Drivers of the Great Housing Boom-Bust: Credit Conditions, Beliefs, or Both? -- by Josue Cox, Sydney C. Ludvigson
Two potential driving forces of house price fluctuations are commonly cited: credit conditions and beliefs. We posit some simple empirical calculations using direct measures of credit conditions and beliefs to consider their potentially distinct roles in house price fluctuations at the aggregate level. Changes in credit conditions are positively related to the fraction of riskier non-conforming debt in total mortgage lending, while measures of beliefs are unrelated to this ratio. Credit conditions explain quantitatively large magnitudes of the variation in quarterly house price growth and also predict future house price growth. Beliefs bear some relation to contemporaneous house price growth but have little predictive power. A structural VAR analysis implies that shocks to credit conditions have quantitatively important dynamic causal effects on house price changes.
Organizing Global Supply Chains: Input Cost Shares and Vertical Integration -- by Giuseppe Berlingieri, Frank Pisch, Claudia Steinwender
We study whether and how the technological importance of an input - measured by its cost share - is related to the decision of whether to "make" or "buy" that input. Using detailed French international trade data and an instrumental variable approach based on self-constructed IO tables, we show that French multinationals vertically integrate those inputs that have high cost shares. A stylized incomplete contracting model with both ex ante and ex post inefficiencies explains why: technologically more important inputs are "made" when transaction cost economics type forces (TCE; favoring integration) overpower property rights type forces (PRT; favoring outsourcing). Additional results related to the contracting environment and headquarters intensity consistent with our theoretical framework show that both TCE and PRT type forces are needed to fully explain the empirical patterns in the data.
Geographical Roots of the Coevolution of Cultural and Linguistic Traits -- by Oded Galor, Omer Ozak, Assaf Sarid
This research explores the geographical origins of the coevolution of cultural and linguistic traits in the course of human history, relating the geographical roots of long-term orientation to the structure of the future tense, the agricultural determinants of gender bias to the presence of sex-based grammatical gender, and the ecological origins of hierarchical orientation to the existence of politeness distinctions. The study advances the hypothesis and establishes empirically that: (i) geographical characteristics that were conducive to higher natural return to agricultural investment contributed to the existing cross-language variations in the structure of the future tense, (ii) the agricultural determinants of gender gap in agricultural productivity fostered the existence of sex-based grammatical gender, and (iii) the ecological origins of hierarchical societies triggered the emergence of politeness distinctions.
Authored by Fred Reed via Fred On Everything blog, I have followed China’s development, its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy, its rapid scientific progress. Coming from nowhere it now runs neck and neck with the US in supercomputers, does world-class work in genetic engineering and genomics (the Beijing Genomics Institutes), quantum computing and quantum radar, in scientific publications. It lags in many things, but the speed of advance, the intense focus on progress, is remarkable. Recently, after twelve years away, I returned for a couple of weeks to Chungdu and Chong Quing, which I found amazing. American patriots of the lightly read but growly sort will bristle at the thought that the Chinese may have political and economic systems superior to ours, but, well, China rises while the US flounders. They must be doing something right. In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large economic surplus, allowing it to invest heavily in infrastructure and in resources abroad. America runs a large deficit. China invests in China, America in the military. China’s infrastructure is new, of high quality, and growing. America’s slowly deteriorates. China has an adult government that gets things done. America has an essentially absentee Congress and a kaleidoscopically shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House. America cannot compete with a country far more populous of more-intelligent people with competent leadership and the geographic advantage of being in Eurasia. Washington’s choices are either to start a major war while it can, perhaps force the world to submit through sanctions, or resign itself to America’s becoming just another country. Given the goiterous egos inside the Beltway Bubble, this is not encouraging. To compare the two countries, look at them as they are, not as we are told they are. We are told that dictatorships, which China is, are nightmarish, brutal, do not allow the practice of religion or freedom of expression and so on. The usual examples are Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and North Korea, of whom the criticisms are true. By contrast, we are told, America is envied by the world for its democracy, freedom of speech, free press, high moral values, and freedom of religion. This is nonsense. In fact the two countries are more similar than we might like to believe, with America converging fast on the Chinese model. The US is at best barely democratic. Yes, every four years we have a hotly contested presidential election, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. The public has no influence over anything of importance: the wars, the military budget, immigration, offshoring of jobs, what our children are taught in school, or foreign or racial policy We do not really have freedom of speech. Say “nigger” once and you can lose a job of thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Isreal, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or transexuals. The media strictly prohibit any criticism of these groups, or anything against abortion or in favor of gun rights, or any coverage of highly profitable wars that might turn the public against them, or corruption in Congress or Wall Street, or research on the genetics of intelligence. Religion? Christianity is not illegal, but heavily repressed under the Constitutionally nonexistent doctrine of separation of church and state. Surveillance? Monitoring of the population is intense in China and getting worse. It is hard to say just how much NSA monitors us, but America is now a land of cameras, electronic readers of license plates, recording of emails and telephone conversations. The tech giants increasingly censor political sites, and surveillance in our homes appears about to get much worse. Here we might contemplate Lincoln’s famous dictum, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Being a politician, he did not add a final clause that is the bedrock of American government, “But you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.” You don’t have to keep websites of low circulation from being politically incorrect. You just have to tell the majority, via the mass media, over and over and over, what you wnat them to believe. The dictatorship in China is somewhat onerous, but has little in common with the sadistic lunacy of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. In China you do not buck the government, propaganda is heavy, and communications monitored. If people accept this, as most do, they are free to start businesses, bar hop, smoke dope (which a friend there tells me is common though illegal) engage in such consumerism as they increasingly can afford and lead what an American would call normal lives. A hellhole it is not. Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America’s racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime. America’s huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics. In short, China does not appear to be in irremediable decadence. America does. An intelligent dictatorship has crucial advantages over a chaotic pseudo-democracy. One is stability of policy. In America, we look to the next election in two, four, or six years. Businesses focus on the next quarter’s bottom line. Consequently policy flipflops. One administration has no interest in national health care, the next administration institutes it, and the third wants to eliminate it. Because policies are pulled and hauled in different directions by special interests–in this case Big Pharma, insurance companies, the American Medical Association, and so on–the result is an automobile with five wheels, an electric motor but no batteries, and a catalytic converter that doesn’t work. After twenty-four years, from Bush II until Trump leaves, we will neither have nor not have national health care. China’s approach to empire is primarily commercial, America’s military. The former turns a profit without firing a shot, and the latter generates a huge loss as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission via tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, and so on. Whether it will work, or force the rest of the world to band together against America, remains to be seen. Meanwhile the Chinese economy grows. America builds aircraft carriers. China builds railroads, this one in Laos. A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the road. If some massive engineering project will produce great advantages in thirty years, but be a dead loss until then, China can just do it. And often has. When I was in Chengdu, Beijing opened the Hongkong–Zhuhai-Macau oceanic bridge, thirty-our miles long. The bridge. The US would take longer to decide to build it than the Chinese took actually to build it. In the US? California wants high-speed rail from LA to San Fran. It has talked and wrangled for years without issue. The price keeps rising. The state can’t get rights of way because too many private owners have title to the land. Eminent domain? Conservatives would scream about sacred rights to property, liberals that Hispanic families were in the path, and airlines would bribe Congress to block it. America does not know how to build high-speed rail and hiring China would arouse howling about national security, balance of payments, and the danger to motherhood and virginity. There will be no high speed rail, there or, probably, anywhere else. Wreckage from the 8.0 earthquake. This is not un-repaired devastation but, weirdly, is kept as a tourist attraction and actually propped up so it won’t collapse further. Phredfoto. China has a government that can do things: In 2008 an 8.0 quake devastated the region near the Tibetan border, killing, according to the Chinese government, some 100,000 people. Buildings put up long before simply collapsed. Some years ago everything–the town, the local dam, and roads and houses–had been completely rebuilt, with structural steel so as, says the government, to withstand another such quake. Compare this with the unremedied wreckage in New Orleans due to Katrina. Here we come to an important cultural or philosophical difference between the two countries. Many Orientals, to include the Chinese, view society as a collective instead of as a Wild West of individuals. In the East, one hears sayings like, “The nail that stands up is hammered down,” or “The high-standing flower is cut.” Americans who teach school in China report that students will not question a professor, even if he spouts arrant nonsense to see how they will react. They are not stupid. They know that the Neanderthals did not build a moon base in the early Triassic. But they say nothing. This collectivism, highly disagreeable to Westerners (me, for example) has pros and cons. It makes for domestic tranquility and ability to work together, and probably accounts in large part for China’s stunning advances. On the other hand, it is said to reduce inventiveness. There may be something to this. If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters. As nearly as I, a non-expert, can tell, there is more variety and imagination in the Corcoran Gallery’s annual exhibition of high-school artists than in all of of Chinese paining. People alarmed at China’s growth point out hopefully that the Chinese in America have not founded Googles or Microsofts. No, though certainly have founded huge companies: Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent, for example. However, the distinction between inventiveness and really good engineering is not always clear, and the Chinese are fine engineers. With American education crashing under the attacks of Social Justice Warriors, basing the future on a lack of Chinese imagination seems maybe a bit too adventurous.
Both China and USA are empires. Half of China territory is occupied territories of other countries like Tibet and the Western New Territories. These require a massive military and police expenditures. USA has to deal with millions of diverse people that hate their own country and cost tons of money... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://FinanceArmageddon.blogspot.com or http://lindseywilliams101.blogspot.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation, The G20 summits are nominally about how the world’s biggest national economies can cooperate to boost global growth. This year’s gathering – more than ever – shows, however, that rivalry between the US and China is center stage. Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon days are a bygone era. Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has been issuing furious ultimatums to China to “change its behavior”. Washington is threatening an escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic policies. President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices. Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports. The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China’s ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the “lessons of history” show trade wars can lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to seek a negotiated settlement of disputes. The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It’s like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China’s power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China’s domain of Eurasia. For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment. It’s an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington’s tutelage. In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its “exceptional” virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law. In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power. The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt. That’s not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China’s economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth. Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism “threatening” US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. Washington’s rhetoric about “standing up to China” is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn’t mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment. One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington’s shibboleths about “free Taiwan”, more and more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China’s position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric, whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And respecting Beijing’s sensibilities is for them a prudent option. A recent report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to surpass the US as the world’s top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China’s population were living in “extreme poverty”, according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation. China’s strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades. American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China’s economic policies as creating “debt traps” for other countries. But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China’s dynamic leadership. Arguably, Beijing’s vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster – China. One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow rejuvenate American society. It’s not going to happen. That’s not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated. It could, as it could also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving democratic regeneration. The “good old days” of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as with the European empires, is obsolete. That’s the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire. What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few. If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war.
