');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Putin on Globalization, Bonehead Elites and the Ever-Shrinking Middle Class
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      Globalization is one of the great issues of our time. The erasure of national borders, the weakening of sovereign governments and the impoverishment of workers across the developed world has triggered a massive populist backlash that threatens to roll back the economic-integration scheme that places Capital at the head of a new global order. Widespread social unrest, deepening political polarization, and the relentless rise of right-wing parties have put a damper on a process aimed at transforming the world into an unregulated free trade zone overseen by Central Bankers and corporate mandarins. The future of that project is now very much in doubt.

      The basic problem with globalization is not hard to grasp. The giant corporations have outsourced millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs to low wage platforms across Asia leaving behind thousands of shuttered factories and broken communities, a sharp spike in opiate addiction, and the steady erosion of living standards. Author Paul Craig Roberts predicted Globalization’s devastating fallout 15 years ago in a series of articles at Counterpunch. Here’s an excerpt from one of those articles:

      “Corporations offshored or outsourced abroad their manufacturing output, thus divorcing American incomes from the production of the goods that they consume. The next step in the process took advantage of the high speed Internet to move professional service jobs, such as engineering, abroad. The third step was to replace the remains of the domestic work force with foreigners brought in at one-third the salary on H-1B, L-1, and other work visas.

      This process by which financial capital destroyed the job prospects of Americans was covered up by “free market” economists, who received grants from offshoring firms in exchange for propaganda that Americans would benefit from a “New Economy” based on financial services, and by shills in the education business, who justified work visas for foreigners on the basis of the lie that America produces a shortage of engineers and scientists….

      The immiseration of working people has not resulted from worsening crises of over-production of goods and services, but from financial capital’s power to force the relocation of production for domestic markets to foreign shores. Wall Street’s pressures, including pressures from takeovers, forced American manufacturing firms to “increase shareholders’ earnings.” This was done by substituting cheap foreign labor for American labor.” (“Marx and Lenin Reconsidered” Paul Craig Roberts, Counterpunch)

      In 2016, Trump’s hard-line anti-trade bombast buoyed him into the White House. Unfortunately, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. Trump sparked a furor with his trade war with China, but the gains have been minimal at best. Trump’s supporters believed he would boost tariffs and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, but that hasn’t happened and probably won’t. In truth, Trump’s trade war isn’t really aimed at helping the little guy, it’s designed to discourage forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft. It’s a gift to Silicon Valley not working people. Trump also promised to renegotiate NAFTA which he called a “nightmare” and which led to massive job losses in the US. But the new agreement makes only superficial changes to the bill that are unlikely to increase employment in the US. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal summed it up:

      “Not-So-New Nafta— At its core, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA is an amended, rebranded version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect in 1994, along with some newer provisions that the Obama administration had negotiated in a Pacific trade pact that Mr. Trump exited. Both USMCA and Nafta essentially guarantee duty-free trade and economic integration in North America….

      The bipartisan U.S. International Trade Commission said the deal will produce a tiny gain in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product—a boost of 0.35% total over the long term—in large part because USMCA removes trade-policy uncertainty for key industries.” (“USMCA: The Deal’s Been Signed, but the Debate Continue” Wall Street Journal)

      Trump’s rewriting of NAFTA is a card trick meant to fool his supporters, it’s not a serious attempt at preventing job-flight. Nor has Trump changed the government’s position on globalization, in fact, he’s intensified it. Just look at the way the administration has bullied Germany about buying gas from Russia (Nordstream), or how the Huawei executive was arrested in Vancouver, or how countries have been slammed with unilateral sanctions that are clearly forbidden under WTO rules. Wherever you look, Washington is using more coercive means to impose its own economic model on the rest of the world. The problem is not the “free market” per say, but a model of economic integration that favors a small group of western corporations who reap an unfair share of the benefits and who want to maintain absolute control over the levers of power. This is why globalization is experiencing such widespread rejection, because the rewards have mainly gone to the upper 1 percent of the population while everyone else gets table scraps. Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has spent a fair amount of time analyzing western-style globalization, had this to say:

      “Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalization, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years? China has made use of globalization to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty…. In the United States, the leading US companies, their managers, shareholders and partners – made use of these benefits. (But) The middle class in the United States has not benefited from globalization. It was left out when this pie was divided up.”

