GREEDO ALWAYS DRAWS FIRST because Lord Dampnut loves chaffing over friction-free losses in markets that are inherently imperfect
Aside from the extraneous hate-mongering about immigration or migratory labor, the real reason why Brexit and now Lord Dampnut want more bilateral agreements rather than multilateral trade agreements (like the EU) is simply about profit, or rather more wealth that goes more directly to the 1%.
This doesn’t diminish TPP-like objections that multilateral agreements (FTA) have potentially non-sustainable externalities like environmental harms or asymmetric regulatory costs, but not having more standardized trade agreements creates even greater costs and potentially even greater harm because there are more complex transaction costs that are opaque to the mercurial P*TUS.
Today’s worry: Implications of POTUS saying US can “never” have security if POTUS can’t potentially violate constitution.
Capitalists would in the short-run prefer the sub-optimal bilateral agreements because it maximizes firm-level profit versus sustainable welfare like more gold toilets for fewer billionaires, rather than say … climate change. And then there’s all that nativist racism…
For starters, there is a good reason trade experts tend to favor big, multilateral and regional deals in the first place, and it’s not because they are conniving globalists under the thumb of George Soros.
One rationale is that large deals keep things simple for businesses by establishing a single set of rules, which encourages more trade.
When governments negotiate lots of separate bilateral agreements, some policymakers argue it can create a messy “spaghetti bowl” of overlapping and conflicting standards that make exporting around the world a pain.
“You don’t want inconsistent rules and inconsistent approaches,” Mickey Kantor, the former U.S. trade representative who led negotiations to create the World Trade Organization and NAFTA during the Clinton administration, told me.
Sometimes, it’s also easier for multiple countries to reach a deal than it is for just two countries. Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, compared it to a three-way trade in the NBA: A pair of countries (or teams) might not have much to offer each other, but add another into the mix, and everyone can leave happy…
As far as I’ve seen, Trump and his brain trust have never fully explained why they think bilateral deals are a better way to manage trade. But there are enough clues to figure out their reasoning.
First and probably foremost, Trump and his close adviser Steve Bannon are philosophically opposed to anything that smells faintly of international governance…
More prosaically, Trump seems to dislike agreements like TPP because they keep the U.S. from throwing its full weight around on the world stage.
The president thinks they’re too hard to get out of once implemented (he’s compared them to “quicksand”) and his team has suggested they give small countries too much clout during trade negotiations…
Trump may also find that he has a bit less leverage in bilateral talks than he expects. Thanks to the WTO, most of the big remaining hurdles to world trade aren’t tariffs; they’re nontariff barriers like regulations…
In the end, Trump might end up starting negotiations on a lot of trade deals. But at the moment, his strategy seems designed to ensure a lot of those negotiations fail.
“Trump’s ban is, accordingly, a gift to them. It gives them (Iranian hardliners) an enemy once more. They can call Rouhani out as naive and point to America’s perfidiousness. Détente, they can crow, is a mistake. Indeed, Kayhan, a leading conservative newspaper, declared that the ban showed merely that the U.S. was blaming “Muslim immigrants for everything that has gone wrong with the American dream.”… Similarly, the Islamic State, too, is basking in the orange glow of Trump. The barbarous, homicidal death cult has been on its back foot recently, losing badly on the ground in Syria and Iraq, as its flow of recruits, once seemingly unstoppable, dwindles dramatically.” http://www.politico.eu/…
With Lord Dampnut’s coronation and his subsequent immigration hate-campaign, the Iran attack plans from 2012 have been dusted off again, and how much of the 1% stand to gain from rising oil prices.
It’s about prices and profits, not the oil itself, because history ….
Negating the nuclear deal struck by PBO will bring a new “clash of civilizations” and more will die.
Imagine how much profitability will come from revitalizing the current low prices and what a “killing” will occur in the short run, since as Keynes said “In the long run we are all dead.”
Iran strategy talk is asking how to ensure that Iran eventually crosses “the line” before long to eventually justify POTUS military action.
An email sent by Chris Farnham, senior officer for Stratfor, to an internal unnamed source inside the company titled “Israel/Iran Barak Hails Munitions Blast in Iran” provides details about who would benefit from an Israeli attack on Iran, and say such a plan would be motivated by economic factors.