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, A productive national Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite. If you ask America's well-paid punditry to define America's National Strategy, you'll most likely get the UNESCO version: America's national strategy is to support a Liberal Global Order (LGO) of global cooperation on the environment, trade, etc. and the encouragement of democracy, a liberal order that benefits all by providing global security and avenues for cooperation. This sounds good, but it overlooks the Endless Wars (tm) and global meddling that characterize America's realpolitik dependence on force, which it applies with a ruthlessness born of America's peculiar marriage of exceptionalism and naivete. The happy UNESCO story also overlooks the rapacious incoherence of America's political system which is ultimately nothing but the Corporatocracy's advocacy of self-interest. This sytem is based on the bizarre notion that private-sector corporations with revolving-doors to central state agencies lobbying for state protection of their monopolies will magically benefit the entire populace. This absurd idea that the single-minded pursuit of maximizing private gain by any means available will magically benefit society is the essence of neofeudalism: the financial and political nobility maximize their take and justify this exploitation with airy assurances to the politically impotent debt-serfs that this systemic predation magically offers up the best possible outcome for the peasantry. Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is the best possible world for America's peasantry, let's switch places, Mr. Financial Noble: you take my student loan debt and $30,000 a year job and I'll take your $100 million private-wealth managed accounts in tax havens around the world, your private access to politicos and the Gulfstream on the tarmac. The no-holds-barred pursuit of self-enrichment by the Nobility is America's real-world national strategy: a system of institutionalized greed lacking any actual strategy. America's citizenry deserves better, and the place to start is to discuss a real strategy rather than justify self-serving elites' parasitic predation as "good for everyone" via PR magic. Let's start by distinguishing force and power. This is a key discussion in my new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic. It’s instructive to recall Edward Luttwak’s distinction between force and power in his book The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third where he defines force as a mechanical input (expense) that doesn't scale; it takes a lot of people, effort and treasure to force others to comply with authoritarian edicts. Power, on the other hand, reflects the total output of the nation-state: its productive capacity, resources, human and financial capital, social mobility and cohesiveness, shared purpose--everything. Technocrats take their authority to force compliance as power, but real power attracts cooperation; it has little need for force. Brute-force diktats to maintain a surface stability of order only increase the brittleness and fragility of the system. This is the false promise of authority: we can force stability by forcing compliance. But sustainable stability is the output of adaptability, i.e. productive disorder, not force. A national strategy that truly benefits all the citizenry starts with a simple principle: offer a secure level playing field for innovators, innovation and capital, and let that power attract opt-in cooperation of the most productive elements on the planet. Simple principle #2: relinquish force and seek power, as defined above. In plain language: stop trying to run the world. Lead by example: there is no way authoritarian regimes can match the output of productive people and capital who are offered a low-cost entry to a secure level playing field free of parasitic predatory elites. Simple principle #3: define American exceptionalism as the systemic elimination of the neofeudal dominance of financial and political elites (the New Nobility). The structure to do this is simple: A productive National Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite. * * * My new book on these topics is available at a 28% discount for the ebook and 23% discount for the print edition through November 30 ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print). Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic is 23% off ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print): Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Some friends on Facebook and elsewhere have recently been discussing historian Quinn Slobodan’s Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Many of them have found fault with it. San Jose State University economics professor Jeff Hummel, who is not on Facebook, has listened to the whole book and sent me his reactions. I found them interesting because they are a critical review: critical, not just in the sense that Jeff criticizes, but also in the more general sense: Jeff also finds virtues in the book. I confess that I have not read the book yet. But when I’ve read books that Jeff has sent me reviews of, I have generally found myself in 90+ percent agreement with his evaluations. Jeff has given me permission to post an edited version of his thoughts. Before getting to them, though, I’ll give the thumbnail summary on the book, the first paragraph of the publisher’s (Harvard University Press) three-paragraph summary: Neoliberals hate the state. Or do they? In the first intellectual history of neoliberal globalism, Quinn Slobodian follows a group of thinkers from the ashes of the Habsburg Empire to the creation of the World Trade Organization to show that neoliberalism emerged less to shrink government and abolish regulations than to redeploy them at a global level. [bold in original.] Here’s Jeff. I’ve now finished listening to Quinn Slobodian. I found it fascinating. I then re-read the draft of Phil Magness’s review and was again impressed. [DRH note: Phil’s review, which Jeff and I gave him comments on, will be published in a forthcoming issue of Reason.] Phil uncovered flaws and weaknesses in the book that I would have otherwise totally missed. Without taking anything away from Phil’s review, here is my perspective on certain questions. Slobodian uncovers a lot of interesting historical details. One is that the Austrians early emphasized economic statistics before rejecting them. Despite the fact that Slobodian is not economically literate, the only strikingly offensive chapter is the conclusion. As an example of Slobodian’s economic ignorance, the most important weakness in the book is that he treats free trade as if it was being promoted exclusively by what he terms the “Geneva School.” In fact, as you well know, the desirability of free trade is one of the issues on which there is almost universal consensus among economists. [DRH note: See the article “Free Trade” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and see my reference to this consensus in my Preface to the Encyclopedia. Note: with the redesign of the page, I can’t find the Preface.] This blindness distorts the book’s entire narrative. Like Nancy MacLean in Democracy in Chains, Slobodian tries to paint the economists he is discussing as anti-democratic, although he does this much more subtly and honestly than she. But that still leaves him caught in the same vagueness and inconsistency about what the term “democracy” actually means. He repeatedly treats democracy and the rule of law as if they were totally contradictory concepts. (He is also quite confused about the concept of “rights.”) On the split between Friedrich Hayek and Wilhelm Ropke, Slobodian says a lot about the split from the perspective of Ropke. This split foreshadowed and paralleled the later libertarian-conservative split. Slobodian occasionally cites predictions made by such free-market economists as P.T. Bauer about the consequences of certain policies. But his tone suggests that he sees these predictions as mere polemical flourishes to promote an agenda. What is interesting, and bizarre, is how oblivious Slobodian is to the obvious fact that subsequent events fully validated many of the predictions. One thing Slobodian does bring out clearly is the inconsistency of developed countries, especially the United States, when pushing free trade on less developed countries through the GATT and the WTO. They repeatedly made exceptions for their own policies that violate the principle, especially with respect to agricultural subsidies. As far as I can tell, Slobodian covers Hayek’s writings on constitutionalism and the rule of law well and fairly. In fact, for an unbiased reader, he may even make Hayek’s views attractive. I admit I could be mistaken, since I’ve never read much of Hayek’s writings on these subjects. It is a theme of his later thought that I never found interesting or valuable. And Slobodian’s discussion actually reinforces my assessment. (1 COMMENTS)
© Официальный сайт Минфина России
Living with HIV is possible and, as World AIDS Day approaches, Jussie Smollett delves deep into the issue on screen and in real life.