      Putin makes a good point, but it’s a point that is mainly shrugged off in the mainstream media where the noxious downside of globalization is avoided like the plague. The media has effectively banned any public discussion of a critical topic that is now driving our politics and fueling the rise of far-right populism. Fortunately, the blackout has done nothing to blunt the growing public unease with a system that has inflicted severe damage on the nation. Here’s Putin again:

      “It seems like elites don’t see the deepening stratification in society and the erosion of the middle class…(but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood. Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy. As for the claim that the fringe and populists have defeated the sensible, sober and responsible minority – we are not talking about populists or anything like that but about ordinary people, ordinary citizens who are losing trust in the ruling class. That is the problem….”

      Putin is right. Recent surveys show that confidence in democracy and public institutions has never been lower. Also, most older people now accept that standards of living will continue to drop and that their children will face a bleaker reality than they did. All this has added to the growing sense of desperation that has gripped large parts of the country and which expresses itself in feelings of powerlessness, hyper-nationalism, and seething resentment towards immigrants. Putin again:

      “People sense an ever-growing gap between their interests and the elite’s vision of the only correct course, a course the elite itself chooses. The result is that referendums and elections increasingly often create surprises for the authorities. People do not vote as the official and respectable media outlets advised them to, nor as the mainstream parties advised them to. Public movements that only recently were too far left or too far right are taking center stage and pushing the political heavyweights aside.”

      Right again. Trump ran against 7 career GOP politicians any one of who might have beaten him in normal times. But after 7 years of Obama’s fake recovery, many voters started to reject traditional politicians and turned to more extreme candidates, like Trump. Hillary faced the same anti-establishment furor. Millions of Democrats flipped sides and voted for Trump not because they didn’t notice his glaring shortcomings but because their wretched financial situation required a more radical remedy. Here’s Putin again:

      “At first, these inconvenient results were hastily declared anomaly or chance. But when they became more frequent, people started saying that society does not understand those at the summit of power and has not yet matured sufficiently to be able to assess the authorities’ labor for the public good. Or they sink into hysteria and declare it the result of foreign, usually Russian, propaganda.”

      True, again. Now that elites realize there is a broad-based rejection of their policies, particularly globalization, they wave away their critics saying ‘they just don’t appreciate the wonderful things we’re doing for them.’ Elites have gone from denial to delusion without missing a beat. But while their grasp of the problem is improving, they’re just as stubbornly opposed to changing the system as ever, which brings us back to Putin’s concluding remarks which (surprisingly) suggest the system (globalization) can be fixed with a little tweaking. Here’s what he said:

      “Back in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature. But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.

      In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organizations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, but not for everyone.” (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

      This isn’t a failure of the market, it’s a failure of the particular “hybrid” iteration of globalization that emerged following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That exploitative economic-integration model is gradually being replaced by a China-Russia model that will connect the main metropolitan cities in Asia with Europe, the Middle East and parts of Africa. The new multipolar system will safeguard nation-state sovereignty from intrusive corporate power while creating social shock-absorbers (welfare state assistance, job training, etc) that prevent the widespread wreckage that has walloped communities across the United States. Putin and Xi are determined to create a free trade regime that distributes wealth more equitably and produces fewer losers. Bravo for that.

       
      • Category: Economics • Tags: Globalization, Neoliberalism, Vladimir Putin 
      Hide 33 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
        []
      1. onebornfree says: • Website

        “Putin and Xi are determined to create a free trade regime that distributes wealth more equitably and produces fewer losers. ”

        “Free trade regime” Yup. Uh-huh. “Free trade” ? No. “Regime” Yes. If you believe any of that “free trade” twaddle, then I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in – lovely view ! 😂 “Free trade” indeed!

