his say before a grand jury (which subpoenaed him)  In the follow-up grand jury investigation, Johnson, his one-time aide Cliff Carter, and ‘Mac’ Wallace were all deemed “co-conspirators in the murder” of Marshall.

But Johnson was only one sordid piece - or cog-   in the whole undermining tapestry that has ultimately led to the massive citizen distrust in government and the democratic process we behold today. It is part of the cancer I refer to as erosion of the nation's civility and civic space.  The fact is that enormous external forces were already afoot and wary of Kennedy's policies and genuinely liberal stances on multifold issues.  Stances which, if continued, would very well threaten those interests.

For example, we now understand today that much of the rancor and sense of rebellion has been initiated with global trade pacts like NAFTA.   We now also know that the hype used by the elites to pump up support has been more a matter of manipulation of citizen consent, e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/69588/tpp-partner-jails-human-rights-blogger

But this incentive to spread a misshapen plan for global trade didn't just commence in the past 25 years. Nor did the aspiration for a genuinely fair trade system originate recently. In fact, the original importance of preserving a global trade network without sacrifice to private monopoly or multi-national power was first recognized by  John F. Kennedy in late 1962 and 1963. He made enormous efforts to stave off incipient private control of the globalization process. As Donald Gibson observes in his must-read monograph(‘Battling Wall Street – The Kennedy Presidency’, Sheridan Square Press, 1994, p. 113):

"John Kennedy declared the 1960s the decade of development. The Alliance for Progress, development aid, low interest loans, nation-to-nation cooperation, and some measure of government planning were some of the ingredients of that policy. Within a few years of Kennedy's death most of this had been abandoned. By the early 1970s, this type of effort and the optimism associated with it had vanished altogether."

The effect was that the task of implementing and governing economic adjustment was assumed by private markets. Power which has grown exponentially since the extirpation of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1973. The causal undercurrents and ideology of corporate-state global domination have been well articulated by Gibson, even from before its emergence within ten years of the Kennedy assassination (which many astute observers tie in with financial elite interests) (op. cit. P. 75):

"Kennedy's ideas.. .his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt an established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy."

Gibson goes on to point out that the vested interests within this hierarchy were similar to, "if not direct imitations of those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles, and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials." (ibid.)

It seems very plausible then, that the slaying of John F. Kennedy set the stage for a global Corporatocracy in which these same elite imperatives would be allowed to subordinate and dominate the interests and welfare of the masses. Imaginary? Take a gander at columnist Jay Bookman's view from his article "New World Disorder - Evident Here and Abroad", in The Baltimore Sun, 1998):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences. "

Let's be reminded here that Hitler's ascension, in particular, was spurred on by increasing dissatisfaction of Germans with the democratic processes of the Weimar Republic. A lot of insights have been gleaned by talks with my German sister-in-law, Krimhilde, e.g.

When I saw her earlier this year in Barbados we again talked about conditions before Hitler came to power.  Mostly, people were fed up. Fed up with the scarcity of key food items and also with the inflation.

"When a loaf of bread cost more than a week's wages it is serious" she said.

Hitler was viewed with suspicion, as Trump is now, but offered a plan, a way out, "Lebensraum"  - and Germans jumped at the chance to improve their lot. But it would mean trashing the Versailles Treaty which had been a millstone around Germans' necks.

With Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland, in 1938, the incineration of Versailles was finalized and Hitler and the Third Reich were well on the way to their ideal of expanded living space and resources.

After this diversion let's return to the global trade issue, and again, Kennedy's will to insist it be equitable. Gibson notes that the elite banking and financial interests at the time  (ibid.) "would have little tolerance for a president who interfered with their decisions or made their interests secondary to the needs of nations or of people in general."

One could say that by the time of JFK's assassination, the global tableaux had been set for eventual market domination of the world. With no other fearless national leaders to stand in the way (the last ones assassinated) the goal of worldwide subjugation of national interests to speculative capital, trans-national corporate control and personal debt could proceed apace. One merely had to await the right constellation of pro-market interests,  military consolidation and interjection, e.g.

www.tinyurl.com/CSI-Censor-1

and this was incepted in the Reagan years - reaching its culmination in the early 1990s via bi-partisan support of "Neoliberalism". 