Factor Investing: Get Your Exposures Right! François Soupé (BNP Paribas Asset Management), et al. October 26, 2018 This paper is devoted to the question of optimal portfolio construction for equity factor investing. The first part of the paper focusses on how to make sure that a given equity portfolio has the targeted factor exposures, even […]
Authored by James Petras via The Unz Review, US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder Introduction Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008 – 2009. This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political consequences. In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes inherent in mass popular movements. The Iraq War and the US Public In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or approval. March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in December 2011. President Obama’s declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit popular agreement. Several questions arise: Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue? Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama’s ending of the war in 2011? Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to secure the peace? The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse Presidential and Pentagon war policies. The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that they were part of a global movement which could succeed. Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton’s war against Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of the 1990’s. The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the events to proclaim a global ‘war on terror’, yet the mass popular movements interpreted the same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East. Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a ‘build-up’ which could prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials’ claims that Iraq, weakened and encircled, was stocking ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to attack the US. Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a greater threat from the White House’s resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot Act. Washington’s rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass base. Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home. With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones—Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan. The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed and disoriented. While most opposed Obama’s ‘new’ and ‘old wars’ they struggled to find new outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton. The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest Denied In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild speculative profiteering. In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval. Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015) rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The ‘popular will’ was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal financing for co-operatives and community banks. Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers. Conclusion: What is to be Done? Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have not been sustained and the reasons are clear: they lacked political organization which would go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies. The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama’s presidency the US was engaged in seven wars. By the second year of Trump’s Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia, Iran and other ‘enemies’ of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the ‘opinion’ barely rippled in the mid-term elections. Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party. Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national. The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided. Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime. Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?
Europe Understood That Lincoln Did Not Fight A War To End Slavery But For Empire https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/how-europeans-viewed-the-war/ The post Europe Understood That Lincoln Did Not Fight A War To End Slavery But For Empire appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.
Authored by Robert Wheeler via Daisy Luther's Organic Prepper blog, Over the past few months, there has been a steady uptick in the number of countries dumping significant portions of their dollar holdings. This is causing many people to worry whether or not the US economy is in for a massive shock sooner, later, or somewhere in between. While American corporate media outlets either ignore the developments entirely or claim that there is nothing to worry about, the reality is that the dumping of the dollar is a process that is clearly underway. More than that, it appears it is a process that is at least partially coordinated by a number of countries that have been targets of American sanctions and financial bullying in the “post 9/11 world.” Thus, while corporate media outlets ignore the vanishing dollar dominance and reassure their hapless audience that everything is fine, alt media outlets are predicting a second Weimar Republic, this time in North America. But what is really going on with the recent dollar dumping? Who is actually dumping the dollar and what kind of effects could we really expect to see in America if the dollar is truly abandoned? Who Is Dumping The Dollar? Since the dollar currently enjoys its status as the world’s reserve currency, it is constantly being bought and sold by nations across the entire planet. This arrangement is essentially what is keeping the dollar strong even after the United States embraced neo-liberal Free Trade policies that saw the greatest economic system the world has ever known turned into a shell of its former self. This arrangement allows the United States to sell its “debt” to the rest of the world, which other countries are willing to buy because of the stability of the American governmental system and the fact that America is still an economic powerhouse. But as the US stretches its military and financial forces thin in the course of expanding its empire across the world, the collapse of that empire looms and, with it, increasingly jittery feet from countries desiring to make prudent financial decisions. For countries tired of being victims of the empire, those who desire a “multipolar” world, and those seeking to expand their own empires, however, the smell of blood is wafting through the air. China, the emerging and competing empire, has already started the process of dumping the American dollar in a careful and coordinated fashion. This is particularly concerning since China holds so much of America’s debt and so many US dollars. If China dumped all of its holdings at once, America would likely enter a new financial crisis. Fortunately for Americans, however, such an immediate move would also throw China into a crisis which is most likely the main thing