What the American Economy needs now

Under the title: “The underlying economic trends driving the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump,” the New York Daily News has on February 14, 2016 published the viewpoint of Mortimer B. Zuckerman on the subject.

He discusses the latest statistics on the American economy, painting a bleak picture of its current state. He then puts forth three suggestions which he says will remedy the situation. They are to embark on a program to repair the nation's infrastructure, to spur the housing activity and to nudge those on public assistance toward work.

To be sure, that will help somewhat, but it is not the durable solution that's needed to fix the complex problems facing the economy at this time. To fashion a more permanent solution, we must understand more fundamentally what is happening not only to the American economy but to all the advanced industrial economies.

These are the economies that caught the Industrial Revolution when it first started more than two centuries ago. They experienced growth over a long period of time by inventing the products they made, by designing and constantly improving the machines that made them, and by modernizing the business models they were using. The entrepreneurs made those models suitable for the changing times while at the same time allowing the economies to develop organically in response to market forces.

As to the economies that did not start their industrial development until well after World War Two, they did not need to innovate because they did not have to reinvent the wheel every step of the way ... so to speak. All they had to do was methodically plan for and copy what was done before them. Called emerging economies, they are still using that same business model, though some of the nations have advanced enough to start doing leading edge research and development of their own.

Because it takes more time and money to invent a product and produce it than to copy what someone else has done, the emerging economies are saving time and money. They are therefore able to score high rates of growth, and able to hire large numbers of new workers. These would be highly disciplined individuals who are eager to learn new skills, and happy to work for a small paycheck.

In fact, the emerging economies don't even have to administer all that alone. It's because the entrepreneurs of the advanced economies find it highly profitable to close their operations at home and move the business to those nations. This is why America and the other advanced economies are experiencing the conditions that Mortimer Zuckerman is describing. It's that – for now at least – the growth and the jobs are hard to come by in the old economies, and easier to have in the emerging ones.

Because the emerging nations must plan the development of their economies at the same time as they partner with the capitalist entrepreneurs of the advanced economies, they follow a business model that is essentially a public-private partnership. But unlike the planned economies that never got off the ground during the Soviet era, the partnerships of today's emerging economies are succeeding nicely.

Now this question: Is there a lesson in all of this for America and the other advanced economies? Happily, the answer is yes. In fact, a suitable business model has already been tested inside an economy that is advanced, and was proven to work flawlessly for nearly half a century.

Recall that the auto companies in America and all the businesses that fed them almost died when the American economy came to near collapse in 2009. The problem was that the companies stood alone, having to provide pension and health coverage for their workers. The difficulties surfaced only in America and not in Canada where branches of the same auto companies did not have to provide health coverage for their workers.

That was the case because Canada has a system of universal health coverage that's administered by the Federal and Provincial Governments. It proved to be the public-private partnership that kept the Canadian branches of the American auto companies economically healthy during the worst crisis.

And this is convincing proof that in an age when the emerging economies have adopted the public-private partnership business model, the advanced economies can survive and do well by adopting the same model.

Here's how America gets shafted royally

War is hell. When a war is brutal and prolonged, people react to it. The neutral observers – having no interest in the outcome of the war – react to the human suffering they see on their screen. As to those who have an interest in the outcome of the war; they react to it in one of several ways.

Those whose side is winning justify everything their side is doing, no matter how brutal or murderous it may be. If something happens that is so glaringly savage it cannot be justified or minimized, those who support it will blame the brutality on the other side. As to the losing side, it will exaggerate the effects that the war is having on the civilian population, and blame it all on the side that's winning.

The above description generally applies to all sorts of civilian populations such as those you meet anywhere you go on this planet. However, it can also happen that a large and diverse society, such as the United States of America, would be composed of different groups, most of them having a stake in the outcome of the war, but each looking at it from a different angle.

The two groups which are of interest to us in this discussion are (a) the pundits whose interest is security matters and/or foreign policy, and (b) the individuals who were forged in a military (or militaristic) environment. These people react emotionally and intellectually to what they see and the sum total of what they say and do, gives shape to the public opinion that will eventually emerge and be used to convince the government it must react in one way or another.

All of that comes to the fore when reading two pieces that were published in the New York Daily News. On February 12, 2016, the editors wrote and published their own piece: “Putin on the blitz”; whereas on February 13, 2016, they published an article that was written by the military adviser Andrew Peek, under the title: “This 'cease-fire' in Syria is a farce – and a bloody one at that”.

