Tom Palley on why Obama is failing

flattr this!

Tom Pal­ley has writ­ten an excel­lent opin­ion piece for the Finan­cial Times on why Obama is fail­ing, and he requested that I repro­duce it here. How­ever, to read it, I’d pre­fer if you clicked on the link in the title of Tom’s piece below. That will take you to the Finan­cial Times blog itself–the more hits that pieces like this are seen to get in the con­ven­tional media, the bet­ter (to encour­age this, there are some links in the Finan­cial Times piece that I haven’t repro­duced in this repost).

Though I con­cur with Tom’s opin­ions, I can fully under­stand Obama’s deci­sion to use the same advi­sors that Clin­ton before him (and to some extent Bush) had also used. Fun­da­men­tally, Obama is a politi­cian, not an expert in eco­nom­ics, and as a politi­cian deter­mined to take an intel­li­gent approach to the prob­lems con­fronting Amer­ica, he sen­si­bly decided to get his infor­ma­tion on these chal­lenges from the very best.

How was he to know that the world’s lead­ing econ­o­mists, the “very best” in this cru­cial field, actu­ally knew noth­ing about how the real econ­omy actu­ally functions?

Only after 2 years in office, when the econ­omy is not recov­er­ing from the reces­sion as his advi­sors told him it would, and the reme­dies that he throws at it (on their advice) turn out to be more damp squibs that the weapons of mass eco­nomic recon­struc­tion he was told they would be, must it slowly be dawn­ing on him that may don’t under­stand the economy.

He’s learn­ing the hard way the les­son I and many other crit­i­cal econ­o­mists acquired as we stud­ied for our eco­nom­ics degrees–mostly by react­ing incred­u­lously to weird propo­si­tions that our Pro­fes­sors would use to derive their models–that there is some­thing rot­ten in the state of eco­nomic thinking.

For­tu­nately, I had time to under­take schol­arly research to con­firm that ini­tial gut­tural reac­tion. Yes, what sim­ply felt like crap to me rather than wis­dom, really was crap: the weird propo­si­tions that my Pro­fes­sors would put for­ward were kludges to hide fun­da­men­tal flaws in the under­ly­ing the­ory. In full view in the aca­d­e­mic lit­er­a­ture of eco­nom­ics, paper after paper proved that the the­ory did not hold together.

Some­times, as with Piero Sraffa, a critic had proven a fatal flaw in one aspect of the the­ory (in Sraffa’s case, the the­ory of income dis­tri­b­u­tion and the con­cept of a pro­duc­tion func­tion link­ing out­put of goods to inputs of labor and cap­i­tal). Other times, it was an “own goal”, as lead­ing neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists tried to prove some­thing they hoped was true–such as that mar­ket demand curves obeyed all the laws they had derived for indi­vid­ual demand curves, and that they there­fore nec­es­sar­ily sloped down­wards so that there could be only one equi­lib­rium between sup­ply and demand–and proved that this wasn’t true.

In any gen­uine sci­ence, these dis­cov­er­ies, being fun­da­men­tal to the the­ory, dev­as­tat­ing in their impact and vast in num­ber, would have caused an intel­lec­tual cri­sis that would ulti­mately have led to a revolution–as with the shift from the Ptole­maic to the Coper­ni­can view of the struc­ture of the solar sys­tem. But in eco­nom­ics, what hap­pened instead was that these flaws were ignored–if they had been dis­cov­ered by the crit­ics like Sraffa–or papered over by truly absurd assump­tions, if they had been “own goals”.

The end result was that eco­nomic the­ory was an utter sham­bles of false abstrac­tions, and I wrote Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics to bring this to the atten­tion of peo­ple who fight­ing for social jus­tice but whose endeav­ors were being blocked by economists.

Unfor­tu­nately, Obama didn’t read it.

So now a man who had hopes to be remem­bered for not only being America’s first black Pres­i­dent, but also for being one of its great social reform­ers as well, will prob­a­bly go down like Her­bert Hoover, who is known more for his fail­ure to pre­vent the Great Depres­sion than for any­thing else. To cite Wikipedia here:

When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to com­bat the ensu­ing Great Depres­sion with vol­un­teer efforts, none of which pro­duced eco­nomic recov­ery dur­ing his term. The con­sen­sus among his­to­ri­ans is that Hoover’s defeat in the 1932 elec­tion was caused pri­mar­ily by fail­ure to end the down­ward eco­nomic spi­ral. As a result of these fac­tors, Hoover is ranked poorly among for­mer US Presidents.

