Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
The senator powerfully linked domestic and foreign policy in the context of massive global inequality.
Comments
From "The Intercept"
BERNIE SANDERS TO DEMOCRATS: THIS IS WHAT A RADICAL FOREIGN POLICY LOOKS LIKE
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 2:26pm
I missed it - did he say something new? uh, Iraq was a screwup, the Iran nuke deal was good, overthrowing Mossadegh boneheaded. Well hey, Madeleine Albright apologized for getting rid of Mossadegh decades ago, Iran nukes was done under Obama & supported by both Clinton and Sanders at the time, and the famous 2002 vote was epitomized by HIllary's "distrust and verify" position that focused on inspections.
Meanwhile, Sanders talks about "jobs" but not about trade - like they're unrelated, or that closing off trade doesn't tend to lower poor countries' options for crawling out of of poverty. (hint: how did China do it?). Instead they bend over backwards to praise Sanders for remedying his famed missing foreign policy by declaring roughly (I didn't make this up) "the secret to foreign policy can be found in domestic policy".
oh my. Chauncey Gardiner is at it again:
The Nation: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Bernie Sanders: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
The Nation": In the garden.
Bernie Sanders: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
The Nation: Spring and summer.
Bernie Sanders: Yes.
The Nation: Then fall and winter.
Bernie Sanders: Yes.
The Nation: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Bernie Sanders: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
The Nation: Hmm!
Bernie Sanders: Hmm!
The Nation: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 3:03pm
"Meanwhile, Sanders talks about "jobs" but not about trade - like they're unrelated, or that closing off trade doesn't tend to lower poor countries' options for crawling out of of poverty."
We've been through this PP. After I cited to articles that definitely debunk the notion you've apparently cherished for years that "free" trade reduces inequality in developing nations, I had high hopes that you would dial back your support for this retrograde dynamic. I'm sorry to see that you have not.
by HSG on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 3:23pm
Hal, you can't eat thread and shit gold - if you don't think trade (& innovation) is the way to increase wealth,then explain how to do it - I'm at a loss to what if anything you or Bernie are suggesting, aside from tax the hell out of banks, which won't work terribly well if they're then largely dead.
Oh great, now it's time to think about it. Uh, what happened the last year? or if there's an actual point The Nation preferred to ignore writing about it.
Plus, as I keep noting, the level of warfare has gone way down, as has population explosion - most countries are now down to replacement levels, and only Pakistan and a handful of African countries are a significant problem that's improving. Improved renewable energy will also make cleaning & desalinating water much more affordable. So why can't we ever be optimistic and credit the improvements and what caused those improvements?
Also, please note that one way or another we're trading, and the extent it's "free" or copious or restricted and minimal affects the levels and benefits of the trade on people in different markets, for better or worse. If you're arguing that 0 international (cross border) trade would be best, I'd be rather amazed and dubious. If you think there's an optimal amount, that'd fit my expectations better.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 3:35pm
Your argument is that all trade necessarily increases wealth right? I mean I have never argued that there should be no trade or that trading with poorer countries should be verboten. I have specifically argued against the practice known today as "free" trade. So if you're disagreeing with me, you're saying that all trade is necessarily salutary right?
Okay, how did the African slave trade work for Africans and American slaves? Was slavery beneficial to them? Clearly there was wealth generated. I mean Americans wouldn't pay much for free black human beings in Africa but if you kidnap them and ship them in chains to the New World, they're suddenly worth a fortune. So I guess in your world that's an example of how trade increases wealth.
Ah you would say that kind of trade was wrong because of the harm it did to the human beings who were wrongly treated like commodities. Okay, but what about poor whites in the south? Did the slave trade benefit them? Not at all. Free labor meant that the price that poor whites could charge for their labor was greatly reduced. Moreover, it meant that the cost of land was greatly increased.
Not fair you rejoin, slavery is always wrong. Okay, how about trade between England and Ireland in the 19th century. That must have been good for Ireland since it was a poor underdeveloped country at that point. Actually, it wasn't good for Ireland. Ireland became a production site for English textile manufacturers and Ireland's agricultural fields became a potato monoculture by the 1840s since the land was too costly to devote to any kind of agriculture but the most productive in terms of calories per acre. When the potato crop failed, the country suffered mass starvation.