The global trade plan was long range to be sure, but the elites had always been patient. Now they would exercise that patience and sense of noblesse oblige. Again, the payoff being a world of serfs delivered to them by their own governments. These governments themselves hamstrung by the unequal power of differing accords (i.e. GATT, NAFTA) over which they had little option other than to 'sign on'. Accords which could disembowel labor, its pensions and benefits, and lay waste to all social safety nets to protect the more vulnerable citizens. At the same time reckoning hard-won environmental laws as 'trade impediments' to be challenged in a world trade court (WTO).

Perhaps no more eloquent condemnation of this travesty arrived than from an op-ed by Ian McDonald, appearing in The Barbados NATION (Aug. 14, 1998):

Do we really believe for one moment that those who preach free trade and the inevitable triumph of market forces have anything other than their own increased wealth and aggrandizement in mind? Do we honestly believe they think the system they espouse is fundamentally a good one for all concerned? Are we so naïve as to think if, by any chance, the system were to operate against their interests, that they would not make sure it was changed or abridged to suit them? Are we so innocent and trusting that we cannot recognize bullying and crude self-interest when our noses are being rubbed in it constantly?"

Adding:

"We should cease making speech after speech accepting that our fate and the fate of the world, will inevitably be decided by impersonal, market controlled forces and the sooner we accept this the better off we will be. Instead we should be denying most strongly, in every forum available to us, that such a fate is inevitable... That instead the world deserves a better future than the one on offer from the ruthless money men and sleaze-ridden free trade marketeers, who are making this terrible bid to dominate the world."

 McDonald's writing flair exactly channeled the building rage against governments themselves for siding with elite interests to render them pawns. It prefigures today's rage and massive distrust in democratic institutions.  William Greider, in his masterful work One World Ready Or Not - The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, is blunt that the overall imperative is  ultimate abolition of all governmental, national social insurance systems - whether these be Medicare or Social Security in the United States, or the analogous systems in Germany or Barbados. In each case, the particular system to be replaced by a privatized entity able to generate individual debt, corporate profit and further income inequality.

Were there significant citizen efforts to thwart the march toward global corporate fiefdom?  Yes, and the most recent were by the young (mainly) protestors behind Occupy Wall Street.  However, once the Neoliberal security state had them in their sights, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/national-security-state-spied-on-occupy.html

The movement basically was neutralized.  Factored into this was how OWS protestors - exercising their first amendment rights- were targeted by rifles in Houston, in 2013, e.g.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what the document obtained from the Houston FBI, said as received by David Lindorff (see also: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494 )

"An identified [DELETED] as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors (sic) in Houston, Texas if deemed necessary. An identified [DELETED] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [DELETED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles."

By now, with the justified citizen efforts pummeled, rage began to mount, and malignant distrust of all government institutions as well as the Constitution itself began to take hold. They only needed a spark, and that was delivered by Edward Snowden in 2013 when the first NSA files disclosing massive overreach were released. Among the findings:

" The following information was deemed  fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards."

There existed a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, were considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database in question could identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources note the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

The tragedy of the 20th (and now 21st ) century is the tragedy of the civic commons. The gradual erosion of civil society is largely fueled by the removal of civic space (as well as civic protest)  and hence the reality that citizen interests are eclipsed by corporate and market interests, either in pursuit of state (or corporate) power, profits or both. Thus, political influence is purchased via the power of the purse, for example in lobbying, or in the current cycle via Koch brothers infusion of money to defeat policies, candidates they don't want. These vermin then write the laws subsequently enacted to favor their special interests, whether bloated defense contracts, or absurd prescription drug bills that are really corporate welfare.

Again, this isn't occurring just in the U.S. (though it has been most rapid here) but all over the world, as the Globalists clear out public space to make room for their corporate power enclaves.

If you don't know why there's such anti-government (anti-establishment) rage as well as loss of faith in the democratic process then you haven't been paying enough attention. Thus, no surprise we've seen the dominance of corporate space over civic space, paving the way for citizens to emerge as corporate serfs and pawns.

The latest blow to citizen trust in the process and in government didn't arrive by way of the TPP, NAFTA or any other global trade pact but by FBI Director James Comey's announcement yesterday to revisit Hillary Clinton's emails, this now barely ten days from the general election. As Jennifer Granholm put it last night on Chris Hayes' show:

"You can't put something out eleven days before a presidential election that has an impact on the election...I'm a former federal prosecutor and the rules related to how a prosecutor or investigator is to act in the face of an election are really quite clear. You are to limit the impact on the election. But in this case there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part."