Such will almost cer­tainly be Obama’s fate as well, though not because he was a poor Pres­i­dent but because he was deter­mined to be a good one, and he there­fore fol­lowed the advice of the econ­o­mists in com­bat­ing the begin­nings of the Sec­ond Great Depres­sion. How was he to know that their way­ward eco­nomic the­o­ries had actu­ally helped set up this cala­maity in the first place, and that hav­ing caused it by means they did not under­stand, that they were the last ones who were able to give him the eco­nomic advice he actu­ally needed?

So much for me; over now to Tom’s views–and please read them via the link, as requested. One of the many rea­sons that neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics has become dom­i­nant is that news­pa­per edi­tors believed, as Obama did, that the dom­i­nant econ­o­mists were the best ones, and non-orthodox thinkers like Tom and I were shut out of the opin­ion pieces even more effec­tively than we were mar­gin­al­ized within the eco­nom­ics pro­fes­sion itself. The more pieces like Tom’s get read in the main­stream media, the sooner those days will be over–and the long-overdue intel­lec­tual rev­o­lu­tion in eco­nom­ics can begin.

Deaf to History’s Rhyme: Why Pres­i­dent Obama is Failing

Finan­cial Times Econ­o­mists’ Forum, Decem­ber 2, 2010

Copy­right Thomas I. Palley

The great Amer­i­can nov­el­ist Mark Twain observed “his­tory does not repeat itself but it rhymes.” Today the rhyme is with the 1930s, and if you don’t hear it read FDR’s great Madi­son Square Gar­den speech of Octo­ber 1936:

For twelve years this nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing gov­ern­ment. The nation looked to gov­ern­ment but the gov­ern­ment looked away. Nine mock­ing years with the golden calf and three long years with the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the bread­lines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Pow­er­ful influ­ences strive today to restore that kind of gov­ern­ment with its doc­trine that that gov­ern­ment is best which is most indifferent.”

Despite this clar­ity, the Obama admin­is­tra­tion insists on hear­ing a rhyme with the 1990s. That tone deaf­ness has its roots in polit­i­cal choices made at the administration’s out­set and explains why the admin­is­tra­tion has stum­bled so badly in its first years. If con­tin­ued, the eco­nomic and social con­se­quences will be grave.

In 2008 Pres­i­dent Obama cap­tured the nation with a mes­sage of change, yet in office he has cho­sen to deliver change of style rather than change of sub­stance. At the head­line level this choice was reflected in his call for bi-partisanship that looked to split the dif­fer­ence with Repub­li­cans. In eco­nomic pol­icy, it was reflected in the whole­sale reap­point­ment of the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion team led by Larry Sum­mers and Tim­o­thy Gei­th­ner, a case of con­ti­nu­ity not change.

Now, the admin­is­tra­tion is sink­ing under fail­ure of its eco­nomic pol­icy. That fail­ure is due to its attempt to revive a 1990s par­a­digm that never worked as adver­tised and can only deliver stag­na­tion. Painful though it is for Democ­rats to acknowl­edge, the real­ity is the eco­nomic poli­cies of Pres­i­dent Clin­ton were largely the same as those of Pres­i­dent Bush. On this the record is clear for those will­ing to see. The Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion pushed finan­cial dereg­u­la­tion; twice reap­pointed Alan Greenspan; pro­moted cor­po­rate glob­al­iza­tion through NAFTA and China PNTR; ini­ti­ated the strong dol­lar pol­icy; spoke of the “end of the era of big gov­ern­ment”; con­tem­plated pri­va­ti­za­tion of Social Secu­rity; and struck down a core ele­ment of the New Deal by end­ing the right to welfare.

The main dif­fer­ence between the Clin­ton and Bush admin­is­tra­tions was the former’s will­ing­ness to offer some helping-hand poli­cies to cush­ion the harsh effects of the invis­i­ble hand. Dif­fer­ences in out­comes were not pol­icy dri­ven but reflect the fact the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion enjoyed the good for­tune of the Inter­net invest­ment bub­ble. It also ben­e­fit­ted from the begin­ning of the hous­ing bub­ble when Amer­i­can fam­i­lies had plenty of untapped home equity and credit.