The point is that trade generally benefits those who decide to engage in it. It does not necessarily benefit labor or consumers. Indeed, the evidence is in and the massive free trade deals that you endorse have harmed working people in the United States and other developed nations. They have harmed farmers in Latin America and have provided marginal benefits to the poor in Asia. They have also done great harm to the environment. Meanwhile global elites are prospering like never before. It's long past time to move in a different direction.
by HSG on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 3:40pm
"Your argument is that all trade necessarily increases wealth right?" - of course not, don't be silly. When Soros did his currency attack on SE Asian tigers, the country that weathered it best was Malaysia, who closed off its economy to limit the damage. That said, there's a lot of mutually beneficial trade, which is why I support *well structured* trade deals, not hope-and-a-prayer or 1-sided agreements.
Why are you bringing in slavery and indentured labor? England was an occupying power in Ireland in the 19th century (and it's suspected more than a potato shortage, there was a potatoes-locked-in-storage problem) - what does this have to do with voluntary negotiated trade deals between autonomous states?
"Marginal benefits to the poor in Asia" - are you fucking crazy? I wrote a few days ago that wages had drastically increased in China (to higher than some EU countries) and India thanks to trade and Norman Borlaug's work paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. How quickly anything I write is ignored and forgotten.
Does that look "marginal" to you? Note also that Capital is the ultimate driver of increased wealth, not labor.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 4:15pm
I'm surprised you're still relying on charts showing higher wages per capita since as I pointed out and ultimately documented the increased wealth generated in both India and China has mostly gone to elites.
by HSG on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 3:45pm
You and your fucking "elites" - I'm talking about survival, as is even the author of your China piece that you can't seem to read properly.
Here's a simple one:
Is there anything about that you can't understand? *2011 purchasing price parity*. So including housing, goods, urban vs. rural, whatever, adjusted for inflation. Not limited to "elites".
BTW - cities are more efficient than the country, so despite the crowding and pollution, there are a lot of things that are *cheaper*, *easier to find*. Certain parts of quality of life are greatly improved.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 4:39pm
No. It's not hard for me to understand as I have pointed out repeatedly that "free trade" has led to marginally improved living conditions for millions of Chinese. Okay I answered your question. Let's see if you can answer mine.
Is it hard for you to understand that the drop in the percentage of Chinese living in extreme poverty came at great cost to America's working and middle-class? Is it hard for you to understand that "free trade" has also decimated Latin America's agricultural sector and led to terribly crowded, impoverished, and crime-ridden cities? Is it hard for you to understand that China's industrial rise has exacerbated our ecological crisis? Is it hard for you to understand that there were almost certainly other better ways to address Chinese poverty? Is it hard for you to understand that . . . Nah that's enough.
by HSG on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 4:50pm
Tell me the better way to address China's piverty, oh swami. I'm all ears.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 6:37pm
I've done so several times at this website. Since you demonstrated on those occasions that you will not take seriously positions that eviscerate your own, I have neither interest in recpitulating nor desire to recapitulate them.
by HSG on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 6:52pm
"Eviscerate", eh? Rhymes with "hilarious"
BTW, the good news in China on wage distribution you love to hate. The phrase "the dismal science" was coined just for you.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/24/2017 - 2:56am
So growing income inequality in China was the only quasi-legit criticism of "free trade" right? Since you found one study suggesting a slight reduction there, nobody can rationally question the wisdom of the dynamic. Makes sense. I note that you have never, to my recollection, acknowledged even one problem resulting from "free trade" or evinced the slightest sympathy for the many who have suffered from it.
by HSG on Sun, 09/24/2017 - 8:44am
" I note that you have never, to my recollection, acknowledged even one problem resulting from "free trade" or evinced the slightest sympathy for the many who have suffered from it." - I notice that you are batshit crazy and oblivious to any detail that doesn't fit the spin you want. I'm done.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/24/2017 - 8:56am
Thanks LULU. This is an essential article. One of the few legitimate criticisms of Bernie Sanders has been that he has not articulated a coherent progressive foreign policy. That criticism is no longer valid.
