Communism giving way to Socialism?


 

“Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” – John Kenneth Galbraith


ArmstrongEconomics

End of Socialism will Be A Tumultuous Hard Landing

QUESTION: Hi Martin:

I’d love to believe that the collapse of this dead-end ideology is imminent, but when one looks at just the media situation in the entire Western world, and sets aside the political landscape, it is hard to fathom. With O’Reilly’s departure from FOX, and Murdoch’s sons taking over (who are both reportedly very progressive liberals), it seems that Socialism is on the grow. Care to comment and enlighten us some more? It would be vastly appreciated, thanks.

DA

 

ANSWER: The economics of the situation is what rules. That is why Communism failed. But keep in mind that this is the civil unrest. Socialism will not simply die and move into the light. It will rage, kick, scream, and try to take down everyone in the process. You can see it in these anti-Trump demonstrations. They claim to be for peace and against Trump because he is some sort of racist etc. etc etc. etc…..

 

2017 Cycle of War

 

Yet these are historically ALWAYS the most violent people. This is the subject of the next 2017 Cycle of War Report. The system is collapsing and all the taxes and fines the dream up in their minds cannot save the system. It will go bust. That is the end of Socialism the same as it was the end for Communism. Both are against human nature.

 

atlasshruggedThey say it is wrong to discriminate for race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. But it’s OK to discriminate against anyone who disagrees with those in power or if they have material wealth above average. This type of discrimination is perfectly fine because it suits their agenda. What happens when the productive class refuses to produce? When Atlas Shrugged, it all comes crashing down.

 

Do you know that when Ayn Rand published that book, she received the worst reviews ever. The press was socialistic agreeing with FDR. Despite having the press trying to prevent people from reading it fearing the book would be against their socialistic philosophy, Atlas Shrugged has been ranked as #2 in the most influential books just behind the Bible ever written.

Here is the survey’s list of the most influential books:

1. The Bible.

2. “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand.

3. “The Road Less Traveled,” by M. Scott Peck.

4. “To Kill a Mockingbird,” by Harper Lee.

5. “The Lord of the Rings,” by J. R. R. Tolkien.

..

British Press Gearing Up to Destroy Britain – #FakeNews Empidemic


ArmstrongEconomics

Redwood John

John Redwood, a prominent and experienced Brexit MP, posted on his blog today (http://johnredwoodsdiary.com) about doing an interview on British Press:

The BBC wants to change the news, not report it

Yesterday I was phoned to be asked onto the BBC Radio 4 Today program this morning. They said they wanted me to answer questions about how the election would change the UK’s ability to negotiate a new, good relationship with the EU. I was happy to do so, and said I could make any time at their studio. It seemed like a good topic, and central to what the PM said about her reason for calling the election.

They then proceeded to ask me a series of questions all designed to get me to disagree with the UK negotiating position and Prime Minister. I explained that I supported the PM, agreed with her Brexit White Paper and stated aims, and suggested if all they wanted to do was to criticize her, they should approach the opposition parties. They continued to try to get me to disagree. They did not seem to have read the White Paper or the PM’s speech on the topic, so I had to tell them what was in them and why I agreed with them.

I explained again that their thesis that the leave supporting MPs were in disagreement with the PM and were “rebels” was simply untrue. We are not in disagreement with the PM and we have been strongly supporting the government’s statements and legislation on Brexit. She said she would get back to me about the invitation to go on, with the details.

She did not of course bother to, as it was clear I was unwilling to feed their view of what the news should be.

I then found that another Leave supporting Conservative MP had been given the same treatment, and he too had thought the BBC were trying to change the  news rather than report the position. When I came to do a live interview on some other BBC program, I was faced with the same stupid thesis and had to explain on air how wrong their idea was.

I do not know who is feeding the BBC this nonsense, but it is frustrating that they do not accept the truth from those whose views they claim to be reporting, and do not bother to get back and openly say they do not want you on because you won’t say what they want you to say.

..

The Liberal Order Is ̶R̶i̶g̶g̶e̶d̶ Dismantled.


Lol! The lament of the Liberals.