holding China back. But make no mistake. China is moving forward with the plan of relieving itself of the dollar. After all, the country recently inked a deal to trade oil in yuan instead of the dollar. “Mainland it is laying the ground for the Belt and Road Initiative, and China is even sweetening the pot by offering swap facilities to local countries to promote the use of the yuan,” Stephen Innes, Head of FX Trading for OANDA in Asia Pacific told RT. Indeed, it appears that developing country-to-country trading mechanisms are emerging as well which will eventually subvert the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Interestingly enough, the development of such a system is a result of aggressive Americans sanctions and financial bullying over the past few decades. The United States maintains sanctions on all of its target nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, and others. But the US also threatens its “allies” with sanctions if they dare act rationally on the world stage or refuse to follow American dictates. As a result, America is sanctioning itself into isolation and creating a world where it has taken its ball and gone home so many times that the rest of the kids realize it’s possible and even easier to just play the game without the American bully on the field. India is also slowly moving away from the dollar. Recently, it announced that it would be paying for the Russian S-400 system (important in its own right) and settling the payment in rubles, not dollars. But it’s not just the development of country-to-country financial/trading mechanisms. Other countries have been slowly dumping the dollar outright. In fact, China has done that also. Take a look at a recent report from RT detailing how China just dumped the largest amount of Treasuries in 8 months. The article states, In September, China’s share of US Treasuries holdings had the highest decline since January as ongoing trade tensions with Washington forced the world’s biggest economy to take measures to stabilize its national currency. Still the biggest foreign holder of the US foreign debt, China slashed it’s share by nearly $14 billion, with the country’s holdings falling to $1.15 trillion from nearly $1.17 trillion in August, according to the latest data from the Treasury Department. The fall marks the fourth straight month of declines. China is followed by Japan, whose share of US Treasuries fell to $1.03 trillion, the lowest since October 2011. Washington has accelerated the Treasury issuance to avoid potential growth in the federal deficit due to the massive tax cut pushed by President Donald Trump, as well the federal spending deal approved by the government in February. Chinese purchases of US state debt have been decreasing over recent months. The latest drop comes on top of the escalating trade conflict between Beijing and Washington over trade imbalance, market access, and alleged stealing of US technology secrets by Chinese corporations. So far, the US has imposed tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and Beijing retaliated with tariffs on $60 billion of US goods and stopped buying American crude. China has been steadily dumping US dollar holdings over the past several months and Japan has followed suit. As RT reported last month, China and Japan – the two main holders of the US Treasury securities – have trimmed their ownership of notes and bonds in August, according to the latest figures from the US Treasury Department, released on Tuesday. China’s holdings of US sovereign debt dropped to $1.165 trillion in August, from $1.171 trillion in July, marking the third consecutive month of declines as the world’s second-largest economy bolsters its national currency amid trade tensions with the US. China remains the biggest foreign holder of US Treasuries, followed by long-time US ally Japan. Tokyo cut its holdings of US securities to $1.029 trillion in August, the lowest since October 2011. In July, Japan’s holdings were at $1.035 trillion. According to the latest figures from the country’s Ministry of Finance, Japanese investors opted to buy British debt in August, selling US and German bonds. Japan reportedly liquidated a net $5.6 billion worth of debt. Liquidating US Treasuries, one of the world’s most actively-traded financial assets, has recently become a trend among major holders. Russia dumped 84 percent of its holdings this year, with its remaining holdings as of June totaling just $14.9 billion. With relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point in decades, the Central Bank of Russia explained the decision was based on financial, economic and geopolitical risks. Turkey is also backing away from the dollar, having dropped out of the “top-30 list of holders of American debt.” This probably has more to do with Turkey finally coming to the realization that the US was engaging in “hamburger diplomacy” and has no real allegiance to Turkey accept as a vassal state. The failed military coup in the country and the US arming of Kurdish forces in Syria have done nothing but push Turkey toward Russia. India remains in the top 30 holder list but it has cut its holdings for five straight months. As would be expected, Russia has been consistently moving forward not only to dump the dollar in a responsible manner but also to make its financial system more distinctly Russian and less dependent upon the whims of the Anglo financier arrangement. Again, RT writes, One of Russia’s largest banks, VTB is seeking to decrease the share of US dollar transactions at home as locals are choosing the Russian ruble over the greenback. “There is one interesting thing I wanted to highlight. Since the beginning of this year, people seem to be less interested in making dollar deposits or taking out dollar loans, compared to ruble-denominated deposits and loans. We believe this to be an important step towards the de-dollarization of the Russian finance sector,” said VTB head Andrey Kostin at a Kremlin meeting with President Vladimir Putin. According to Kostin, VTB experts have drafted a package of proposals designed to further promote the ruble in international settlements. “I think that we need to create our own financial tools. This would serve as an additional safeguard for the Russian financial sector against external shocks, and would give a new impetus to its development,” Kostin added. The financial tools Kostin mentioned are floating Eurobonds, shares and other derivatives that are now used only in the West. Russia has been seeking the ways of decreasing the dependence on the US currency after Washington and its allies imposed sanctions against Moscow in 2014. In May, President Putin said Russia can no longer trust the US dollar-dominated financial system since America is imposing unilateral sanctions and violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Putin added that the dollar monopoly is unsafe and dangerous for the global economy. It is important to remember that Russia has also dumped $47bn worth of Treasury bonds, dumping nearly half of its holdings at