Going over Peek's article, you instantly get the sense that his interest is to safeguard the honor of the American military he has been advising: “There is nothing as humiliating for Americans as the Syrian peace process … [John] Kerry should walk away.” He goes on: “The current crisis was initiated by Russian airstrikes … Controlling both Aleppo and Damascus and sealing the Turkish border would all but win this war” for the Russians.

He laments: “The Syrian opposition is still being bombed … It wins us no friends among the Syrians, their allies or even their enemies.” As to the Russians themselves, Andrew Peek asserts that they don't really negotiate: “Why should they? They're winning,” he goes on to say. And this is why he suggests that “the only way to make these talks meaningful is to turn the tide of battle around.” He does not expand further than that.

As to the editors of the New York Daily News – when you read their piece – you instantly get the sense that they are not ordinary pundits but individuals who suffer from a predilection for the double-faced Jewish ambiguity. From their first sentence to the last, you see them struggle to weave a fake concern they express for the destruction of Syria, and an equally fake concern they express for America's diminished standing in the world.

Look at this: “the country [Syria] is a bloody shambles … The ceasefire makes official the collapse of U.S. influence in the region.” And this: “The death count is at 470,000, and millions have fled … While the U.S. declaring there's no military solution.” And they go on to say: “Now, it seems there is a military solution – but not for the U.S. Russia has taken charge.”

Note that having expressed their pain that America did not take the military solution taken by the Russians, the Jewish editors of the Daily News now tell what the Russians did that America refused to do: “they have been indiscriminately bombing and starving what men, women and children remain in Aleppo and other strongholds.” Is this what the Jews wanted America to do to be ahead of the Russians?

And there is worse: “Russian Foreign Minister lectured: All sides must sit at the negotiating table instead of unleashing a new world war.” This saying makes the editors weep: “The Russians have demonstrated they have the courage of their convictions, and that the U.S. does not.” Translation: Let's have a world war.

This suits Israel and the Jews just fine, but would shaft America like no one was able to shaft it thus far.

The hungry and bloodthirsty Beasts are back

Peace and prosperity are breaking out along the Nile River, and the blood-drinking beasts – so ferocious, they can chomp a crocodile and down it in a single gulp – have returned with an appetite that threatens every living thing in the patch of land where the human species was born millions of years ago.

This time, Eric Reeves is the Alpha beast leading the charge. He is roaring: “Don't forget Darfur,” a cry that was spread on February 11, 2016 on the op-ed page of the blood-soaked rag named New York Times. Now that Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt – perhaps Eritrea too – have come together to undertake joint projects that will benefit them and benefit all the nations of the Nile Basin, the war mongers of the Tel-Aviv/New-York Axis of horror have come back to do the annual performance of accusing the innocent Sudanese of doing what the beasts are themselves trying to do but failing miserably.

It was a year ago, on February 26, 2015 that three other Alpha beasts calling themselves George Clooney, John Prendergast and Akshaya Kumar had roared the war mongering cry: “George Clooney on Sudan's Rape of Darfur,” also published in the New York Times; that same blood soaked rag of the same Tel-Aviv/New-York Axis of horror. To that piece, came a same day response on this website under the title: “Clooney to enable a Sudanese Boko Haram”. It can be accessed in the archives on the right side of this page.

The idea for undertaking that whole exercise at the time was the same as that of today. It is that the bloodthirsty beasts were calling on America to exert its influence and pressure its friends, so that together, they might fabricate the necessary excuse that would have allowed them to destroy as much as possible of the progress being made in the nations of the Nile Basin.

The aim then was to send those nations back to the “Stone Age,” a condition that would have given the captains of the Tel-Aviv/New-York Axis of horror, the chance to move in and exploit those who would not be able to defend themselves any better than the unarmed Palestinians are today capable to defend themselves against the genocidal onslaught of an axis of horror that's equipped with the most advanced weapons fabricated by America's military industrial complex.

The excuse that the beasts of last year had fabricated for calling on America and its allies to intervene was that the regime in Khartoum was desperate for money, and was trying to grab the gold producing regions of Darfur, steal the gold that belonged to someone else, and sell it to remain economically viable.

But there was a logical anomaly pointing to the fact that the gold mines belonged to the central government and were in its hands. They earned Khartoum 1.7 billion dollars a year, and no one was disputing that ownership.

The excuse today is that “the regime in Khartoum is again desperate … facing a failing economy [and] civil unrest.” But here too, there is a logical anomaly pointing to the fact that Sudan – along with the other nations of the Nile Basin – is poised to experience an economic revival that will dwarf anything the region has experienced before.

The author, Eric Reeves himself makes the following points:

First, the international economic sanctions against Sudan have failed to bring results.