The old worn out (liberal) order (NWO) is cracking and crumbling. They acknowledged it. They’re defending with all their might against the rising ‘populists’ (which they find it difficult to define), but identifiable by the likes of Trump and BREXIT.

And this piece of BS is from the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR)…of course.


.

ForeignAffairs

The Liberal Order Is Rigged

Fix It Now or Watch It Wither

Purchase Article

Listen to Article


The Brexit and Trump phenomena reflect a breakdown in the social contract at the core of liberal democracy.

Prior to 2016, debates about the global order mostly revolved around its structure and the question of whether the United States should actively lead it or should retrench, pulling back from its alliances and other commitments. But during the past year or two, it became clear that those debates had missed a key point: today’s crucial foreign policy challenges arise less from problems between countries than from domestic politics within them. That is one lesson of the sudden and surprising return of populism to Western countries, a trend that found its most powerful expression last year in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, or Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president.

It can be hard to pin down the meaning of “populism,” but its crucial identifying mark is the belief that each country has an authentic “people” who are held back by the collusion of foreign forces and self-serving elites at home. A populist leader claims to represent the people and seeks to weaken or destroy institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, and the press and to cast off external restraints in defense of national sovereignty. Populism comes in a range of ideological flavors. Left-wing populists want to “soak the rich” in the name of equality; right-wing populists want to remove constraints on wealth in the name of growth. Populism is therefore defined not by a particular view of economic distribution but by a faith in strong leaders and a dislike of limits on sovereignty and of powerful institutions.

Such institutions are, of course, key features of the liberal order: think of the UN, the EU, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and major alliances such as NATO. Through them, the Washington-led order encourages multilateral cooperation on issues ranging from security to trade to climate change. Since 1945, the order has helped preserve peace among the great powers. In addition to the order’s other accomplishments, the stability it provides has discouraged countries such as Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This peace-building aspect of the liberal order has been an extraordinary success. So, too, is the way in which the order has allowed the developing world to advance, with billions of people rising out of crippling poverty and new middle classes burgeoning all over the world. But for all of the order’s success, its institutions have become disconnected from publics in the very countries that created them. Since the early 1980s, the effects of a neoliberal economic agenda have eroded the social contract that had previously ensured crucial political support for the order. Many middle- and working-class voters in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere have come to believe—with a good deal of justification—that the system is rigged. 

Those of us who have not only analyzed globalization and the liberal order but also celebrated them share some responsibility for the rise of populism. We did not pay enough attention as capitalism hijacked globalization. Economic elites designed international institutions to serve their own interests and to create firmer links between themselves and governments. Ordinary people were left out. The time has come to acknowledge this reality and push for policies that can save the liberal order before it is too late.

THE BOATS THAT DIDN’T RISE

In 2016, the two states that had done the most to construct the liberal order—the United Kingdom and the United States—seemed to turn their backs on it. In the former, the successful Brexit campaign focused on restoring British sovereignty; in the latter, the Trump campaign was explicitly nationalist in tone and content. Not surprisingly, this has prompted strong reactions in places that continue to value the liberal order, such as Germany: a poll published in February by the German newspaper Die Welt found that only 22 percent of Germans believe that the United States is a trustworthy ally, down from 59 percent just three months earlier, prior to Trump’s victory—a whopping 37-point decrease.

The Brexit and Trump phenomena reflect a breakdown in the social contract at the core of liberal democracy: those who do well in a market-based society promise to make sure that those disadvantaged by market forces do not fall too far behind. But fall behind they have. Between 1974 and 2015, the real median household income for Americans without high school diplomas fell by almost 20 percent. And even those with high school diplomas, but without any college education, saw their real median household income plummet by 24 percent. On the other hand, those with college degrees saw their incomes and wealth expand. Among those Americans, the real median household income rose by 17 percent; those with graduate degrees did even better. 

yawn!

Read further…

..

23 Ways Big Government Is Hurting the Poor


-ditto- Malaysia❗️

FEE

Advocates for big government often equate expanding government with concern for the poor. But reality speaks to the contrary: Expanding government often has very harmful effects on the poor.

This reality is precisely what is addressed in a forthcoming special report from The Heritage Foundation, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them.”