Pres­i­dent Obama’s fate­ful deci­sion to go with Clinto­nom­ics meant the reces­sion was inter­preted as an extremely deep down­turn rather than a cri­sis sig­nal­ing the bank­ruptcy of the neolib­eral par­a­digm that has ruled both Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats for thirty years. That implied the reces­sion could be fully addressed with stim­u­lus, which was the same response as the Bush admin­is­tra­tion to the reces­sion of 2001.

The cur­rent reces­sion is the deep­est eco­nomic down­turn since the Great Depres­sion of the 1930s, invit­ing com­par­isons with Pres­i­dent Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt. FDR had the advan­tage of tak­ing office three years into the Depres­sion when the unem­ploy­ment rate was near 25 per­cent. The ver­dict was in: the sys­tem needed change. Pres­i­dent Obama took office as the cri­sis was deep­en­ing. Those who had designed the sys­tem could still argue it could be revived and as estab­lish­ment insid­ers they had the upper hand. But that argu­ment is done and today the prospect is of long stagnation.

The New Deal was a break with both the pol­i­tics and eco­nomic poli­cies of the past. Its eco­nomic pol­icy inno­va­tions like Social Secu­rity, the Secu­ri­ties and Exchange Com­mis­sion, the Fair Labor Stan­dards Act, and the Wag­ner Act grant­ing the right to orga­nize, are still cel­e­brated. How­ever, it was FDR’s new pol­i­tics of sol­i­dar­ity and com­pas­sion that cre­ated the nec­es­sary polit­i­cal space: sol­i­dar­ity that rec­og­nized the coun­try was in the Depres­sion together and com­pas­sion that rec­og­nized many were suf­fer­ing through no fault of their own. That is the polit­i­cal rhyme Pres­i­dent Obama must hear, while the New Deal is the pol­icy rhyme.

The President’s fail­ure to deliver on the country’s desire for change of sub­stance has left a vac­uum that is being filled by dan­ger­ous unsta­ble forces. This is the tale of the Tea Party, which is a tale that has res­o­nance for Europe. The eco­nomic risk, already more advanced in Europe, is a doubling-down of dis­as­trously failed hard­core neolib­eral eco­nomic poli­cies. The polit­i­cal risk is a rise of intol­er­ance and xenophobia.

These are not nor­mal times. If the admin­is­tra­tion per­sists with its deaf­ness to his­tory it will surely hit the rocks and an his­tor­i­cal oppor­tu­nity for pro­gres­sive change will be squan­dered. Worse yet, its deaf­ness will leave the field open to the extreme right whose “blame-the-victim” social mes­sage and “liquidationist-austerity” eco­nomic poli­cies clearly con­firm today’s rhyme is with the his­tory of the 1930s.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Tom Palley on why Obama is failing

  1. Derek says:

    You’re being a bit unfair to Smith’s suc­ces­sors. David Ricardo in par­tic­u­lar did some good work at the begin­ning of the 19th C. Things only started going badly wrong with eco­nom­ics at the end of the 19th C when the ultra-rich realised that they could influ­ence the direc­tion of eco­nom­ics research by threat­en­ing to to with­hold their char­i­ta­ble dona­tions to uni­ver­si­ties and foun­da­tions who were giv­ing tenure to pro­fes­sors that were pro­duc­ing the “wrong kind” of research or edu­cat­ing their stu­dents to hold “incor­rect” beliefs. Mason Gaffney and Fred Har­ri­son have writ­ten an inter­est­ing book on this par­tic­u­lar aspect of eco­nomic his­tory. It’s called “The Cor­rup­tion of Eco­nom­ics” and dis­cusses why neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics was orig­i­nally cre­ated to replace clas­si­cal economics.

  2. Brian Macker says:

    Philip,

    You are an igno­ra­mus when it comes to Aus­trian eco­nom­ics. Aus­tri­ans do not believe that the mar­kets are per­fect and can cor­rect any prob­lem. In fact, one of their main points is how free bank­ing causes the busi­ness cycle. Mur­ray Roth­bard is com­pletely against free bank­ing. I’d con­tinue to cor­rect all your mis­takes but I’ve got bet­ter things to do. Stop lis­ten­ing to straw man claims about the the­ory and read it for yourself.