once. What Happens If The Dollar Loses Its Status? So why is this concerning? What would happen if the dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency? The truth is, no one fully knows exactly what such a situation would look like and it would depend on a number of factors such as how quickly the dollar is abandoned by the world, the action taken by the US government in response, and the economic situation of the country once the dollar is unseated. Despite mainstream claims, we’ve never really been in this specific situation before. Other countries have seen their currency used as the de facto world reserve but, when their time was up, there were also many other factors at play and the world financial system was less intertwined than it is today. Still, although we may not know the specifics, we do have a general idea of what would happen. First, Americans are going to lose the convenience of being able to use their currency just about anywhere in the world, both on a business and individual level. That’s not such a big deal on the individual level though it may cause a few hiccups for mid-sized businesses. Second, interest rates will most assuredly go up. This is going to make it harder for businesses and individuals to pay back any loans they may have received to start or maintain their businesses, buy a home or car, and it will stifle economic growth and it is going to make more people hesitate to request those loans knowing that interest rates will be so high. Third, and perhaps the most dangerous, is the potential for widespread inflation and devaluing of the currency. Loss of world reserve status will undoubtedly lower the value of the dollar. The question, however, is whether that devaluation would occur slowly over a period of years or even decades or whether it would take place within months, weeks, or days. Obviously, the former would be preferable if the dollar does have to be unseated because it would at least allow time for Americans to brace themselves and to prepare and innovate for the coming devaluation that would gradually get worse. In some cases, American exports might even be helpful for some American exports (though not helpful in terms of wages – competing via lower living standards is a race to abject poverty). But at least a slow burn would allow for Americans “in the know” to stock up on food, attempt to pay off their debts, arm themselves, and make prudent financial decisions in anticipation. A quick and sudden loss of reserve currency status, however, would bring about an immense crisis that virtually no one is prepared for. As Webster Griffin Tarpley wrote in his article “The Second Wave Of The Depression – Hyperinflation Likely,” published in 2009, The next wave is likely to involve a worldwide dollar panic. Using ballpark figures, we can say that there are about $4 to $5 trillion sloshing around the world in the form of hot money, US Treasury securities, Euro dollars, and various forms of zeno-dollars. Japan has about a trillion, China almost $2 trillion, and so forth. It is naturally very unwise for a developing country like China to hold so many dollars rather than using them to purchase needed infrastructure and capital goods, and the Chinese leaders are now very uncomfortable with their own foolish decision, which was of course taken under heavy US pressure. But the point is that this $4.5 trillion overhang is by its very nature exceedingly unstable. Every country that holds large sums of dollars or US treasury bonds is nervously eyeing every other such country to see if they show signs of bolting for the exit. Up to now, so far as we know, no large holder of dollars has attempted to reduce its exposure to the battered greenback by dumping these dollars on the international market. If anyone did so, would cause a true universal financial panic which would create chaos and mayhem not just in the United States and Great Britain, but in the vast areas of the rest of the world as well. This is concretely how hyperinflation could now very well arise: if one or more US creditor nations attempts to abruptly lighten up on dollars, the value of the US currency could undergo a catastrophic collapse, and that would spell runaway hyperinflation on the US domestic front. The numbers are a decade old but the concept is still there. That being said, given that the United States has used its status as a method of financing itself into maintained prosperity, the loss of that status would remove that privilege. Instead, the United States would be forced to either knuckle under to the dictates of the financiers that will have the country on its knees or do what it should have done all along – nationalize the Federal Reserve and begin issuing credit stimulus and imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports. Conclusion It would be nice to hope for the best and prepare for the worst but, as things appear today, we might want to start preparing much more than hoping. The US economic system, partially as a result of becoming an empire with all its requisite destabilizations and wars, mostly a result of Free Trade, and partially a result of private central banking among a host of other factors, has been sacrificed on the altar of globalism. Aggressive behavior on the financial, political, and military fronts has thus created a world seething with anger and hatred at the United States, who is now willing and able to begin weakening the dollar dominance in hopes for the creation of a new “multipolar” world out of the ashes of the old “American” one. There are no signs that anyone in the American government is either prepared to defend against the dollar collapse or to prevent it. In fact, all signs point to the possibility that such a collapse is desired by the Anglo-financier community. In other words, the best time to prepare is today.
Universal Technical (UTI) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 0.00% and -1.28%, respectively, for the quarter ended September 2018. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
Yext (YEXT) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 0.00% and 0.80%, respectively, for the quarter ended October 2018. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
VMware (VMW) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 4.00% and 1.47%, respectively, for the quarter ended October 2018. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
Palo Alto (PANW) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 11.43% and 3.85%, respectively, for the quarter ended October 2018. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
Amtech (ASYS) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 0.00% and 3.71%, respectively, for the quarter ended September 2018. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