Rather than looking at welfare policy—a usual focus of analysts when discussing policies that impact the poor—the report focuses on economic policy, including regulation.

The authors identify 23 policies and provide concrete solutions that would allow those struggling financially to have more opportunities and a higher standard of living. As indicated in the report, these policies are just the tip of the iceberg.

The authors found three recurring themes that marked the policies they identified:

1. Cronyism

A significant number of the policies are classic examples of cronyism. It’s quite illuminating how government policies supposedly designed to protect allegedly vulnerable workers or consumers wind up, in reality, helping dominant producers or politically favored special interests.

2. Disproportionate Impact on the Poor Through Artificially High Prices

Many of the policies identified drive up consumer prices, such as for food and energy. This disproportionately hurts the poor because a greater share of their incomes go to meeting basic needs, as compared to households at higher income levels (see the chart below).

3. Obstacles to Opportunity

There are numerous policies that create artificial and unnecessary obstacles for the poor when it comes to obtaining jobs or starting businesses that could lift them out of poverty.

Here are four of the harmful policies detailed in the report:

1. Occupational Licensing

Laws that require official occupational licensing cost millions of jobs nationwide and raise consumer expenses by as much as $203 billion per year. These policies are often just a barrier to entry to help existing individuals in the specific field by limiting competition.

2. Federal Sugar Program

The federal government tries to limit the supply of sugar that is sold in the United States. As a result, the price of American sugar is consistently higher than world prices, sometimes even doubling world prices.

This big government policy may benefit the small number of sugar growers and harvesters in America, but it does so at the expense of sugar-using industries and consumers.

Recent studies have found that the program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year. The program has a disproportionate impact on the poor because a greater share of their income goes to food purchases compared to than for individuals at higher income levels.

3. Energy Efficiency Regulations for Appliances

The Department of Energy regulates a long list of consumer and commercial appliances, including products like refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, televisions, shower heads, ovens, toilets, and light bulbs.

These regulations prioritize efficiency over other preferences that customers and businesses might have—such as safety, size, durability, and cost. Customers and businesses might have such preferences even at the loss of some reduced efficiency.

While there are a number of problems with the government mandating energy conservation (such as cronyism and dubious environmental benefits), appliance efficiency regulations are likely to have a bigger negative impact on middle-income and low-income families, and likely to provide more benefits to upper-income families.

4. Ride-Sharing Regulations

For years, states and municipalities have attempted to heavily regulate, and at times ban, ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft in an effort to prop up their principal competitors—the traditional taxicab companies.

Government policies that attempt to preserve this system against competition from ride-sharing firms, or which impose costly and burdensome regulations on said firms, do so at the expense of both consumers and drivers, with a particular impact on the poor.

As the report illustrates, government regulation and unwarranted intervention are often the primary barriers to progress for those who are poor. Just getting government out of the way could make a huge difference.

The Big 23

Here is the report’s full list of 23 big government policies currently harming poor Americans:

  1. Climate Change Regulations
  2. Energy Efficiency Regulations for Appliances
  3. Fuel Efficiency Mandates and Tier 3 Gas Regulations
  4. Ozone
  5. Renewable Fuel Standard
  6. Tennessee Valley Authority
  7. Federal Sugar Program
  8. Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Orders
  9. S. Department of Agriculture’s Catfish Inspection Program
  10. Soda Taxes
  11. International Monetary Fund Bailouts
  12. Import Restraints on Food and Clothing
  13. Jones Act
  14. High Minimum Wages
  15. Occupational Licensure
  16. Economic Development Takings
  17. Home-Sharing Regulations
  18. Rent Control
  19. Smart Growth
  20. Payday Lender Rules From the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  21. Daycare Regulations
  22. Ride-Sharing Regulations
  23. State-Sanctioned Lottery Monopolies

The Bottom Line

All levels of government—local, state, and federal—need to look honestly at how they are contributing to the poverty problem. Then, they can become part of the solution.

Reprinted from the Daily Signal.

..