  3. BrightSpark1 says:

    Derek, the sys­tem suf­fered its first sys­tem fail­ure in the 1840’s, early nine­teenth cen­tury. A depres­sion occurred, which meant that when the Irish potato crop failed, even the great British Empire, where the elight­en­ment began was unable to look after peo­ple at it’s own heart and over one mil­lion peo­ple died. The song “Hard Times” was writ­ten by Stephen Fos­ter in the US about this depres­sion. The ultra rich of the Britain were the true killers of the Irish farm­ers not the potato blight.

    I feel cer­tain that even Ricardo did not try out the view from the shoul­ders of New­ton. Even clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics did not ade­quately fol­low on from the work of Smith.

  4. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    Hi Brightspark1,

    I was think­ing of reply­ing to your orig­i­nal post but this beauty cap­tures a good deal of what I was going to say (in a way)

    even the great British Empire, where the elight­en­ment began was unable to look after peo­ple at it’s own heart”

    I’m won­der­ing what the the­ory of eco­nom­ics would have looked like were it invented in one of the coun­tries enslaved (colonised) by ‘the Great British Empire’. Or could Smith have come up with his enlight­ened the­ory if the Empire wasn’t in the busi­ness of slave labour and min­eral extrac­tion from it’s colonies. It’s easy to attribute great eco­nomic pros­per­ity to enlight­ened the­ory when one is pil­lag­ing the world.

  5. mahaish says:

    prob­lem is derek,

    the ludi­crouse pro­pos­tions con­tained in ricar­dian equiv­i­lence are still part of one vari­ant of the main­stream agenda, and they have done more harm than good, in my opinion,

    the rea­son why we need more gov­ern­ment aus­ter­ity in this cri­sis accord­ing to its sup­port­ers, is that we have a whole nation of ricar­dian con­sumers run­ning around antic­i­pat­ing tax increases as a con­se­quence of larger gov­ern­ment deficits. they are appar­ently sav­ing for their future tax bills.

    so many holes in such a pro­por­si­tion that it would get envi­ouse glances from swiss cheese makers.

  6. mahaish says:

    inter­est­ing anec­dote about hoover being an engi­neer, brightspark1

    sud­denly i feel a lit­tle downcast,

    here i am think­ing we might be bet­ter served by there being more engi­neers in politics,

  7. Philip says:

    BrightSpark1,

    Good overview. A great deal of eco­nomic the­ory (neo­clas­si­cal and Aus­trian) is still stuck in the 19th cen­tury, the cor­ner­stones of Marx­ism (ratio­nal cen­tral plan­ners, LTV, falling rate of profit, etc.) have been fal­si­fied and Key­ne­sian­ism in gen­eral has been neutered by the main­stream to make it more palatable.

    The engineer/physics view­point is an inter­est­ing one and is likely to be the even­tual sav­ior of eco­nom­ics. You would prob­a­bly be inter­ested in the work by a physi­cist turned econ­o­mist Joseph McCauley. He has writ­ten an excel­lent book called Dynam­ics of Mar­kets: Econo­physics and Finance, its well worth read­ing. Using exten­sive math­e­mat­ics, he shows why mod­el­ing mar­kets using sta­tic equi­lib­rium mod­els are com­pletely invalid.

    In one of his jour­nal papers he advo­cates the following:

    I there­fore sug­gest that the econ­o­mists revise their cur­ricu­lum and require that the fol­low­ing top­ics be taught: cal­cu­lus through the advanced level, ordi­nary dif­fer­en­tial equa­tions (includ­ing advanced), par­tial dif­fer­en­tial equa­tions (includ­ing Green func­tions), clas­si­cal mechan­ics through mod­ern non­lin­ear dynam­ics, sta­tis­ti­cal physics, sto­chas­tic processes (includ­ing solv­ing Smoluchowski–Fokker–Planck equa­tions), com­puter pro­gram­ming (C, Pas­cal, etc.) and, for com­plex­ity, cell biol­ogy. Time for such classes can be obtained in part by elim­i­nat­ing micro– and macro-economics classes from the cur­ricu­lum. The stu­dents will then face a much harder cur­ricu­lum, and those who sur­vive will come out ahead.” (p. 608).