Книги на иностранных языках. В качестве источника использованы статьи и выступления Андрея Ильича Фурсова. Герберт Уэллс одна из самых зловещих фигур 20-го века, который в конце 30х годов написал две книги, одна называется "Открытый заговор", а другая "О будущем", где откровенно говорилось о том, что будущее это жёсткий контроль верхушки над населением, у власти должны быть учёные и технократы, остальные выполняют их волю. В этом отношении Оруэлл и Хаксли только популяризировали идеи Бертрана Рассела и Герберта Уэллса. Удивительным образом не переведено на русский язык всё, что связано с глобальным управлением, более того эти книжки не переводились даже для служебного пользования. Название: Behold a Pale Horse Автор: William Milton Cooper Год: 1991 Язык: английский Уильям Купер – это человек, который специализировался на таких темах, как убийство Кеннеди, летающие тарелки. Он автор книги «Конь бледный». Так вот в июне Уильям Купер делает заявление, что в Соединенных Штатах, скорее всего в сентябре, самое позднее в октябре, произойдут серьезные теракты, и вину за них возложат на человека по имени Усама бин Ладен. Именно так, потому что у нас часто пишут Осама бен Ладен. Дело в том, что в арабском языке нет буквы «о» и нет буквы «е», так что Усама бин Ладен. В конце 2001-го года Купера застрелили полицейские, обвинив его в том, что он якобы оказал сопротивление полиции, а потом побежал и стал отстреливаться. Бедолаги полицейские и те, кто стоял за ними не знали, что Купер не мог бегать. Он вьетнамский ветеран и у него не было одной ноги, был протез. Однако этого человека застрелили – человека, который в 2001-м году сообщил о готовящемся теракте. Тем не менее, не смотря на все это, все повесили на Усаму бин Ладена Название: Our Times Автор: A. N. Wilson Год: 2008 Язык: английский В книге «Наше время», это по сути дела социальная история Англии, написанная популярно, автор пишет, что в 50-е годы англичане жили довольно бедно после войны, но они знали, что они англичане. А вот при Тэтчер произошло следующее, пишет он – «Англия превратилась в ничейный дом». Название: Rise of Professional Society, Revised Edition: England since 1880 Автор: Harold Perkin Год: 1989 Язык: английский Название: L'empire et les nouveaux barbares Автор: Jean-Christophe Rufin Год: 1991 Язык: французский В 1991 году во Франции вышла во многом пророческая книга очень интересного автора Жана Кристофа Рюфэна «Империя и новые варвары». Он пишет о том, что после 2020 года Европа и Соединенные Штаты, но в первую очередь Европа, столкнутся с очень серьезной проблемой — наплывом мигрантов, новых варваров. И в этой связи у Севера есть только три возможные стратегии в отношениях с новыми варварами. Первую он называет стратегией Клебера. Клебер — это французский генерал, соратник Наполеона, которого тот оставил в Египте, где Клебер насаждал европейские порядки и был убит. Вторая стратегия — стратегия экс-министра стратегического планирования Бразилии Роберто Мангабейра Унгеры: белый человек, европеец поднимает знамя борьбы Востока против Запада и возглавляет афро-азиатские орды. Наконец, третья стратегия — это стратегия Марка Аврелия. Европейцы проводят черту и не пускают варваров на свою территорию. Книга вышла почти 20 лет назад, и сегодня ясно, что стратегия Марка Аврелия, которой симпатизировал Рюфен, не срабатывает — африканцы и арабы уже в Европе. Название: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life Автор: Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein Год: 1994 Язык: английский Название: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Автор: Charles Murray Год: 2012 Язык: английский На основе социологического исследования автор говорит о том, что 1% наверху, он вообще никак не соотносится с 99% Америки и другого человечества. Эти люди, которые живут сами по себе вообще, у них своя замкнутая среда обитания. А остальные 99%, в принципе, им помеха – это лишние едоки и т.д. Не надо мыслящую Землю создавать, есть альтернативная уже форма, для которой остальные 99% не нужны. Название: Доклад "Кризис демокартии" (The Crisis of Democracy) Автор: С.Хантингтон, М.Крозье, Дз.Ватануки (Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki) Год: 1975 Язык: английский Название: How the Scots Invented the Modern World Автор: Arthur Herman Год: 2001 Очень часто национальное государство противопоставляется империям. Началось это еще в XIX веке, когда французская и английская пропаганда твердила о том, какие плохие империи Австро-Венгрия, Германия и Россия, и какие хорошие – национальные государства Франция и Великобритания. Это было лукавством. Дело в том, что и Франция, и Великобритания были империями. Одна – сухопутная колониальная империя, с заморскими владениями, а другая – просто морская империя. Обратите внимание, наиболее успешными были те империи, у которых ядром было то самое национальное государство. Разумеется, эти национальные государства использовали и другие этнические группы. Например, вся история Ост-Индской кампании – это на 20% шотландцы. Есть даже очень забавная книжка «Мир, который создали шотландцы» – об экспансии Великобритании. Но, в любом случае, именно имперскость, империя – хорошее противоядие-антидот национализма. История показывает, что трагическая ирония истории заключается в том, что вне и без империи русские вообще лишаются исторических шансов. Название: Les Royaumes combattants Автор: Jean-François Susbielle Язык: французский В 2008 году в Париже вышла в свет книга Жан-Франсуа Сюсбьеля «Борющиеся царства. К новой мировой войне». По мнению автора, после 2020-го мир вступит в период, похожий на эпоху Чжаньго («Борющиеся царства») в китайской истории, когда семь примерно равных по силе царств – Ци, Чу, Янь, Хань, Чжао, Вэй и Цинь – в течение почти двух столетий (403–221 до н. э.) вели борьбу за объединение китайского мира. Похоже, глобальный мир тоже вступает в подобную эпоху, и предлагаемая система «автономного управления» – один из индикаторов ее приближения. Название: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic Автор: Chalmers Ashby Johnson Год: 2004 Язык: английский Как показывает история, контроль над миром или крупным регионом, как правило, оборачивается сворачиванием демократии внутри страны-контролера. Классический пример - Рим. Как только он захватил полный контроль над Средиземноморьем, республика была обречена. Кстати, Чалмерс Джонсон в книге "Печали империи" (2004 г.) прямо пишет о том, что республика в Америке закончилась в 1990-е годы, к власти фактически пришли военные. Они строят мировую империю, которая дорого обойдется американскому народу. У книги показательный подзаголовок: "Милитаризм, секретность и конец республики". "Имперская республика" США ХХ в. превращается в квазиимперию. Впрочем, мощь этой империи - как военную, так и финансовую - переоценивать не стоит. Название: Coningsby, or The New Generation Автор: Benjamin Disraeli Год: 1844 Язык: английский В РФ действительно налицо противостояние между богатыми и бедными, растущий разрыв, поляризация между ними — децильный коэффициент и индекс Джини зашкаливают. Ситуация весьма похожа на накал классового антагонизма в Великобритании 1830-1840-х годов, который Дизраэли, тогда ещё не премьер-министр, а романист, охарактеризовал как наличие "двух наций". Т.