@the security council vote on Iran -- trotsky, 12:02:56 12/27/06 Wed
as Jorge Hirsch correctly observes here, there can be only ONE goal that the introduction of sanctions that are widely agreed to be ineffectual and meaningless can possibly aim for: to provide a propagandistic fig leaf for an eventual military intervention. the likelihood that such an attack would involve a nuclear first strike remains extremely high as well:
@the children of Iraq -- trotsky, 11:57:45 12/27/06 Wed
Bush, what have you wrought? who is really the world's greatest 'evildoer' at this moment in time?
snips:
"It is best for us to import toys such as guns and tanks because they are most salable in Iraq to little boys," Ghazi told IPS. "Children try to imitate what they see out of their windows."
And there are particular imports for girls, too, he said. "Girls prefer crying dolls to others that dance or play music and songs."
As children in the United States and around the world celebrate Christmas, and prepare to celebrate the New Year, children in Iraq occupy a quite different world, with toys to match. "
"Teachers and social workers say children have begun to nurse a strong hatred of the United States. No more is the United States the image of a good life."
(comment: when the inevitable blowback comes, some lie will be trotted out again to explain the 'senseless act'. like e.g. 'they hate us for our freedom'.).
"Children are the most affected by the tragic events," Dr. Khalil al-Kubaissi, a psychotherapist in Fallujah told IPS. "Their fragile personalities cannot face the loss of a parent or the family house along with all the horror that surrounds them. The result is catastrophic, and Iraqi children are in serious danger of lapsing into loneliness or violence."
The difficulties of children have become particularly noticeable this year. "The only things they have on their minds are guns, bullets, death and a fear of the U.S. occupation," Maruan Abdullah, spokesman for the Association of Psychologists of Iraq told reporters at the launch of a study in February this year.
The report warned that "children in Iraq are seriously suffering psychologically with all the insecurity, especially with the fear of kidnapping and explosions."
antiwar.com
@steel protectionism , ctd. -- trotsky, 11:47:50 12/27/06 Wed
not only did protectionism for steel in the end totally FAIL to actually 'protect' the steel industry, it very likely also hastened the ongoing demise of the US car manufacturing industry, which counts steel among its major input costs.
as always, state interventionism exacts a price way beyond what is obvious at first glance. there is always a multitude of effects - both seen and unseen. by making steel more expensive, incalculable harm has been done to countless industries depending on it as a major input, with cars being top of the list. does anyone really think US Steel is more important to the US economy than General Motors and Ford?
you can take every single protectionist measure apart with the same logic. in the end, there's always the same conlusion: protectionism always hurts the economy it allegedly purports to protect. as in, no exceptions whatsoever. it is ALWAYS harmful in bottom-line terms, not to mention that it is anti-liberty (to restrict voluntary trade between private entities is an authoritarian measure just as much as it is an economically harmful measure).
guess what would be the first thing to happen if Schumer et al. managed to introduce their proposed tariff legislation? the first thing would be a stock market crash - as a strong signal of market disapproval.
@CNBS and the history of steel industry protectionism -- trotsky, 11:28:57 12/27/06 Wed
CNBC reports with fond nostalgia on past US presidents who saw fit to 'protect US steel workers' by introducing protectionist measures galore - of course, we know today that these measures destroyed what was left of this industry, by making it completely uncompetitive in the global marketplace (the tariffs took away the industry's incentive to restructure).
but hey, CNBC can't be bothered with reporting this fact. instead, the protectionist presidents (which to my dismay included Reagan) are almost glorified for having ignored laws of economics in favor of a special interest group.
it is quite disturbing that economic illiteracy on this topic is so widespread that even the financial media have succumbed to this cheap populism.
there's also a message here: at some point in the next few years, i would expect the political class to once again gamble on protectionism in a big way, especially if/when there is a painful economic downturn. just as the Smoot-Hawley tariff turned a sharp recession into the Great Depression, today's parasite class will likely also turn a bust into a mega-bust in an attempt to angle for the votes of desperate unemployed citizens.
it is incredible that this kind of nonsense hasn't been utterly discredited yet. to wit, democratic populist collectivists like Chuck Schumer continue to attempt to get protectionist legislation on the 'China issue' going. Paulson's and Bernanke's recent trip to China was probably mostly designed to placate Schumer & co., i.e. it was mainly aimed at a domestic audience (after all, both men should have realized by now that China won't let them dictate anything).
now, let's be clear about one thing: for reasons of its own (which are not grounded in sound economic thinking either), China's leadership is allowing China to subsidize the US economy by selling goods to it very cheaply. everybody should be happy about that. it's as if the mall where you do your shopping simply slashed prices on all goods by a large percentage, say e.g. half.
absolutely nobody would complain about that - it would be obvious to everybody that this is a good thing. it's the SAME in trade relations across borders. when someone sells you something cheaply, rejoice. a small segment of producers will be hurt by the competition (and ultimately emerge stronger because of the challenge), but this is outweighed BY FAR by the economic gain enjoyed by ALL consumers.
the only thing protectionism ever does is to protect a tiny special interest group to the detriment of EVERYBODY ELSE (this is inter alia one of the sources of China's non-sensical mercantilism - the export sector of the country enjoys disproportionate political influence).
CNBC should have taken the opportunity to denounce the economic harm inflicted by protectionist presidents of the past, instead of underscoring their allegedly 'noble goal' of 'protecting workers' (most of whom ended up losing their jobs in the end anyway - in fact, without interference by 'well-meaning presidents' many more of them would likely NOT have lost their jobs in the end).
# @absurd financial headlines -- trotsky, 10:39:31 12/27/06 Wed
we have an excellent example today on the Yahoo finance page:
"Bargain hunters send stocks higher" it proclaims. bargain hunters? at Dow 12400, with stocks priced for perfection? (don't let the year 2000 p/e outlier detract from the fact that stocks are now just as expensive as they have been at every major market top of the past century with the sole exception of 2000's tech mania high). |