        “Regards” onebornfree

        • Agree: Mr. Hack
        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      2. Globalism mentality is propped up by dishonest attitudes, by covering up the disadvantages of Globalism. The globalist low-wage elites take a free, and clandestine, ride on the leftist open-border egalitarianism bandwagon.
        Lying is considered fair game for political purposes. There is no remorse, no shaming, no shunning of liars caught in the act. The US immigration act, Turkish “guest workers” who never returned from Germany, the Euro, the European Union EU, all globalism is based on lying to the average citizen to manipulate election outcomes.

        Sincerity.net

        shows that simple blatant lies are required by our media, and by political ethics codes: it is not permissible to speak or think politically incorrect facts.
        It is socially acceptable to lie to the voting public in order to avoid “racism”, “sexism” and “prejudice” against “minorities”
        If all people are equal, there is no reason to keep people out, or to harm Indians by not giving them jobs at close-to-US-wages. And speaking negatively about immigrants, outsourced Indians, or Chinese merchandise, that would be xenophobic and prejudiced.
        Thus the global Right can use these leftist PC rules to further their own selfish anti-lower-class and anti-middle-class goals.
        • Agree: Digital Samizdat
        • Replies: @goldgettin
        , @animalogic
      3. The problem is the desire to “maintain absolute control over the levers of power.” It is that uncontrolled need for power that brings every empire to its own destruction.
        https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

      4. Biff says:

        The problem is not the “free market” per say, but a model of economic integration that favors a small group of western corporations who reap an unfair share of the benefits and who want to maintain absolute control over the levers of power.

        These are called monopolies, and should be referred to as such. In fact, the description of the American economy should exclude words like “Capitalism” and “free market” and should use more correct terms such as “controlled economies” “monopoly markets” “tightly structured economic realms”

      5. The Huawei brouhaha is a fine example of the Western Oligarchy waking up to smell the coffee and realise they’ve hollowed out Western tech manufacturing so severely that we hardly make any of the equipment that, through deliberate vulnerabilities, made it possible for them to spy easily on their own people. Maybe they should figure out a globalist free-trade deal to buy Western citizens’ data from China. They’ve outsourced pretty much everything else of value, so why not intel?

        • LOL: Digital Samizdat
      6. @onebornfree

        You’re right that it’s not a free-trade regime and the author shouldn’t call it that.

        Question is, on balance, has the globalization of the past 50 years helped or harmed American workers, families, and towns? I agree with mike Whitney and Vladimir Putin that the answer is a resounding NO.

        What is your case that the globalization has, on balance, helped most Americans? This includes the outsourcing of millions of good-paying jobs that used to be in American factories. It also includes the contemporaneous settlement of TENS of millions of poorer people into the USA to compete with the newly unemployed and underemployed for the mostly lower-paying jobs that remain.

        To help you, “Americans” doesn’t mean noncitizens (legally or illegally here) and the home countries receiving their cash remittances. Nor does “Americans” mean legal fictions that are not human beings (corporations).

        Conversely, “most Americans” DOES include the majority of US Citizens who do not own any substantial amount of stock in the corporations that have profited enormously from the globalization process.

        My wife and I, thank God, do own what for us is a meaningful amount of stock in those corporations. I will keep investing until my own employments prospects dim further than they already have, or I die or retire at an advanced age. But for a great number of Americans, it was never feasible to invest much, if anything, in the stock market. How have their families and neighborhoods achieved a net benefit from this degree of globalization?

        — Your Friendly Local Former Libertarian

        PS I have no illusions that Xi cares one whit for the well-being of the American people. It’s not his job to do so, either. Whitney seems to be either naive on that score or perhaps has some other incentive to write things like that.

        • Replies: @onebornfree
        , @Anonymous
      7. Be careful about surveys showing waning ‘confidence in democracy.” Polling is propaganda, and this propaganda attempts to suppress popular revulsion by equating it with authoritarian, or Nazis, or any other vague and scary thing.