Indeed, the case was only re-opened because files were found on sex pervert Anthony Weiner's computer which was shared by Huma Abedin, a Hillary aide while at State.   In an interview on 'Smerconish' (CNN) this morning, Matt Miller - another former prosecutor - agreed that  yes, Comey was probably worried about the Rs using it to criticize him if he waited until post-election, but added "You know, that's too bad, but you suck it up!"

On Chris Hayes 'All In' Mr. Miller also noted:

"When the FBI conducts investigations like this they're not supposed to comment on them anyway and especially not so close to an election. There's a long standing practice at DOJ that they go out of their way not to say anything close to election day, usually defined within 60 days."

Alas, the damage may already have been done, we just don't know how much. What we do know is this latest episode isn't likely to elevate citizen trust in the democratic process - even as it fuels the furor of Trumpies now convinced he was right all along in his wild accusations about election "rigging". They would be well advised to worry more about how his election would spur this country further into the global corporatocracy and render them - and the rest of us - even more abject serfs.


See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/69590/that-was-one-fucked-up-fbi-announcement

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/great-american-decline-2-globalization.html

Are American Workaholics Better Off Than Europeans? Absolutely Not!

 Workaholic Americans could take a lesson or two from the Europeans who refuse to live to work, opting instead to do the reverse .  A new study has measured precisely how much more Americans work than Europeans, overall. The answer: The average person in Europe works 19 percent less than the average person in the U.S. That’s about 258 fewer hours per year, or about an hour less each weekday. Another way to look at it: U.S. workers put in almost 25 percent more hours than Europeans.

The study was done by economists Alexander Bick of Arizona State University, Bettina Bruggemann of McMaster University in Ontario, and Nicola Fuchs-Schundeln of Goethe University Frankfurt.  One of the more unusual findings was that Swiss work habits were most similar to Americans’, while Italians are the least likely to be at work, putting in 29 percent fewer hours per year than Americans do.  The Swiss finding really isn't that mysterious given that Geneva and Switzerland itself was the springboard for Calvinism and its rigid work ethic.  (Much of which was also transported to the U.S.)

Is it any wonder then that with all the overwork (even more than the Swiss) we have a nation featuring twenty percent of citizens with moderate to severe mental disorders, nearly half of those suffering from explosive reaction syndrome, and another 5 percent with borderline personality disorder or paranoid psychosis? The latter who, when pushed to the limit,  blow up, kill fellow workers, or go berserk in other ways. As reported in one 2014 SciAm piece, after a survey of American workers, "half of the surveyed workers  confessed that they were reaching a breaking point after which they would not be able to accommodate the deluge of data."

Well, how about taking a vacation? A holiday? Time away from the damned job?  I mean real time, with no company connections, no email checking. And we're talking here of white collar workers on their electronic tethers in assorted information fields. What about the havoc in the lives of the rest of the overworked citizenry? Well, start with drug, opioid and alcohol addiction, then move on to neuroses and psychoses driven by overwork (50-60 hrs./ week)  and also (often) trying to be caretakers at the same time they meet the bosses' demands.  How do we know Americans are overworked to mental oblivion, apart from the actual hours put in?


- Over  $150 b "left on the table" each year in terms of unused vacation days

- 577 million unused vacation days each year

- 55 percent of vacation days that are taken always occur with office work taken along

WHY are Americans risking their mental health for the capitalist 0.001 percent? So the high fliers can eat even more foie gras and enjoy 18 holes on St. Kitts every month, as their wives lavish in rose wine wraps every day?  Of course, most workers will cite "fear" as the prime reason, meaning that if they take those days then they may likely return to find themselves without a job, never mind they might get ill from the added stress.

The  new study was designed to make it easier to compare countries to each other, by capturing the overall hours per person, not just for people with jobs. That incorporates not just the length of the typical workweek but also retirement, vacation, unemployment, and other time spent out of the workforce.

We also know not all time spent at the office, shop, or factory is time well spent. Output is also critical to the productivity equation, but difficult to quantify. Besides, let's not mince words, once you are in the work place you are being monitored by cameras every second you are there, whether you are a postal worker or a paper pusher. (In the latter case, keystrokes may also be measured per hour).  So it's not like you can just take 'five' every ten minutes without the boss catching on to you. In other words, if you have any sense you better be 'on' every minute you're at work.

Nevertheless, it’s important to have a reliable calculation of hours worked per person to accurately measure productivity, the amount of economic value nations get out of each hour their citizens spend working. The study’s detailed data could help researchers figure out why Americans toil so much longer than Europeans and which factors most influence productivity.