Second, the African Union has been accommodating of the Sudanese government.

Third, several countries of the European Union – among them Sweden, France and Germany – are doing brisk business with Sudan.

Fourth, Europe and Sudan are talking debt relief.

Fifth, the United States is not using its leverage at the Paris Club to force the Europeans to end those talks.

Sixth, the State Department has announced it is decoupling Darfur from all other matters concerning Sudan.

Well, it cannot get any better than that for Sudan. And this is why the desperately hungry beats of the Judeo-American Axis of horror are getting thirsty for fresh African, Arab and Muslim blood.

As usual, they hope that the nincompoops of the American Congress will supply them with such blood.

The Game America loses all the Time

What do you say to a guy who states that he is the well-informed pundit who knows everything about a given subject? He'll tell you what he knows and expects to be paid handsomely. You say okay, go ahead and tell me what you know. And he says the following:

You should see those Egyptians; they have a mind of their own. They are a stubborn people, and when they want something, they go in the streets by the millions and demand that they be heard and be accommodated. Nobody can tell them what to do, and all the foreigners that tried to intervene in their internal affairs were rebuffed instantly … in no uncertain terms.

So you want to know what sort of relationship the people of Egypt has with their military. And he tells you they love their military. When they cannot get the government to budge on fulfilling their demands, they call on the military to intervene and force the government to accede to those demands or be replaced. In fact, this is what happened five years ago in Egypt and what continues to reverberate to this day.

So now you feel you must ask these questions: What about the role that America may have played during those five years? And what role should it play in the future, if any? Oh, how sad you're asking these questions, he cries out. And he explains that America was unable to do a thing because there were no good options to choose from. The fact is that there were only two options, each being as bad as the other.

So that's it, you say … end of story. Oh no, he says, you need to know that Obama's handling of this episode was really bad. Oh yeah! Why is that? you ask. Because Obama sat idly by and did nothing for a long time, he says. But you said there was nothing that could be done, you remind him. He does not respond. Instead, he acknowledges that the Egyptian military was admirable except in one instance when it tried to scare the people … but that's not too serious, he admits.

Now you want to know who might have said these things. He is Eric Trager who wrote an article that came under the title: “Five years after Mubarak's fall, lessons for Washington” and the subtitle: “It is now perfectly clear how the Obama administration failed.” It was published on February 11, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

He begins the article by acknowledging that the protesters were in the streets for 18 days before the military entered the fray. He then advances the argument that – on the other hand – President Obama should have instantly decided to back the revolutionaries. And he says why: “By allowing events 6,000 miles away to outpace its decision-making, the Obama administration placed itself in a lose-lose situation.” Already, this does not make sense to you, but you encounter what's even worse.

It is that the author goes on to say: “which is why everyone – the military, revolutionaries, Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarakists, and regional allies – now regard U.S. policy during this period as a failure.” Really? All these people are mad at Obama because he did not jump to his feet the moment that he heard of a revolution in Egypt, and sided with the revolutionaries?

Alas, you find nothing in the article that would explain that last piece of nonsense. But you find plenty that shows how confused the so-called well-informed pundits are about Egypt. Here is an example that contradicts every point Trager has been trying to make:

“Washington could either project itself as a supporter of democracy, or signal its commitment to stability. By the time that Obama spoke, there was no good answer to this dilemma. While the administration is often criticized for damaging its relationship with regional allies by rhetorically embracing Egypt's uprising, it would have similarly hurt its reputation by supporting an Egyptian president who was already destined to fall.”

This means that while the author is describing a situation in which any sort of intervention would have led to bad consequences, he still maintains that Obama was wrong in not intervening instantly. Horrendous logic.

My advice is that if you haven't yet paid this guy, you should keep the money and show him the door. It is people like him giving advice on the Middle East that caused America to lose each and every time.

How a Culture gets infested by a Disease

Even before the 1967 Middle Eastern War, I began to sense that everything was not kosher in the so-called democracy that Canada was supposed to be. I had discovered that the body of the culture was infested with a virus as pernicious as the bubonic plague had been to the human body.

At the time, I was a student at a university in Ontario when I discovered that books in the library served as a graffiti wall for the Jews who did not want to see a single favorable word said about Egypt. When this occurred, the page that carried the offending thought was corrected in blue or red ink by the Jewish hand that came across it. I looked in other books where I thought Egypt may be mentioned, and found that most of them were fouled in like manner.

The war then happened, and for at least two years after that, you could see letters to the editors fill a page or two in every newspaper, all of them asking the editors to cancel the readers' subscriptions because the stories were biased and unfair to Israel. As to the audio-visual publications – even the venerated Walter Cronkite of CBS – was forced to report on several occasions that “yesterday” or “last week” the network carried a story that was not entirely accurate. And he altered it to sound more favorable to the Jews.