е. социальный разрыв был таков, что верхи и низы оказались чуждыми друг другу как две различные нации (то же было в пореформенной России). Какой же выход видел Дизраэли? Простой: сокращение опасного разрыва социальными и экономическими мерами. Название: The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1949 Язык: английский Можно сказать, что заговор был конкретной формой подготовки войн - системой выявления, артикуляции и представления тайным образом определенных интересов преимущественно наднационального уровня. А лучшим средством реализации этого процесса являлись различные закрытые или просто тайные структуры и их агенты. Причем многие структуры подобного рода создавались на самом высоком уровне. Один из лучших примеров - группа Сесила Родса, историю которой великолепно описал американский историк Кэрролл Куигли (1910-1977) в работе «Англо-американский истеблишмент», изданной в 1981 году. Название: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World Автор: Barrington Moore Jr. Год: 1966 Язык: английский Достаточно взглянуть на 3 разные модернизации в Западной Европе 17 -19 веков, чтобы понять, что они зависели от исхода социальных битв, социальных боев 16 -17 веков, о чем Баррингтон Мур написал еще в 1966 году в своей замечательной работе «Социальные происхождения диктатуры и демократии», в которой анализировал 3 варианта европейской модернизации и все зависит от того, кто кому сломал хребет в социальных сражениях. Франция - корона и крестьяне, грубо говоря, сделали феодалов, феодал превращается в аристократа, переезжает ближе ко двору. Это один вариант модернизации через абсолютистское государство. Второй вариант с точностью до наоборот, где бывшие сеньоры выигрывают сражение у короны и крестьянства, второе издание крепостничества. Почему то есть такое мнение, что модернизация – это такой вариант развития обязательно с демократией, с парламентом и т. д. Модернизация может быть и в другой форме, форме рабства, вторичного издания крепостничества, она вообще может быть в архаичной форме. Это тоже модернизация. Третий вариант – это социальная ничья между крестьянами и землевладельцами, возникновения компромиссного уникального слоя в Англии, собственно из которого и выросла индустриализация. Один автор работ по социальной истории Англии написал однажды, что английская индустриализация могла вырасти только из землевладельческого строя Англии 17 – 18 века. Я думаю, что он прав. Название: The Cold War: A History Автор: Martin Walker Год: 1995 Язык: английский Глобальный, всеохватывающий характер ХВ хорошо подметил Мартин Уокер в замечательной книге «Холодная война». «Южную Америку и Африку к югу от Сахары, - писал он, - континенты, которые раньше оказывались вне борьбы, теперь засосало в ее воронку. Турки сражались в Корее, алжирцы - во Вьетнаме, кубинцы - в Анголе, а американские и русские школьники, чьи уроки в школе прерывались тренировочными сигналами угрозы атомной бомбардировки, росли, чтобы погибнуть в Сайгоне и Кабуле». Названия: The Mind of the Strategist, The End of the Nation State and, The Borderless World Автор: Kenichi Ohmae Язык: английский Глобальному рынку капиталов адекватны, с одной стороны, наднациональные (структуры типа Евросоюза или НАФТА), которые намного крупнее государства, и они выигрывают за счёт масштаба и размера, с другой — региональные блоки, которые меньше государства, и они выигрывают за счёт динамики. Известный японский бизнесмен и исследователь К. Омаэ назвал такие блоки регион-экономиками — по аналогии с броделевско-валлерстайновской мир-экономикой, которой они, по его мнению, идут на смену. ). Классические регион-экономики — это Северная Италия, район Баден-Вюртемберг на верхнем Рейне, Силиконовая долина, «треугольник роста» Сингапур — Джохор — о-ва Риау, Токийский район, район Кансай (Осака — Кобе — Киото), Сан-Паулу в Бразилии и др. Главная причина эффективности регион-экономик — умение решать региональные проблемы с привлечением ресурсов глобальной экономики и, разумеется, то, что их социальные и политические характеристики жёстко подогнаны под экономические требования финансовой системы глобализации — никакой социальной или политической «лирики», homo economicus на марше. Название: Islamisme et États-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe Автор: Alexandre del Valle Язык: французский Год: 1997 Горючая смесь исламизма, терроризма и наркоторговли, внедряемая, как показывает в работе «Исламизм и США: союз против Европы» А. дель Валь, в Европу спецслужбами США и связанными с ними частными фирмами, представляет серьезную угрозу для европейской государственности, культуры и идентичности. Борьба с европейским упадком, американизацией и исламизмом, пишет дель Валь, суть три аспекта одной и той же проблемы, поскольку, развивает эту мысль директор французского радио Р. Лабевьер, исламисты объективно выступают как «сторожевые псы глобализации» по-американски. В любом случае, в XXI в. США вступают серьезно уменьшив те выгоды, которые Япония и Западная Европа получили в результате победы «глобального Франкенштейна» в «холодной войне». Америка осуществила передел и это, по-видимому, лишь начало; похоже, нас ждут сюрпризы. Название: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1966 Язык: английский Название: The Moral Basis of a Backward Society Автор: Edward C. Banfield Год: 1967 Язык: английский Традиционные ценности, формы социальной организации и идентичности в таких районах, как правило, в той или иной степени ослабляются и их место занимает то, что Э.Бэнфилд назвал "аморальным фамильизмом". Однако если такие сельские сообщества смогут организоваться в качестве коллективного грабителя или эксплуататора по отношению к более или менее развитым соседям, то они не только получают экономически-внеэкономическую основу существования, но эта основа становится дополнительным фактором как сохранения или даже усиления коллективного (этнического, социального или территориального) единства, так и ослабления "аморального фамильизма". Хотя последний благодаря "социальному хищничеству", присущему всем формам бандитизма ("вызывающего индивидуализма"), все равно развивается и так или иначе подтачивает кланово-племенную структуру. Еще один фактор ослабления последней и ее иерархии (в банды чаще всего сбиваются бедные и незнатные) - само наличие банд и функционирование бандитского промысла. Иными словами, взаимодействие коллективно-асоциальной и клановоплеменной структур носит противоречивый характер, в него встроен потенциальный конфликт, который и надо в определенных ситуациях (стратегия "святого Амвросия") использовать. Название: Great Degeneration Автор: Niall Ferguson Год: 2012 Язык: английский Америка не может больше доминировать в мире таким образом и в тех формах, в которых это имело место в последнее двадцатилетие – слишком широко шагала, вот и «порвала штаны». Поэтому сегодня американские аналитики в раздумьях: одни, как Чарльз Капчан и Адам Маунт предлагают некое «автономное управление» – передачу Америкой части полицейско-карательных функций, обеспечивающих глобальное накопление капитала, «государствам-преторианцам». Другие, такие как Найл Фергюсон, вообще предупреждают о том, что крушение американской империи может произойти очень быстро – обвально.