    McCauley, Joseph. 2006. Response to ‘‘Wor­ry­ing Trends in Econo­physics’’, Phys­ica A, Vol. 371, pp. 601–609

  8. Derek says:

    Under­stood and agreed, mahaish. The thing is that Ricardo him­self thought that Ricar­dian Equiv­a­lence was bol­locks. He raised it as a the­o­ret­i­cal pos­si­bil­ity only to denounce it as a prac­ti­cal actu­al­ity. In his own words…

    But the peo­ple who paid the taxes never so esti­mate them, and there­fore do not man­age their pri­vate affairs accord­ingly. We are too apt to think that the war is bur­den­some only in pro­por­tion to what we are at the moment called to pay for it in taxes, with­out reflect­ing on the prob­a­ble dura­tion of such taxes. It would be dif­fi­cult to con­vince a man pos­sessed of £20,000, or any other sum, that a per­pet­ual pay­ment of £50 per annum was equally bur­den­some with a sin­gle tax of £1000.

    In fact it was actu­ally the mod­ern neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mist, Robert Barro, who went on to pro­mote Ricar­dian Equiv­a­lence as being a sen­si­ble way of look­ing at the world in the 1970s, as part of his ratio­nal expec­ta­tions hobby-horse.

    Poor old Ricardo will be spin­ning in his grave to see such an unre­al­is­tic view of the world as Ricar­dian Equiv­a­lence becom­ing mainstream.

  9. BrightSpark1 says:

    G’day mahaish
    The leader of the worlds cur­rently most suc­cess­ful and pop­u­lous coun­try China, Hu Jin­tao is in fact an engi­neer. The trou­ble is that while he knows how to use tech­nol­ogy to cre­ate wealth his under­stand­ing of the mess that is neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics appears to be want­ing. China is at present accept­ing IOUs in return for cargo as Japan has been doing for many years. The Japan­ese have not ben­e­fited for accu­mu­lat­ing IOU’s which they can­not spend and nei­ther will the Chi­nese. China has an expo­nen­tially grow­ing cur­rent account “invest­ment” which is really worth­less if Hu took the time to con­sider this and per­haps he has, he would see the folly. But per­haps even in com­mu­nist China neo­clas­si­cal eco­nomic the­ory has ascen­dancy he may be find­ing him­self in the same posi­tion as did Her­bert Hoover. I don’t think that we will find a solu­tion until after the whole sys­tem falls in a heap yet again.

    Lets hope we can climb on the shoul­ders of New­ton and Smith when this hap­pens and not per­sist with Smith’s throw away line (the “invis­i­ble hand”) as the world has done after the pre­vi­ous three depressions.

  10. Derek says:

    That’s a good point, BrightSpark1. The best engi­neer in the world is use­less if the engi­neer­ing the­o­ries that he is using are wrong. And that is the basic prob­lem: the mod­ern neo­clas­si­cal syn­the­sis just con­tains too many flaws to be use­ful for macro­eco­nom­ics. That is why Prof Keen’s work is so impor­tant. We are at a stage where we need to review what has been achieved in eco­nom­ics over the last 300 years and decide what is worth keep­ing and what should be thrown out. Only then will econ­o­mists be able to do work at any­where near the level of reli­a­bil­ity that engi­neers can.

  11. peterjbolton says:

    All ‘eco­nomic / banker’ induced fail­ures end in war — appears to be his­tor­i­cally cor­rect in one form or another:
    Read­ing as widely as pos­si­ble and being retired that means I inhale a lot of infor­ma­tion, opin­ion, sta­tis­tics, etc., and I am now of the impres­sion that we will soon expe­ri­ence, here in Aus­tralia, another war. I explain very briefly: Greenspan openly pushed for the inva­sion of Iraq from Clinton’s pres­i­dency onwards 24/7.

    The neo­cons pushed des­per­ately the PNAC which was wars for a hun­dred years or so. The FedRes is des­per­ately try­ing to keep US influ­ence at its peak while killing off every­thing else includ­ing its own peo­ple. Was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pak­istan, Yemen, Soma­lia, Euroa­sia, Koreas’, the Arc­tic NATO alliance, South Amer­ica, etc. The US behav­ior is per­ceived as pure insan­ity. But, what if Greenspan knew what was com­ing around the mid 90’s and then the pre­lude of 1997? Cer­tainly the have the resources to arrive at that con­clu­sion with a fairly low risk of error, and of speak of total Global Sys­temic Col­lapse (GSC), in other words, a global Dark Age, by 2011/2012.