Insurers sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11


ArmstrongEconomics

Liberty Mutual, Safeco, Wausau, and other corporations accuse the Wahhabi kingdom and its close-reaching foundation of having allowed the Al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Centers and other targets in 2001 with funds and other support. The government’s ruling in Riyadh and the Foundation did not take place on Friday. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly rejected an involvement in the attacks. At that time, nearly 3000 people died.

The application was filed late Thursday at a federal district court in Manhattan. An early start of the insurers had been rejected in September 2015. Saudi Arabia enjoyed immunity in the US for a long time as far as the attacks were concerned. However, the US Congress in 2016, despite a veto by then President Barack Obama, issued a law that allows lawsuits.

..

Is Malaysia in the Saudi-Yemen War?


FMT

‘Why are we entangled in Saudi-led war?’

Retired brigadier-general fears threat to Malaysia’s security.

KUALA LUMPUR: A retired brigadier-general has called for a review of the government’s decision to deploy Malaysian soldiers to Saudi Arabia, saying it could have repercussions on Malaysia’s security.

Speaking to FMT, Mohd Arshad Raji, who last served as the Royal Malaysian Army’s Chief of Staff for Field Headquarters, said he feared that Malaysia’s involvement in the Saudi-led military campaign against Yemen could provoke reactions from elements disagreeing with the campaign.

“When it comes to the involvement of our military overseas, we have to be cautious,” he said. “If it’s for humanitarian reasons and peacekeeping missions, then it’s fine. But I’m at a loss as to why we are sending people to that side of the world. I think we have enough problems in our own region.”

The campaign stretches back to March 2015 with the Saudis backing of Yemen President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi against Houthi rebels, who seized the Yemeni capital of Sanaa and other parts of the country.

The Saudi-led coalition includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates with some support from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Sudan. But a recent United Nations report said the United States was offering logistical support and intelligence activities and that officers from Britain, France and Malaysia were also working at the coalition’s headquarters in Riyadh.

Arshad said Malaysia should follow the example of Britain when it came to the deployment of troops.

He noted that any proposal to deploy British troops to other countries would be debated in parliament so that the public would be in the know.

“A soldier is someone’s son or father or brother,” he said. “The public has a right to know where we are sending our soldiers and why.”

Recently, in the wake of the UN report, Parti Amanah Negara told Putrajaya to come clean on whether Malaysia had joined the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.

The Defence Ministry is on record as having denied that Malaysian troops were involved, describing the allegations as baseless and slanderous.

The ministry said Malaysian soldiers had been sent to Saudi Arabia to prepare them for duties they might need to undertake, such as moving Malaysians out of Yemen if the need arose.

It added that the armed forces had been invited by Saudi Arabia to take part in its Northern Thunder military exercise, which was meant to foster unity among Muslim countries, not focus on military operations in Yemen.

 

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/03/07/amanah-clarify-malaysias-involvement-in-yemen-war/

Related

Minister says global media, UN wrong on military’s role in Yemen

The official BN government stand is whatever the rest of the world reports are lies and whatever BN says is the absolute truth,… Read more

..

Is the Media Trying to Reestablish the Establishment?


ArmstrongEconomics

They say that knowledge is power. This is why the media has been engaging in outright propaganda and they hate Trump for he has been using Twitter to bypass the corrupt media. Chris Matthews actually spoke correctly on election night, although since he has said that Russia put its “finger on the scale” to help Trump. Does this clip actually show the “real” Matthews?

The media has been cheerleaders of Hillary and the establishment all the way to the present. The media has turned against Trump viciously and clearly seem to have an agenda to help reestablish the establishment. We are seeing the very same strategy in Germany by Merkel, who is already adopting the Obama strategy by blaming Putin for any potential loss in the election.

Merkel wants full censorship of the press and bloggers. They have even called The Deutsche-Wirtschafts-Nachrichten (DWN) has been under attack by politicians in Europe for reporting the truth, accusing anyone who disagrees with government engaging in propaganda for Russia.

This is extremely dangerous for this behavior leads to a totalitarian state. I have no doubt that one day this site will be blocked in Germany, while we are one of the few sites NOT BLOCKED in China. What does that have to say about Democracy?

..