When would the Americans and white men stop killing black men, Arab and Muslims, Latin Americans and Asians? How could they strut around smiling and acting as if nothing had happened, that they are the angels, the good guys, and the bad guys are China and Russia, that had not killed any Africa, Arab Muslim, Asian or Latin American leaders? How could they go on lying that they are for peace and the aggressors and warmongers are the Chinese and Russians?
How many silly coloured people are still blind to the crimes against humanity of the Americans and the white men and still believing in their lies and refuse to think, refuse to see the facts laid bare in front of them? How can they believe in the devils and blame the innocent just because of the lies in the main media?
PS. Other than killing the Blacks in Africa and the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, how many trillions of resources have the white men robbed from these countries, not counting countries in Asia, SE Asia and Latin America. Not forgetting the robbing of the continent of North America ie USA and Canada and the continent of Australia, New Zealand and many Pacific islands, including Hawaii.
5 comments:
*The Shift In The Zeitgeist*
The US has one of the freest presses in the world, and one of the most competitive even combative-media landscapes. On any major issue, there is usually a cacophony of widely diverging opinions-all protected by the First Amendment. The exception is foreign policy. Often it seems US media from MSNBC to Fox News, from The Washington Post to The Wall Street Journal, are all singing from the same hymnal. In 2003, US media across the board supported the invasion of Iraq. In the 2010s, they backed the US interventions in Libya and Syria. And in the 2020s, they have lined up behind Washington's new cold war aimed at forestalling China's rise.
Here, it stands out how in recent weeks the zeitgeist in the financial media has shifted markedly away from the belief that when it comes to world markets the US is the best house in a bad neighborhood, and towards the view that the next big macro trend is dedollarization. Readers will know that dedollarization has been a major theme of Gavekal's research over the last year. Nevertheless, we never foresaw dedollarization specials on CNN with Fareed Zakaria or Fox News with Tucker Carlson. So why the dramatic shift in the zeitgeist?
1. The dedollarization trend is picking up pace and getting too big to ignore, even for media that seldom care what happens beyond US borders. In the past month, we have seen Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates defy the White House to make oil output cuts that will be a big help to Russia (see The Three Prices: An Update On Oil). And we have seen the presidents of France and Brazil as well as the prime ministers of Spain, Singapore and Malaysia all travel to Beijing for love-ins with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. These visits followed Xi's own trip to Moscow, and China's diplomatic success in broking a deal between Saudi and Iran aimed at ending the war in Yemen (see Peace Breaks Out). At this stage, even Stevie Wonder should be able to see that US attempts to isolate China are not working out, and may even be backfiring.
2. Investors are waking up to how in the last boom most of the excesses took place in the US. Over the past 15 years or so, capital in the US was both very cheap and easily accessible, whereas in Japan and Europe, while capital was cheap, banks weren't exactly lending hand over fist, and in most emerging markets capital was never stupidly cheap nor easily accessible. It stands to reason therefore that if capital was wasted, it was most likely wasted in the US.
So if you agree that handing out cheap and plentiful money is the financial equivalent of giving adolescent boys fast cars and free whiskey (see The High Cost Of Free Money), you will not be surprised if, as the price of capital rises, most of the financial accidents take place in the US. Purely on anecdotal evidence. it does feel as if most of the stupidity of recent years-Theranos, FTX, GameStop, Bed Bath & Beyond-was a US phenomenon. And likely this suspicion has only been amplified by the US regional bank crisis. It is probably no coincidence that the talk of dedollarization really kicked into gear following the surprise failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.
3. The third, more speculative, explanation is that the change in the zeitgeist reflects an important shift in US policy towards the US dollar. Through the 1990s and 2000s, US Treasury secretaries would seize every chance to remind the world that the US ran a "strong dollar policy." This meant that the US, as the world's sole superpower and guarantor of the global financial architecture, was a benign hegemon. The US accepted that countries which played by US rules-Japan, Germany, South Korea-could run structural current account surpluses, while the US ran a structural deficit. This meant that industrial jobs would gradually leave the US and head overseas. In a sense, this was America's gift to its allies (although it was also a system that also allowed the US to consume more than it produced year-in, year-out).
The question is whether this cozy relationship is now breaking down. There are reasons to think it may be. First, the industrial jobs that originally shifted from the US to trusted allies with US military bases have now shifted again, this time to China-a country less keen to play by US rules. Second, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China and the rest of the "Global South" have failed to rally behind the US position. This has forced the US military-industrial complex to recognize the US economy's dependence on China's manufacturing sector.
In the modern era, wars are battles between one industrial system and another. The outstanding courage of US GIS notwithstanding, the real reason the Allies cared the day in World War II came down to the ability of the US government to harness the productive might of US industry, as Arthur Herman made clear in his 2012 book Freedom's Forge. So, if US policymakers really believe that a war with China, or with Russia, is a distinct possibility in the near future, they have no choice but to aggressively pursue policies aimed at a rapid reindustrialization of the US economy. Chief among these must be a policy to weaken the US dollar.
If US policymakers are indeed now pushing for a weaker US dollar (using the media to amplify their push), it is probably bad news for the US allies which have long piggybacked on the willingness of the US to outsource most of its manufacturing industries. A weak dollar policy would mean that the US would be prepared to sacrifice Germany or Japan in its bid to bring industry home again. And if you take at face value Seymour Hersh's accusation that the US was responsible for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, you will be inclined to think that this is no mere passive policy, but that the US is now actively sabotaging the economic welfare of its allies to pursue its own geostrategic imperatives. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston: the US has no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
So, do US policymakers really believe that a weak US dollar is in their country's interest? Either way, it does feel as if the zeitgeist around the US dollar has now changed. Sure, dedollarization will not happen overnight. But a new rhetoric has emerged in the foreign exchange markets, and a new trend now appears to be bedding down.
Hi Anon 4:01/2pm
What is the source of this piece? If it is original I would put it up as a main article.
Cheers.
Usa have the competitive advantages in semiconductor technologies, financial institutions medical industries over others countries in the world. However with the greedy capitalists system ingrained in US DNA, profits for nothings done mentality, it would be a uphill tasks to implement changes. USA may make laws to get their medical industries to relocated back home. For incentives, peoples would be allowed to buy addictive drugs for uses.
How could they? They killed off the Native American Indians and Australian Aborigines as well. They killed innocents in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen by the millions as well.
But they still had the moral compass to accuse others of genocide, war crimes and human rights abuses. This is their nature. Animals behave like that, not humans. Can animals change their behavior? How much effort can be put to train lions, tigers and leopards, but their instinct is still to kill. At least animals kill only to safisfy their hunger. But humans are worse than animals.
Post a Comment