        The public has lost confidence not in democracy but in this particular regime, which is a kleptocracy propped up by a police state. No educated citizen mistakes this regime for a democracy because it fails the legal standard, free expression of the will of the electors. Wikileaks has shown us exactly how centrally-coordinated party apparatchiks thwart the will of the electors to perpetuate kleptocracy:

        https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
        https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

        Mike Whitney’s last paragraph makes it clear he understands. Despite Putin’s diplomatic language, he also understands that he’s not dealing with some abstract stage of capitalism – he’s dealing with the USG, a criminal enterprise with nukes. It’s not imperialism, it’s crime, and it’s not globalism, it’s corruption – institutionalized abuse of function and trading in influence. You will get multipolar rule of law over US kleptocrats’ dead bodies. You’re going to have to overthrow this,

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/the-cia-70-years-of-organized-crime/

        • Agree: animalogic
      8. Globalization is one of the great issues of our time. The erasure of national borders

        Except Israel.

        Globalism drowns the world while Jewish Identity & Israel remain afloat like Noah’s Ark.

      9. onebornfree says: • Website
        @RadicalCenter

        “What is your case that the globalization has, on balance, helped most Americans? This includes the outsourcing of millions of good-paying jobs that used to be in American factories. It also includes the contemporaneous settlement of TENS of millions of poorer people into the USA to compete with the newly unemployed and underemployed for the mostly lower-paying jobs that remain.”

        Why do you assume that I would be in favor of state-manufactured/planned/enforced , so-called “globalization”? [Or of state-manufactured/planned/enforced anything else, for that matter?] 🤔

        The primary reason that US companies went off shore was/is economic, in my view. The costs of manufacturing goods/services in the US, became too high because of the governments interference in the labor market [eg minimum wage laws, mandatory pensions, healthcare plans, employee firing restrictions, environmental restrictions etc.etc.] , plus ever-increasing direct [and indirect] taxation of both workers and inc’s; it eventually got to the point that most inc.s had no other choice than to relocate offshore to achieve lower labor costs, lower taxation, fewer laws [and lawsuits] etc etc. in order to remain cost competitive in their own markets .

        In short, the “doing business” environment in the US had become more and more anti-business, because of the [still ongoing despite Trump’s blather] , anti-free-market, anti-business policies off the US government.

        “My wife and I, thank God, do own what for us is a meaningful amount of stock in those corporations. I will keep investing until my own employments prospects dim further than they already have, “

        Well, in my humble opinion, if most of your savings for retirement are in stocks [ no matter how “diversified” you may think they are], your savings are very dangerously exposed right now.

        See: “The World’s Best Kept Investment Secret”:
        http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-worlds-best-kept-investment-secret.html

        Regards, onebornfree

      10. Anonymous[740] • Disclaimer says:
        @RadicalCenter

        PS I have no illusions that Xi cares one whit for the well-being of the American people. It’s not his job to do so, either. Whitney seems to be either naive on that score or perhaps has some other incentive to write things like that.

        Whitney certainly didn’t suggest that Xi is losing sleep over the fate of some random guy in the Rust Belt. As a matter of fact, he’s only mentioned at the end in the context of international trade agreements:

        Putin and Xi are determined to create a free trade regime that distributes wealth more equitably and produces fewer losers.

        International trade agreements, as the name implies, deal with inter-nation trade so the word “equitably” here refers to nations and not classes.

        The Putin’s statements in the article do suggest that he “cares” about internal wealth distribution in the West and the fact that the globalist “elites” are out of touch but that’s pure pragmatism. The Global Order they’re trying to enforce is so rotten and unstable at its core – and among their own goyim – that they’ll very likely start WW3 in a vain attempt to reach it.

        • Replies: @animalogic
      11. Yeah, when the “market” fails, or doesn’t do what they say it’s supposed to do, they always have some excuse. Oh, it’s not pure. Oh, it’s not this. Oh, it’s not that.