And then one day, a Jewish woman, Linda Allerbee, was hosting a nationally televised program that touched on Middle Eastern affairs. She was being fair to all sides, but that did not sit well with those who could not stand seeing or hearing something that came short of a zillion percent in favor of Israel. The program was knocked off the air, and the network remained blacked out to the end of the program.

For a reason that remained a mystery for a long time, Allerbee felt compelled to write a book on the incident, saying that a technical error nobody could fix was the culprit. But reading the book, you can feel that she wrote it under duress. Now, you don't have to wonder anymore because what happened then has been institutionalized. It is the infamous 5-seconds delay that puts a Jewish “educated” censor at the delete switch of every show. These characters sit there and zap you if you say something that's not to their liking.

And it happened to me some ten years ago or thereabout when I was sending scripts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Needless to say they were all returned to me with a note saying the Corporation could not use them. But there was this one time when I sent them a script and did not hear from them. I called to inquire, and the woman who took my called checked on the computer. She gasped in horror saying “wait a minute, wait a minute.” I asked what's happening, and she said something to the effect that someone had messed up the site. She advised me to call some other time. Two days later, the script was back in my mail box.

That's how the widely acknowledged Jewish disease infects a culture and kills it. The worst part is that it can also mutate like a virus to remain effective when the situation changes. You can see it in the AP article that was posted on the website of ABC News. It came under the title: “At Least 69 Injured in Train Derailment in Egypt,” and posted on February 11, 2016.

Whereas the article ends with this editorial note: “Railroad accidents due to negligence are common in Egypt … the government has failed to deal with chronic transport problems,” the truth is that dozens of railroad accidents happened in America in the interval between the previous accident in Egypt and the current one. And yet, you only see straightforward reporting on those accidents, and no editorializing.

Even worse than ABC News is what happened on the FOX News channel. There, scrolled at the bottom of the screen you could see mention of the train accident in Egypt in which people were hurt but no one died.

And so, the sick Jew that handled this affair must have been so incensed, he engineered something that is as disgusting as only a Jewish cultural virus can get. Right after the item which carried the Egyptian mishap, he ran a story which says that 6 children were killed and a number of others were hurt. Because the story does not say where this happened, the connotation was that it connected to the train accident in Egypt. But the truth is that it happened in France. And that was hidden from the public.

Now, dear reader, ask yourself: Who suffers as a result of this disease? Is it Egypt? No. Rather, it is the Americans who let themselves be fornicated in their heads, their hearts and their souls by sick Jews.

Another Pie in the Elliott Abrams Style

Those who have been reading Elliott Abrams on a regular basis know he is more of an Israeli at heart than even Benjamin Netanyahu. If you did not know he was born in America and grew up in there, you would think he was born in Israel, grew up in there, and never left the place. Thus, when he speaks or writes a piece, you must take it as vintage Israeli thinking and Israeli doings.

The fact remains, however, that when you look into a Jewish story and parse it, you cannot avoid getting caught in ambiguities that bungle the logical setup on which the story is based. It is just the nature of the Jewish existence. And this is happening again because Elliott Abrams found it convenient to put on his American hat at this time and speak as if he were the bearer of American sentiments.

He is doing it in the article that came under the title: “Kerry's Fantasy Egypt” which he wrote and published on February 9, 2016 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. While he is trashing Egypt in an article that is intended for an American audience, it is important to keep in mind that Israel feels so isolated at this time; the Israeli newspapers – writing for local consumption – are overflowing with talk about the good relations that exist between Egypt and Israel.

Of course, most of that is exaggerated hooey, but it is hard to knock it because the two countries have just resumed their ambassadorial representations. And no one is more adept than the Jews at taking something that is no bigger than a singularity, and inflating it to the size of a universe. In this game, the Jews are truly the gods of the bull.

And so, what we have here is a typical Jewish-Israeli situation. That is, you see the Israelis reassure themselves and each other that they have friends in Egypt, the most important Arab nation. At the same time, however, you have Jewish Americans – who are more Israeli-at-heart than the authentic Sabras – trashing Egypt and urging America's brainless legislators to punish that country for one reason or another … depending on the direction of the wind on a given day.

The reason given by Elliott Abrams to trash Egypt at this time is actually a multi-faceted one. What happened at the State Department is what motivated him to advance the following views. First of all, he is unhappy that Secretary of State, John Kerry, has received the Foreign Minister of Egypt who used to be ambassador to the US, and that he gave a short speech in which he praised Egypt.