One theory is that Americans work longer hours because their additional effort is more likely to pay off. People earn a wider range of incomes in the U.S., so “workers have an incentive to try harder to move up the job ladder because a promotion is worth more,” according to Dora Gicheva, an economist at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, citing a study that compared the U.S. with Germany.

But our long time German friends,  Reinhardt and Elli (see photo below), dispute that take.

Near Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany in 2013.L-R: Me, Elli, Janice and Reinhardt

At the time we had discussions in May, 2013 with Reinhardt about the relative merits of the German and American work forces,  he'd been emphatic that the idea that promotions were "worth more" in the USA was nonsense. "Workers have just as great an incentive here in Germany", he said, because seniority is based on the quality of one's work and "that same seniority determines one's pension."  When I pressed him further he agreed that Germans aren't ruled 'by the buck' (or euro), "Jawohl, it is true that we do not consider the money to be the main determinant of our lives. We treasure time to be with family also to travel and see the world later on."

He did agree also that higher taxes are part of it and enable benefits like higher pensions, more widely distributed social insurance and child care provisions in Germany, as well as a less profit oriented healthcare system. He acknowledged that taxes in the U.S. are substantially lower than in Europe but made it clear that translated into more social benefits for Europeans. "It is interesting" he said, "but if Americans were willing to pay higher taxes they might have to pay less in healthcare costs because they could have a system more like ours, less based on profits!"

Too true!

Other studies have suggested that this higher tax burden reduces the incentive to earn more by putting in extra hours. According to Lee Ohanian, an economist at the University of California-Los Angeles.

“Americans are indeed richer than Europeans, and one reason why is because of taxes that depress the incentives to work in Europe,”

But that depends on your definition of being "richer", i.e. whether in terms of time or money. Most of our European friends value wealth in time over money wealth. As our Czech friends Martin and Gabriella told us while we dined out in Prague: "You can't take the money with you. But time can provide you with the opportunity to make real social contacts and travel, enrich your family and your life."

Czech friends Martin and Gabrielle in Prague last summer. Each of them gets up to eight weeks off from their respective jobs.

Martin told us a large part of the more civilized holiday structure in Europe was due to the relatively stronger labor unions there, along with other worker protections.  As Gabrielle, Martin's gf,  put it: "Here in Europe the companies cannot work us to death or insanity like they do people in your country. That's why we can travel our continent for weeks at a time. Your countrymen would probably feel they have to check their cell phones or emails every day or twice or more a day!"

Their views appear to be supported. Economists at Harvard and Dartmouth concluded in a 2006 study that:

 “The data strongly suggest that labor regulation and unionization appear to be the dominant factors explaining the differences between the United States and Europe,”

Meanwhile our German friends Reinhardt and Elli both agreed that generous pensions in Europe are also a strong factor in discouraging older people from working. Compare Germany where very few citizens are still on the job to the U.S., with more people over 65 working than at any point in the past 50 years.

But don't ascribe that to a "desire" of elders to go out there and hoof it until their bones break. It's because Germans still retain a proper pension system, provided by their companies (like Reinhardt's architectural design firm - allowing him to leave work at 55). Meanwhile, U.S. companies have gone from the defined benefit plan to the 401k as an ostensible alternative. But this has always been absurd.

William Wolman and Anne Colamosca in their book 'The Great 401k Hoax', (2002),  assert that the 401k was never designed as an "investment" vehicle but as a purely savings medium. It was meant to salt your money away in safe, low risk abodes - while being matched by your company to some degree- and all the while sheltered from taxes. But almost from the start of the plan, named after the section in the tax code, workers were driven to put money into stocks, mainly equities, and other high risk instruments.  Little wonder, that small fry investors in 401ks have been fried and refried, over and over again. Under such conditions, the small investor risks his money and security.

Little wonder also, with this deplorable 'bait and switch' - elders have been forced to put the pedal to the metal longer and longer. (Which, btw, IS a bad thing because their  retention of jobs means less opportunity for younger workers.)  So make no mistake that the U.S.’s shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans made it harder for Americans to know when it was safe to retire. At the same time, the constant drumbeat of the financial media to "have at least $1 million" on hand, has postponed practical retirement for too many, which they could enjoy if they just had more realistic spending expectations. In Europe they do.