    Australia’s PM Julian Gillard is now on pub­lic record as hav­ing invited US mil­i­tary occu­pa­tion of Aus­tralia and it is rumored that in WA alone this will involve some 100,000 on-shore US ser­vice­men. A US team led by a high rank­ing US Gen­eral is cur­rently tak­ing stock. The pur­pose of this mil­i­tary occu­pa­tion is appar­ently as stated, a joint US/Australian con­fronta­tion with China. Is this what Rudd meant as “force”? Gillard deposed Rudd as PM appar­ently with the assis­tance of the Amer­i­cans, and Israeli via the sub­ter­ranean ser­vices of Sen­a­tor Arbib, the US secret source (deep throat perhaps?)

    Has Wik­ileaks been com­pro­mised — cer­tainly Zbig­niew Kaz­imierz Brzezin­ski seems to think so and he should know being fairly expe­ri­enced at such things, and many other ana­lysts have been reports cer­tain bias which could induce a per­cep­tion of planned instabilities.

    To me the sit­u­a­tion today in global mat­ters sug­gests that the banker/politico lead­er­ship is irrepara­ble with­out a total col­lapse, as has always been the case, more or less, and the amount of debt, must be destroyed (I use this term as it will not be for­given) so my sense is that a “con­fronta­tion” for supremacy and power, is about to be launched from, Aus­tralia soil, albeit with the vision that the US will be the sole winner.

    I have approached this mat­ter with Occam’s Razor and can say, more than 30 years on thought and research; I hope that I am wrong, whereas I did pre­dict a global Dark Age in late 2006, after pre­dict­ing cor­rectly the col­lapse of the USSR, the 1997 Asian cri­sis, the 2000/2001 walk-in-the-park, but never a global war of des­per­a­tion at any point of time.

    Now I do… and is scares the hell out of me. If I am indeed cor­rect, many anom­alous events of the past are clearly explained and all will make sense; the whole crazi­ness of human­i­ties vs. human­i­ties, but if I am wrong, I will be prefer­ably happy. As such, the sta­tis­tics and charts, and indi­ca­tors will be of lit­tle value as the out­come will deter­mine the way for­ward — or back­wards, whichever be the case.

  12. mahaish says:

    ” The pur­pose of this mil­i­tary occu­pa­tion is appar­ently as stated, a joint US/Australian con­fronta­tion with China.”

    this may hap­pen sooner than we think peterj,

    the fly in the oin­ment geo polit­i­cally and eco­nom­i­cally may end up being what tran­spires on the 38th parallel .

    think ive men­tioned this mant times before, the geo polit­i­cal dog wags the eco­nomic tail in many ways.

    and one of those dogs in the pack, just hap­pens to be the hege­monic rivalry between the chi­nese and the yanks when it comes to the 38th parallel.

    china has always had a strate­gic inter­est in the korean penin­sula going back many mile­nia, mainly as a bul­wark against japan­ese hege­monic ambi­tions. bit­ter mem­o­ries indeed for them .

    but ever since the gen­eral sherman(a heav­illy armed amer­i­can mer­chant ship) steamed up the tae­dong river in 1866, in order to sub­mit the locals in the her­mit king­dom to trade with the amer­i­cans , and duely pro­ceeded to fire upon them when the locals took offence( the amer­i­cans were all killed by the locals by the way), amer­i­can hege­monic inter­est in the sea of japan and the yel­low sea have been sown

    the eco­nomic deck of cards the yanks and the chi­nese have built for them­selves may well come tum­bling down as a con­se­quense of the seeds sown over a hun­dres and fifty years ago, as i sus­pect amer­i­can grapeshot in one form or another will again be heard in the her­mit king­dom in our lifetime

  13. mahaish says:

    China has an expo­nen­tially grow­ing cur­rent account “invest­ment” which is really worth­less if Hu took the time to con­sider this and per­haps he has, he would see the folly”

    folly indeed brightspark1,

    per­haps the chi­nese lead­er­ship think they can defeat their inglo­ri­ous past when it comes to these matters,

    they have played this game before and lost. then it was with the british. now its the americans.

    chi­nese his­tory through­out the 19th and early 20th cen­tury is tes­ta­ment to the fail­ure of poli­cies , they are cur­rently per­su­ing, just the veneer has changed.

    any­body think­ing the chi­nese are just going to waltz towards global pre emi­nence in the 21st cen­tury, need to remind them­selves of one very bru­tal fact , dare i say curse about chi­nese history,

    every change of dynasty has just about brought with it a bloody civil war.

    the so called com­mu­nists are at 60 years and count­ing. how long will it be before they face dynas­tic meltdown

  14. peterjbolton says:

    @ mahaish…

    strangely, hav­ing spent many years in both the US and China I don’t see any coherency today with my obser­va­tions and mem­o­ries of the past, as impres­sive as they were. I always won­dered why the Chi­nese with their wealth of ancient philoso­phies, adopted under Mao, some­thing as crude, rude and prim­i­tive as Marx­ism. But then, I real­ized (even­tu­ally) that this is where Aus­tralia has been, is, and the USA aspires to be, and is almost there, and just about all coun­tries are head­ing in this direc­tion, if not already there, while all paus­ing in the warm oxi­dized ooze of fas­cism prior to des­o­la­tion; odes of v. Hayek and The Road to Serf­dom; a cyn­i­cal & cycli­cal given event horizon.

    And while all and sundry amuse their gaze on the numeric fire­works of the phase tran­si­tional ener­get­ics in their trans­lated form of unbe­liev­able and cer­tainly erratic sta­tis­tics, the game being played out is actu­ally sur­vival, the basic and fun­da­men­tal drive of every bio­log­i­cal cell in exis­tence, and in the form of the USA, per­haps the play of extremis — that is to say, the last days of the organ­ism brought about by the joys of the final­i­ties of cancer.

    In this Epoch, it is well known that “lead­er­ship” is drawn from the low­est com­mon denom­i­na­tor of soci­ety, or, you might say, the dregs (which cer­tainly agrees with ancient descrip­tions as “camp-followers” — [and their infer­nal stench, clang­ing pots, and bark­ing dogs]), and where mod­ern psy­chi­atric research sug­gests that such per­sons desire, a pri­ori, to pre­side over… — and they don’t par­tic­u­larly have a pref­er­ence as to what they pre­side over, eg suc­cess or dis­as­ter — as long as they pre­side over something!

    Korea: I have also spent much time here too — and the artis­tic senses have always impressed me as does the sense of Zen of the Japan­ese (besides the food and hooch of both Nations) — but… is this the flash point? No doubt we shall find out soon.

    Destruc­tive evo­lu­tion”: if this is the point then we have it all wrong about our­selves but maybe the eco­nom­ics is entan­gled into our Laws of Ther­mo­dy­nam­ics where to me, it all then makes sense. Par­menides inferred there was just physics and human behav­ior but the infer­ence went fur­ther to sug­gest that there was just physics. Quan­tum entan­gle­ment, which really just means, a scalu­lar anal­ogy… or meta-physics

    What­ever, the pound­ing of can­non will not be wel­come — all for the sake of the igno­rance that we elect to “lead­er­ship” so that they can cor­rupt us with their already cor­rupted and fatally flawed bank­ing sys­tem, which always ends in War, more never less.

  15. John Prentice says:

    LOL. Once again Bolton, you do not under­stand. Marx­ism? A pure intel­lec­tual fan­tasy based sim­il­iarly on Hayek and “free mar­ket” fraud. The free mar­ket is a pure intel­lec­tual idea. It has no “basis” in nature. To the mate­ri­al­is­tic mas­ters, a func­tion of dom­i­na­tion of the mer­chant caste.

    We will not have coun­tries or folk, we will have the inter­na­tional mar­ket. Basi­cally one world gov­ern­ment by mar­ket sta­tism. Marx’s attempt was to push this to the next level of “equal­ity” was a hute. Fici­tional. To say the US wants to go there is redicu­lous. Every­thing the “gov­ern­ment” does is by the means of the mar­ket. The mar­ket was not “hell­bent” on delever­ag­ing like Keen thinks, but instead was ready to use the gov­ern­ments power to stop it in its tracks. They want the old asset infla­tion regime back to cover the implo­sion that the cur­rent global sys­tem has cre­ated. They think if they can cre­ate another bub­ble in finan­cials, they can also force unbal­anced global sphere back into bal­ance slowly over time. So when the next bub­ble pops in a few years. The eco­nomic land­scape will be ready for liq­ui­da­tion with­out sys­tem­atic failure.

    A pure fan­tasy for sure.

    You need to read Evola, Spengler,Yockey.

    Also, Hayeks road to serf­dom was about the “free mar­ket” itself, it only uses “social­ism” as a cover. Failed men like Hayek rep­re­sent the weak­ness of the enlight­ment. The party is over for materialism.

Leave a Reply