        Newsflash: “The Market” always “fails.” It’s designed to work that way.

      12. @onebornfree

        Good point about being too concentrated in stocks. First, our investments include a substantial component of stocks in Chinese and to a lesser extent Russian companies, not just the US, Europe, and Japan like many popular funds (including the federal government employees’ Thrift Savings Plan, which predictably offers zero stocks from China or Russia.)

        In addition, we have shifted most of our new retirement contributions from stock mutual funds to a real estate investment trust, precisely because we agree with you that it’s dangerous to be overexposed to stocks as most non-elite US investors are.

        • Replies: @onebornfree
      13. @onebornfree

        Agree with some but certainly not all of your explanation.

        Or rather, should we not have costly requirements that mandate reductions in the amount of known toxins put into our air, water, and farmland? Even a limited rights-protecting government cannot let people poison others without limit.

        It is not ideology, but chemical and biological fact that these toxins damage our bodies without our individual consent. The spewing of pollutants that harm our hearts, lungs, brains, and other organs and functions is therefore a form of aggression, if one that cannot be entirely avoided given the standard of living we want.

        And realistically, we can see how regular people fare when neither government nor employers are required or incentivized to provide medical insurance, especially for exorbitant specialties, major surgeries, and catastrophic or end-of-life care.

        A plethora of well-paying jobs and very strong labor unions can enable many workers to demand and get such insurance as part of their compensation — but when a few thousand people are allowed to own more than everyone else in America and use their enormous leverage to control our lives and “our” government, we end up no longer having many of those jobs or the ability to organize effectively to fight back.

        When we implement the system you’re talking about, we get cruelty and ever more widespread misery, with an inevitable backlash that leads to the other extreme, such as communism (forced and near-complete totalitarian collectivism).

        • Replies: @onebornfree
      14. @SINCERITY.net

        Spot on.The concern needs to be removing the

        lies,liars and the lying.Maybe,with the grace of, …a,… might return.

        Until,well,I dunno

      15. @SINCERITY.net

        “Thus the global Right can use these leftist PC rules to further their own selfish anti-lower-class and anti-middle-class goals.”
        You are correct. However, by this point its hard to discern cause & effect. These two forms of “Left / Right” are so intermingled its hard to say where one ends, the other begins. But, I will say this: the PC crowd have always been a pack of “useful idiots” regardless of how things actually developed.

        • Agree: John Regan
      16. @onebornfree

        “The primary reason that US companies went off shore was/is economic, in my view. The costs of manufacturing goods/services in the US, became too high because of the governments interference in the labor market [eg minimum wage laws, mandatory pensions, healthcare plans, employee firing restrictions, environmental restrictions etc.etc.] , plus ever-increasing direct [and indirect] taxation of both workers and inc’s; it eventually got to the point that most inc.s had no other choice than to relocate offshore to achieve lower labor costs, lower taxation, fewer laws [and lawsuits] etc etc. in order to remain cost competitive in their own markets .”

        Well done. A close to perfect expression of a Right-Libertarian viewpoint. The fact that it is factually wrong to the point of an LSD overdose is not especially important.
        There are very few governments in the world that have been as pro-business as the vast majority of US governments. Regulation or no regulation, both of them have advantaged business.
        I dont really know where to start with someone like you, but maybe check out that article mainly done at Princeton College that fairly conclusively demonstrates that the US is an Oligarchy in which the general citizens’ wishes are very rarely or never taken into account.
        Businesses globalised because they could increase profits & therefore executive pay etc. They were not “forced to” beyond the logic of a culture of profit uber alles.