One thing is clear: The difference in hours worked between Americans and Europeans is more than a difference in cultures. As recently as the early 1970s, according to several studies, people in the U.S. and Western Europe worked about the same number of hours per week. So why the change in the U.S.?  Basically, because the twin phenomena of Neoliberalism and globalization in the U.S. eroded too much worker security.

Neoliberalism, arguing that citizens must not expect economic security (including from pensions and "entitlements") reared its ugly head in the 1980s. Most won't say it, but it was Neoliberal ideology that drove the impetus to withdraw the defined pension and offer the 401 k in its place. Enough of guaranteed retiree security at the hands of companies! Then in the 1990s the globalization aspect took hold with the signing of the NAFTA deal and we know where that's led. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/krugman-loses-it-brands-bernie.html

It is also the U.S. Neoliberal mind virus driving the demand to cut Social Security, just as it is Neoliberal economics which is using a false measure of inflation to cut retirees' Social Security COLAs - effectively translating into a significant Medicare premium hike for many. So no wonder many seniors have to go back to work.  But not Reinhardt! With his $8,000 euro/month pension he is free to pursue his many hobbies, including horticulture, as well as visit many different places with wife Elli.

Another American work aspect which galls both Martin and Reinhardt is the lack of off time for illness. In contrast to the European Union, which mandates 20 days of paid vacation (the Netherlands has 26), the U.S. has no federal laws guaranteeing paid time off, sick leave or even breaks for national holidays. This is disgusting! Or to use Reinhardt's phrase: "Shrecklich!"

Both were also nonplussed to learn that  a survey by Harris Interactive found that, at the end of 2012, Americans had an average of nine unused vacation days. And in several surveys Americans have admitted that they obsessively check and respond to e-mails from their colleagues or feel obliged to get some work done in between occasional swims, and going on a sightseeing junket.

Unfortunately, it is more likely most Americans will simply use the new study to justify their workaholism, as opposed to fighting it. While we need most average American workers putting their feet down and saying 'NO More!', the odds of that happening are about the same as Trump asserting he will accept the results of the election before Nov. 8th.  So we have to face the fact that most Americans would rather remain half-sick, mentally unstable worker drones than seize that precious commodity of time to anchor their lives and families. 

Alas, because of this misplaced value system, we can expect many more to come apart at the seams in the years ahead!

Obama's Defense Of TPP: Wrong Move At Wrong Time

Sometimes - despite batting on a "losing wicket" - one has to give props. In this case they go to Obama for his defense of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal three days ago. Thus, while being the absolute wrong political move at the time he stood side by side the PM (Lee Hsien Loong) from Singapore :


and, as if Mr. Long was peering into his mind, delivered perhaps the most robust and spirited arguments on behalf of this now moribund deal.

Make no mistake that other than in Obama's mind this deal is dead on arrival. With both candidates putatively against it (and they dare not do otherwise with so much of their political support hinging on it) there is neither Repub or Demo in favor or voting for it. Politically, it's as toxic as ingesting a cyanide capsule.  That Obama still believes there's a path to passage is incomprehensible, especially now that Hillary VP pick Tim Kaine has ditched it and no Reep lawmaker wants to touch it with the proverbial ten foot pole.

Yet Obama insists he "is still President" and plans to do that and more.  Well, maybe there is another parallel universe where that happens but not this one.

The sustained resistance to the TPP has led many pundits from all the major elite news sources (WSJ, NY Times, Financial Times etc.) to question what's wrong with Trump and Sanders' supporters but their own news sources have vindicated their negative take. For example the Times three days ago, ran a piece explaining how the benefits of  past trade deals (including NAFTA)  have only redounded to roughly the top 35 percent. That means 65 percent either broke even or lost.

Jobs, in fact, have not been created - at least the decent paying ones beyond barista, Uber driver and burger flipper- and money has continued to flow out to support overseas services and manufacture.  Even the so-called "rosy" econ stats have turned out to be dodgy as reported in a recent Denver Post Business analysis ('Economic Data Miss Big Picture', June 12, p. 3K). The Post noted, for example, that the number of full time jobs has risen only 1.3 percent since 2007. By contrast, part time positions are up 12 %.