Second of all, that reception happened at the same time that Kerry's undersecretary, Sarah Sewall, is on a mission in Egypt working to strengthen the relations between the two countries. Thus, unlike the Israelis who welcomed the exchanges they worked out with Egypt, you see the Israeli-at-heart in America write at the start of his article: “She [Sewall] might as well have stayed home.” And write at the end of it: “Ms. Sewall ought to come home.” You cannot get more absolute than that.

All of that prompts you to ask the following question: What to make of this double-faced Jewish attitude? To find out, we go through the Abrams article and try to determine what it is that's upsetting him. We find him railing against John Kerry because the latter “showed that he has zero interest in 'Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights'” in Egypt. It could be that Abrams is fantasizing about military checkpoints dotting the Egyptian landscape the way they do things in Israel.

As to the praises that Kerry heaped on Egypt, Abrams pushed back against them by saying that Egypt is not going through a political transition because it remains what it was under Mubarak. In addition, the country has very little clout in the region, he says. As to its economy, it is not going through a transformative reform. In fact, says Abrams, today Egypt is broke. As if this were not enough, the security situation in the country is deteriorating, he goes on to say. And worse of all, the human rights situation is appalling. How much worse can it get?

So you ask yourself: This being the case, why is it that Egypt has not formed some kind of a fellowship association with an American group – similar to what the Jews have done? Day after day, and year after year, they run commercials that ask for 25-dollar donations to feed the hungry Jews of Israel.

Given that the Jews are collecting a fortune while pretending to be a “Start-up Nation” that needs no help, think of all the money that Egypt could collect, given the massive Jewish propaganda which says that the country is broke and needs help.

In any case, the answer to the above question is simple. It is that Egypt is everything John Kerry praised it for, whereas Israel and the likes of Elliott Abrams are full of the bull.

New Hampshire's clear Message to America

New Hampshire, a state considered to be a microcosm of America in terms of its demographic distribution, has sent a message to the captains of the political and media establishments of the nation: stop the spin, get off the carousel of the daily cycle, leave the old bill of goods behind, and give us the straight goods.

The people of New Hampshire gave their approval to a billionaire who goes around talking about pussies and blood coming out of a woman's eyes or whatever else; and they gave their approval to an aging nemesis of billionaires whose demeanor and language are those of an innocent young lad who wouldn't know a pussy if he tripped on one.

The people let it be known that they are not offended by what is said when it is said simply and clearly; they are offended by crooked mouths spewing double-talk that is as clear as mud.

The message of the American masses to the aspiring powers in the making is that they are not envious of someone's billions as long as he or she earned them by producing something, but are sick and tired of those who – for all practical purposes – own and operate the printing presses of the Central Bank known as the Fed.

The truth is that the people of America know these presses exist to print and distribute to each member of the society according to the effort they exert in producing wealth for the nation … not print and distribute to members of the protection rackets occupying the streets that surround the Fed, and hug it as if it were private property constructed in their backyard.

Whether a candidate believes in the theories of Milton Friedman or those of John Maynard Keynes, the people want to know what he or she will do with their favorite set of theories; not what the other guy will not do with his. They understand that the world has changed and that competition from abroad requires the formulation of a new approach to the existing economic theories, and they want to know what each candidate is prepared to formulate in this regard.

The people instinctively sense that a mature economy, such as that of the United States, which had the luxury of growing organically by relying on market forces alone, can no longer rely on those forces because it faces competition from emerging economies that know what's ahead and plan for it artificially. They take their cues from the economies that preceded them, and travel on a road they do not need to construct because it is already there.

On the other hand, those who built the old road and try to extend it further have a hard time moving as fast ahead as the emerging economies approach them from behind. While there is a disparity in favor of America between the accumulated wealth it has, and the accumulated wealth of the emerging economies, the disparity in the rate of growth is in favor of the emerging economies. This is why they have the jobs and the mobility for their workers whereas America is lagging behind in these areas.

Thus, the candidates who wish to win the trust of the American electorate must tell it honestly that even though they still believe in the old Capitalist system, they must adapt it to the new realities by introducing into it a certain amount of “physical intervention” that will offset those done in the emerging economies – against which the old fashioned Capitalism can no longer compete going alone.

The candidate that will formulate a system that's robust enough to withstand the winds of change, yet remain flexible enough to bend when necessary instead of breaking, will have the best chance at winning the confidence of the voters.

They should articulate their vision simply and in full, and if they do it well, will be given the chance to take the helm of the ship of state in the District of Columbia.