        • Agree: RadicalCenter
      17. Franz says:

        “Globalization” is just a fancy word for:

        1. Outsourcing work from (a) high-performing economies to (b) low-wage economies;

        2. Corporations that do pocket the difference (“wage differential”) gotten from (b) while screwing the workers in (a).

        c. At no point was the savings passed to the consumer, nor at any point were left-behind workers treated as anything but destined-to-lose serfs. This is where “deaths of hopelessness” in the USA came from.

        d. If Putin truly wanted to put the screws to the Washington/Wall Street/London Bank triangle, he’d just spell (c) out a bit. He’s gone half-way; maybe he’s a gentleman, and hoping some independent thinkers on the Other Side pick up on his thinking.

        e. But they probably won’t listen to Putin, or anyone. For forty years now, the wage differential has made mediocrities in the financial sector rich, thus the younger ones know of no other type of “capitalism.”

        f. What (e) proves is that International Finance is, and always has been, the true enemy of small town free enterprise that builds nations. They’re different animals and always totally antagonistic.

        • Agree: RadicalCenter
        • Replies: @anarchyst
      18. @Anonymous

        “The Putin’s statements in the article do suggest that he “cares” about internal wealth distribution in the West and the fact that the globalist “elites” are out of touch but that’s pure pragmatism. The Global Order they’re trying to enforce is so rotten and unstable at its core – and among their own goyim – that they’ll very likely start WW3 in a vain attempt to reach it.”

        This is, of course, the 64 quadrillion question: do Putin & Xi truly believe that a world economy in which wealth etc is more equitably shared in both Nations & among their citizens via equitable trade, finance & employment is BETTER for ALL; or is this just a sucker’s game, more long term, of course, but essentially designed to do no more than enrich China & Russia at the expense of everyone else.

        I wish I knew the answer. But I do believe that over the long term, a rising tide that raises ALL boats is the better system, for no other reason than it creates greater stability through mutual trust. Not perfect, no, but way — way better than neoliberalism.

        If Russia & China are sincere then one fact is predominant: while the US & their various Dogs continue to control the International system, then the China/Russia system will be under never-ending attack. If the Russian Civil War is any example, such constant attack may well corrupt the most sincere of efforts.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      19. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
        @onebornfree

        “ .. in my humble opinion .. ”

        At least you may have a sense of humor. Regardless, I doubt that many people have changed their views or learned much from your comments. Have you considered asking questions, or posting something other than dorm dogma and website links?

      20. 93OU says:

        animalogic, Putin & Xi aren’t just bullshitting. The Chinese and Russia states have made binding legal commitments to progressive development of economic rights. 170 of the 192 countries in the world are with Russia and China on this, legally committed.

        https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cescr/pages/cescrindex.aspx

        The ECOSOC treaty parties are the world economic consensus, and the US is a backwater, randomly blowing shit up to stop what the whole world wants. The only reason we’re so pessimistic here is the US government propaganda miasma we suck in all the time.

        https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/openglobalrights-openpage/international-treaty-on-economic-and-social-rights-has-positive-impacts/

        Lula articulates it very well. That’s why CIA overthrew Brazil’s government in their hopeless rearguard action to fuck us over.

        https://www.brasilwire.com/an-interview-with-lula-part-one/
        https://www.brasilwire.com/an-interview-with-lula-part-two/

      21. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
        @animalogic

        Both leaders have managed to run “regimes” which improved the economic situation for the average citizen. This is especially true for Xi. What happened in China in terms of elevating people out of poverty and creating a thick middle class layer is absolutely unprecedented. So, they’re walking the talk in their own countries.

        If you’re worried that Russian and Chinese ascendancy on the global power stage might be worse for the Western goyim than what we (((have))) now, you’re not paying attention.

      22. onebornfree says: • Website
        @RadicalCenter

        “Or rather, should we not have costly requirements that mandate reductions in the amount of known toxins put into our air, water, and farmland? ”

        Do you really believe that government mandates are going to protect, or clean up the environment?

        Based on which to-date “successful” government program? : social security?, welfare?, the war on drugs?, the Iraq war? the Afghanistan war? .

        This just in: there are no government solutions to any perceived problem, including environmental pollution. In fact , government ownership of land, airspace, rivers, shorelines, forests, lakes etc. etc. is what caused most environmental abuse/pollution to date.