Meanwhile, incomes for the "average U.S. household" ticked up 0.7 percent from 2008 to 2014 after taking inflation into account, though the Post observes (ibid.):

"But even that scant increase reflected mainly the rise in incomes for the richest tenth of households which pulled up the average"

Most recently, the latest jobs report noted 255,000 added, included in fields as diverse as finance (18,000), professional and business services (70,000) and health care (43,000). And yet despite the growth in jobs the actual economic growth only clocked in at 1.2 percent in the 2nd quarter. The main reason? Most job wage increases with benefits and wages still only trickled down to a relatively small fraction of the working population.

In other words, unraveling the stats, most workers in the aggregate barely broke even or lost ground - certainly if only the richest tenth could make just a fractional percent increase difference. (Bear in mind the richest tenth features average incomes of $1- 1.5 million each). The take accompanying the new jobs report was that there exists a "disconnect between business investment and hiring at home". In other words, corporations are more inclined to invest overseas than in new and better jobs domestically.

So it's no surprise a lot of Americans (many of whom are Sanders or Trump supporters) haven't been feeling the joy or "greatness" heralded at the DNC. And given they haven't felt that oomph via incomes, it's no surprise they be foursquare against the TPP which stands to make their lives and those of their offspring even worse.  How so?

If passed, the TPP would expand trade over the 12- nation Asia-Pacific region - particularly removing tariffs and investment barriers. For nations like Singapore and Vietnam it's terrific, for citizens of the U.S. not so much.  For one thing, the Neoliberal order would now seat the 'dictator'  of the  marketplace  everywhere. Specifically, with the backing of big corporations such as  Halliburton, global fracking would be literally unstoppable. For example, all local bans on fracking as well as New York's ban could conceivably be challenged since the TPP would allow foreign governments to sue if fracked oil or gas quotas were not met. 

Meanwhile, Monsanto (prime producer of GMO seeds and foods) would have carte blanche over the global food supply even as Obama last Friday signed the DARK act, denying Americans the right to know what the fuck is in their food.

See, e.g.   http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/68383/how-one-gmo-nearly-took-down-the-planet


Quote:

On Friday, President Obama signed bill S.764 into law, dealing a major blow to the movement to require GMO labeling. The new law, called the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" (DARK) Act by food safety groups, has at least three key parts in it that undermine Vermont's popular GMO labeling bill and make it nearly impossible for you and me to know what's in our food.

The law claims to set a federal labeling standard by requiring food producers to include either a QR bar code that can be scanned with a phone, or a 1-800 number that consumers can call to find out whether a product contains genetically modified ingredients.  But according to the Institute for Responsible Technology, this bill doesn't require most processed foods to have a label, the bill defines genetic engineering so narrowly that most GMOs on the market don't qualify..

So basically, Obama "set the table" in expectation of the TPP's  passage. Your only hope to avoid unknowingly eating GMOs then will be to totally go organic and hope there isn't some hidden provision in the TPP (assuming if by some stretch it passes) that allows member nations to sue the U.S. for offering a food class they can't afford to produce.

Nor is this mere aimless conjecture. We know from what's been revealed thus far. Hence,  according to Public Citizen, we know that the "TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.  We also know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards . Overall, as with NAFTA before it,  the TPP will weaken domestic environmental regulations while boosting corporate power's leverage in global markets. Also, it will pressure lower wages in the U.S. since workers here will have to directly compete against workers in Vietnam who may only earn 68 cents an hour. Thus, like NAFTA, the pressure will be on to expedite a rush to the bottom - with corporations using labor in the cheapest trade partners opposed to more costly home-grown.

Also the Environmental chapter sets a terribly low bar with the measures falling way below U.S. standards for trade deals. Interested people can find out more at:

https://act.350.org/sign/congress-tpp/?gclid=CMiwvN6hssUCFZeDaQodlRgAHQ

Given the forces and major party candidates arrayed against the TPP, Obama's best move now would be to drop his crusade for passage. In the end it can only hurt the Dems and Hillary, especially if the unraveling Trump decides to use it against the D-ticket. The Republicans in the Senate also are in no disposition to help pass it, given so many of the GOP base are enraged against global trade deals.

The best bet for Obama is to drop pushing aggressively for TPP passage as part of his legacy and let Hillary carry the potential torch forward. In the latter case to perhaps "flip" later as  The Washington Post  reported  Virginia guv Terry McAuliffe blurted a week ago: i.e. "she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House". . Of course, in that case Hill might end up the first Dem one term president since Jimmy Carter.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/68501/clinton-should-tell-obama-to-withdraw-tpp-to-save-her-presidency

A Hillary Prescription For Losing In November: Pick Tim Kaine As Veep

Hillary and Hillary II: Let's hope they have good laughs now since they likely won't in November.