For those questioning whether Sanders is merely peddling old wine in new bottles, this passage is instructive:
Solving challenges through diplomacy is the opposite of the approach favored by both parties in this millenium.
by HSG on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 3:19pm
Um, he still has not articulated a coherent foreign policy. He just said what he doesn't like about the way things are and then he said how he would like things to be. Policy is about how to get from a to b.
by CVille Dem on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 3:54pm
He, Sanders, articulated ideas behind a definite change in our country's foreign policy political philosophy. If the philosophy changes then different policies will emerge, something I consider very important. But, the ideas for a "better" foreign policy must gain traction first which will mean exposing mistakes of the past and the decision makers responsible whohave been coming from both parties. That will not happen if we keep electing hawks. Sanders is addressing a very important subject, actually a matter of life and death for an inestimable number going forward. If you choose to answer I would like to know whether or not we have had, for say the last twenty years, [pick any time period you wish, maybe pick the term of any one recent President] a "good' foreign policy. Is there any definite change in direction that you would support because you think it is important? Do you think that either changing our FP or keeping it approximately the same should be a campaign issue?
Edited to fill out an incomplete sentence.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 4:37pm
Lulu, I just documented that he barely said fuckall about foreign policy, including the big silence about trade and relation to money and poverty and the rest of the world and the 3 billion people represented in those big graphs. Sanders hasn't articulated anything - he offered up a few pithy unparsable lines purportedly about FP but more standard domestic isolationist stump fare.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 2:41am
PP, thanks for pointing out my blogging temerity which I pompously demonstrated by foolishly posting a comment after you have already proclaimed the last word on the subject? Documented” might be a bit of an overstatement but who am I to say?
After reading Sanders speech again I do indeed notice that your impressive parody of an idiot [is that a developed talent or does it just come natural to you] said all that anybody should need to, or even care to, know. Indeed, as you point out, Sanders did not offer specifics about how many more troops led by which accomplished generals he would put in which countries against their wishes to protect their sovereignty, where we would not be going to war but instead just instituting no-fly zones so as to act as the airforce for some group serving as our proxy boots on the ground, which sovereign heads of state must be deposed by these methods, and which countries should just be starved by sanctions until they see the wisdom of our ways. There is so much more that could have been said, so much more that needs a national voice. Did he even specifically say how many more billions we must take away from domestic priorities to accomplish these and other noble outcomes?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 12:56pm
This was more along Godwin's Law, an advisemntt or observation actually, wherr you *may* continue to claim he said something new when it's been shown to be patently observably not so, but it just makes you look foolish and simply highlights the kind of empty rhetorics we're working with.
BTW, where's that Russian criticism? Tough bit of homework, eh?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/01/2017 - 7:45pm
You seem to need a list of different tactics in order to see a proposed shift in FP. I think an honest shift in the tone and attitude of our belligerent FP away from the neocon dominated policies of recent history would amount to a significant change in strategy which must come first. Different tactics would follow. I think it should be obvious that we need to try something different. I think I see a call for that change in Sanders' speech. I didn't see that in the primaries so I see this speech is important as he continues to try to change the nature of the Democratic Party. I wish him luck and in doing so wish us all luck. I'm not holding my breath.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 10/01/2017 - 10:06pm
Outlets That Scolded Sanders Over Deficits Uniformly Silent on $700B Pentagon Handout
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/22/2017 - 10:47pm
i was interested to look up who voted no, only these eight:
and would just like to remind everyone that Congress decides these things, not the president, whoever he or she may be. So there might be a very long row to hoe in order to change this military spending thing.
by artappraiser on Sun, 10/01/2017 - 9:07pm
The speech delivers an internationalist message that is at odds with the message given in the campaign that globalization is the enemy of American Labor.
No wonder Sanders didn't talk this way until after he lost.
by moat on Sun, 10/01/2017 - 5:58pm