        I suggest you read “Why Government Doesn’t work”: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/why_govt_doesnt_work.pdf

        You might want to pay particular attention to chapter 5″ If You Were King [Dictator Syndrome]

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      23. onebornfree says: • Website
        @RadicalCenter

        Well, I hate to “burst your bubble” but:

        “Real World Fact: If you have most of/all of your savings in stocks, then you are [perhaps unwittingly] predicting the certainty of an economic environment in the course of your lifetime which will increase the value of your savings, when in actual fact there can be no guarantee that that environment will actually occur. Stocks might actually decrease in value relative to everything else over the course of your remaining lifetime!” :

        http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-worlds-best-kept-investment-secret.html

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      24. anarchyst says:
        @Franz

        Labor is never given value, but is a commodity-a “necessary evil” according to the Wall Street types and is to be minimized and marginalized at all costs.

        Adolph Hitler’s Germany monetized labor and gave it value. THAT is the reason that the jews went after Germany. Post WW1 Germany was successful in its economy due to throwing off the shackles (and shekels) of the internationalist banksters.

        Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day when the average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. His premise was not entirely altruistic as assembly line work was monotonous; a way had to be found to retain employees as well.

        Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford’s wage rates would destroy capitalism (as they knew it-those at the top reap all of the benefits while the proles are forced to live on a bare subsistence wage, due to the machinations of those at the top).

        Guess what??

        The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free, capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today-that wages must be kept to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king.

        Our “free trade” politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products.

        A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its employees well. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their public assistance (welfare) forms.

        Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an adequate wage. Employees are consumers as well. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today’s business climate.

        Henry Ford openly criticized those of the “tribe” for manipulating wall street and banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out the TRUTH.

        Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.

        Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary (and is coming) . . .

      25. @onebornfree

        I likewise hate to burst YOUR bubble, but we don’t have all our money in stocks by any means. A substantial and increasing portion is in real estate investment trusts — one focused on generating current dividend income and one focused on long-term growth.

        This is because we have come to have less long-term confidence in stocks, both in absolute terms and relative to real estate. So we agree to some extent there.

        Or does your superior knowledge lead you to believe that we should also avoid real estate because that’s going to collapse or permanently decline in value too?

        Other than stuffing actual currency under the mattress and letting in be inflated into nothingness over the decades, what do you actually specifically suggest as a retirement investment vehicle? If you think everything is hopeless the way things are trending and there is no point in investing for retirement, alright, my view is pretty bleak too, but just say that.

        Knocking down other people’s ideas is fun; I enjoy it too. But at some point you need to propose your own. You are an intelligent guy who has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about these issues, so I seriously want to know what you do to prepare for retirement and what you advise.

        Hey, if nothing else, ostensibly we can agree that it is a darn good idea to stockpile water, ammunition, canned vegetables, batteries, and basic medical supplies and medication, and to move out of larger cities (without waiting for retirement to do so). I would also have one’s children acquire fluency in the language of some other country where they might establish contacts as legal residency and flee if necessary: we are doing that with our children (how about your children?). Not being sarcastic here.

        • Replies: @onebornfree
      26. @onebornfree

        I read it years ago, a copy autographed by Harry Browne himself, the well-intentioned schmuck. As a younger man, I met him and voted for him on the LP ticket when I was also a libertarian, almost anarchist, ideologue as well.

        The extreme version of that philosophy sounds great when you’re young, perfectly healthy, and reasonably well off or shielded by family resources, and harbor the delusion that you will stay that way forever.

        In any system, human beings are the problem. They will too often use whatever power they can get over other people — explicitly coercive government power or effectively dominating economic power — to control, exploit, and harm other people.

      27. onebornfree says: • Website
        @RadicalCenter

        “I likewise hate to burst YOUR bubble, but we don’t have all our money in stocks by any means. A substantial and increasing portion is in real estate investment trusts —”

        I already understood that from your previous post 🙂. Perhaps I should have originally added:

        “The exact same principle applies if you have most of your savings/investments tied up in real estate, art, a business, oil, or anything else.” which is what I go on to say at the link I previously gave.