As Michael Moore's turn to comment came up on Bill Maher's Convention edition of Real Time last night, he provided what he himself called "the buzzkill". That is, predicting Donald Trump will win the general election - much to the boos and consternation of the lefties in the audience and on the panel (Joy Reid and Dan Savage).

Moore zeroed in on the "Brexit" in the US of A, comprising three  industrial states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their 64 electoral votes. Those 64  electoral votes were the difference between Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President in 2012 and just another loser to Obama. But this time around, as Moore explained, they could easily be grabbed by Trump - especially given all three feature Republican governors who can gin the voting rules in their favor, including via use of electronic voting machines which were a major factor in Bush winning Ohio in 2004.

Of course, the Real Time LA crowd, stoked on the triumphalism of most of the liberal press, couldn't handle it. They were in denial and averse to such awful forecasting.

Moore might be right or wrong. I personally don't believe it's a given Hillary Clinton  will lose, but that is only provided she plays her cards right and doesn't shoot herself in the foot. Right now, however, the buzz is that she will do that - by following her advisors lead and picking a Neoliberal Veep, namely Tim Kaine.

As David Swanson pointed out on smirkingchimp.com:

"Kaine was an anti-environmentalist pro-coal governor of Virginia, a supporter of the "right to work" (for less) law restricting union organizing in Virginia, and he is a supporter of corporate trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and including fast-tracking the TPP. An extremely loyal Democrat, he nonetheless criticized Democrats in 2011 for proposing higher taxes on millionaires.

Kaine is the anti-Bernie Sanders on policy and on process. He takes his direction from those in power, not from the public. In a poll of over 250 Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention (by the Bernie Delegate Network), only 2.7% of them said they thought Kaine would be an acceptable vice presidential nominee."

Kaine's support of the TPP will be one of the biggest knocks against him. Trump will hammer him and Clinton relentlessly - based on his acceptance speech tonight -  citing the horrific job losses in industrial states in the wake of trade deals starting with  NAFTA (pushed by Bill Clinton) and ending with TPP (embraced in the past by Hillary). 

Meanwhile, with another Neolib on the ticket Bernie or Bust people will not be energized enough to change their minds and certainly not to subscribe to the lesser of two evils again. They will also take a Kaine pick as not only a slap in the face, but also showing Clinton doesn't really support Bernie  Sanders

 positions or the integration of some of them into the Dem platform.

As Janice expressed immense fear tonight after Trump's speech, I observed that Hillary still has the power to avert electoral disaster. That means picking a firm liberal as Veep (Elizabeth Warren would be best) and not mucking up the debates.

We don't know yet how she will fare in the debates but her Veep pick can either be the first  powerful round fired to take down Trump in November or the first nail in her electoral coffin.  The choice is ultimately hers, and being too cautious will not get it done.

Postscript  7/23:

As predicted Clinton made just about the worst pick imaginable, cynically betting Kaine will help her "sew up" the middle when she really needed to consolidate her left flank. Now I predict that at least 20 percent of Bernie Sanders' voters will not be energized enough to show up. I believe this will translate to Clinton losses in what Michael Moore called the "Brexit" states, and lead to a narrow Trump win.  The reason is that now, without those energized left voters, it will make the election a squeaker and close enough to steal via any number of ruses we're beheld before. (Including electronic voting machine manipulations.)

It is sad, and at one point in the middle of all the misplaced cheerleading on MSNBC's 'All In'  last night, Progressive magazine editor Ruth Conniff was explaining the magnitude of Clinton's disaster. She noted it being a "slap in the face" to Sanders' voters.  She added:

"It's just a sign that Hillary does not feel like she has to do anything for the progressive wing of the party,"

 Soon after she was  terminated by a call in from Neoliberal VA governor Terry McCauliffe.

Hillary had her chance to make a huge statement and help to bring it home for the Dems and become the first female President. Alas, unless she can unleash Jack Kennedy-esque lightning in the debates, she will end up like Hubert Horatio Humphrey did in 1968.  The truth hurts, but don't expect the cheerleading media and most Dems to buy it.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/68239/does-hillary-get-it

And:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/22/clinton-inflames-progressive-base-choice-tim-kaine-vice-president

Quote: By choosing a corporatist like Kaine, Hillary has 'pulled a Lieberman. God forbid if it puts Trump in the White House.

Jeff Cohen of RootAction.org