According to the email, sent on November 13, 2011, supporters of an Israeli-led attack are Russia, India and Saudi Arabia, while the EU and China stand against such plans, mainly for economic reasons.
“Not many people know that Russia is one of Israel’s largest military partners and India is Israel’s largest client. If a direct conflict between Iran and Israel erupts, Russia and Saudi Arabia will gain the advantages on oil increasing prices. On the other hand, China and Europe are expected to lose from an oil crisis as a result of a conflict,” the email says
Farnham said that an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities would last only 48 hours and be so devastating it would lead to regime change.
“Based on Israeli plans, the attack on Iran will last only 48 hours but will be so destructive that Iran will be unable to retaliate or recover and the government will fall. It is hard to believe that Hamas or Hezbollah will try to get involved in this conflict,” Farham wrote.
The Stratfor analyst then reveals that despite claims propagated in the media, an attack on Iran is unlikely since Israeli commandos have already targeted major parts of Iran’s nuclear programme.
“In the open media many are pushing and expecting Israel to launch a massive attack on Iran. Even if the Israelis have the capabilities and are ready to attack by air, sea and land, there is no need to attack the nuclear programme at this point after the commandos destroyed a significant part of it.”
Farnham said an attack would be motivated by economic factors rather than Iran’s nuclear programme.
“If a massive attack on Iran happens soon, then the attack will have political and oil reasons and not nuclear. It is also very hard to believe that the Israelis will initiate an attack unless they act as a contractor for other nations or if Iran or its proxies attack first,” the email concludes.
Faustian civilization continues on its fatal path with amazement at what Lord Dampnut would do to boost his ratings as his tweets have become increasingly desperate to compete with actual media.
President Donald Trump on Monday said the American people “want border security and extreme vetting,” decrying “negative polls” that suggest otherwise as “fake news.”
Fifty-three percent opposed the order, according to a CNN/ORC poll, with 46 percent arguing that it makes the U.S. less safe from terrorism and 49 percent saying it harms American values by preventing those seeking asylum from entering the U.S.
Fifty-one percent expressed disapproval with the ban in a CBS News survey, in which 57 percent of respondents said the ban goes against the country’s founding principles.
To be clear, Miller isn’t in hot water for botched EO rollout. He’s in trouble for making POTUS look bad.
Polls aren’t inherently flawed, it seems: just those that are “negative” about Trump’s policies. That is because he is uniquely qualified to understand what the American people want. Why? Well, presumably because he won the presidency despite “fake polls” suggesting he would lose.
It appears Trump is going to keep repeating this chain of convoluted logic until people who look favorably upon him accept it implicitly: He won a big, landslide victory that was disguised by media lies and many millions of fraudulent votes against him; thus he has a mandate to do exactly what he is doing; and what he’s doing is popular, notwithstanding the lies about it from the same lying pollsters and media.
Trump is quite literally saying he is the only legitimate source of information on what the American people want https://t.co/HXP8wAk5j0
Welcome to The Coffee Shop, just for you early risers on Monday mornings. This is an Open Thread forum, so if you have an off-topic opinion burning a hole in your brainpan, feel free to add a comment. ___________________________________________________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
“In a Super Bowl performance that spanned her entire discography, Lady Gaga opened her act with a rendition of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” which has become a popular anthem at rallies protesting President Trump across the country. Standing atop the NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas, Gaga started the song backed by a massive fleet of drones before leaping onto her stage. It was a stunning start to an over-the-top set that, while not overtly political, was certainly aimed at her political fans.” http://www.theverge.com/…
The deflated balls of Trump supporters had descended by 18 points at half-time and a well-produced satanic ritual only means that there should be more bread and circuses with no sugar.
The network that brought us Glee couldn’t compel its news division to provide more than an LIV version of the half-time show’s political content.
What about “steering clear of politics” is signified by having This Land is Your Land supersede God Bless America.
Woody Guthrie criticized the song (God Bless America), which he considered unrealistic and complacent, and in 1940 he wrote “This Land Is Your Land,” originally titled “God Blessed America For Me,” as a response.[8]
In an age of snow-machines, would you die for a “walrus leading a dog sled team”
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 