        Other than stuffing actual currency under the mattress and letting in be inflated into nothingness over the decades, what do you actually specifically suggest as a retirement investment vehicle? “

        Generally speaking, [and being deliberately vague],complete diversification . I often get into the general application of that theory at my free[!] to read blog. For example:

        http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2016/11/speculations-got-money-you-can-afford.html

        Beyond that blog I do not give free advice to _anyone_ [especially to strangers on message boards 😉- and in any case, why would anyone take seriously such free advice on message boards, in the first place? ].

        I can/will only advise non-clients in very general terms, by referring them to specific blog posts, mostly.

        Ultimately, investing/saving is all about personal assumptions, beliefs and psychology. So if you currently believe that you are fully protected via your current savings/investment plans, there is nothing I could say here to change your mind.

        Unfortunately, the only way you [or anybody] will find out that your savings plans did not work is via direct real world experience at some point in the future, when/if your plan fails to protect your savings as well as you originally assumed it would.

        Hopefully you’ll be lucky and that day never arrives- however, if it does and you start to seriously question the safety/validity of your stocks/real estate diversification plan, then you can contact me via my blog, and I’ll see if I can help you.

        Hey, if nothing else, ostensibly we can agree that it is a darn good idea to stockpile water, ammunition, canned vegetables, batteries, and basic medical supplies and medication, and to move out of larger cities “. Absolutely!

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      28. onebornfree says: • Website

        “In any system, human beings are the problem. They will too often use whatever power they can get over other people — explicitly coercive government power or effectively dominating economic power — to control, exploit, and harm other people.”

        So, “we” need even more government, right?

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      29. @onebornfree

        I don’t think I’m fully protected in my retirement planning, and never said I was. Nor am I “fully” protected and confident in the security of my country’s economic and social future, both of which I’d guess are pretty bleak. Nobody is or can be, especially now. Including you.

        If you advocate buying and keeping a store of precious metals, can you at least say that without us becoming paying clients? Same question for foreign currencies. Same question for bitcoin and like cryptocurrencies. Yeesh.

        • Replies: @onebornfree
      30. @onebornfree

        So we need even more economic (and thus political) power concentrated in ever fewer people’s hands, right? Because they won’t use that power to harm and control and grind down the great mass of their fellow man, right?

        This can go on all day.

        Perhaps none of us should be too doctrinaire and confident of having found “the perfect system”? Anarchy and the rule of the strongest or richest ain’t it. I met and spoke with Murray Rothbard, for example, as a younger guy, and he no longer seems convincing or realistic past a certain point, either.

      31. onebornfree says: • Website
        @RadicalCenter

        “If you advocate buying and keeping a store of precious metals, can you at least say that without us becoming paying clients? Same question for foreign currencies. Same question for bitcoin and like cryptocurrencies. Yeesh.”

        “Us”? How many of you are there? 🤔

        As I already explained, I have some free generalized information about asset allocation principles [stocks,bonds, gold, crypto, currencies etc. etc. ]at my blogsite. For example:

        ” Got Money You Can Afford To Lose?[How to Safely Profit In Stocks,Gold,Crypto’s etc.]”:
        http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2016/11/speculations-got-money-you-can-afford.html

        Sorry, but I have no more free information beyond those various posts at this time.

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
      32. Antiwar7 says:

        All systems can be subverted. The problem is who the leaders are. Unfortunately, the US leadership is pure evil. It seems like the Chinese and Russian leaders care at least somewhat for the little people.

      33. @onebornfree

        (in best Amityville House of Horror voice) “We are Legion…..”

        Nah, “we” means my wife and I, because we make investment choices and all other decisions together.

        I’ll go to your website again. Thanks, man, and good luck (not sarcasm).

      Current Commenter
      says:

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS