Sunday, January 22, 2017

George Lakoff — The Women’s Marches and the Politics of Care: The Best Response to Trump’s Inaugural Address

Trump is a textbook example of Strict Father Morality. In a Strict Father family the father is the ultimate authority. Father knows best. He gets his authority from the claim to know right from wrong, and what he says is by definition always right. His word is law and needs to be strictly enforced through strength — swift painful punishment. Even a show is disrespect deserves to be punished.
There is a Strict Father logic: Discipline needs to be imposed. Children need to learn not to do what feels good (like “feel-good liberals”), but to do what they are told. If they do, they will become disciplined and go out into the world and become prosperous. What if they are not prosperous? That just shows that they are not disciplined, which means they cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In short, the poor are poor because they’re lazy and so it’s their own fault. Responsibility is individual responsibility. There is no social responsibility.…
I think George Lakoff pretty well summarizes the opposition to Donald Trump coming from the left.

But I am not getting this from Donald Trump or Steve Bannon. My take is that Bannon has convinced Trump that the liberal Democrats have abandoned their constituency by taking it for granted, while the GOP establishment never aimed at it at all, so they can pick it by showing that they actually care. Bannon has stated that quite clearly as his aim and his task in the Trump administration. 

Is Lakoff being doctrinaire in his application of his theory. and maybe overly simplistic?

George Lakoff
The Women’s Marches and the Politics of Care: The Best Response to Trump’s Inaugural Address
George Lakoff | Director of the Center for the Neural Mind & Society and retired Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley 

Oleg Komlik — Karl Polanyi on the Rise of Fascism and Market Economy

Karl Polanyi was deeply concerned by the essence of Fascism and focused on the institutional structure from which Fascism starts its march. He devoted the final parts of his magnum opus The Great Transformation specifically to this crucial topic and elaborated a bright analysis of the dark rise of Fascism between the two world wars. 
The following passage is composed from excerpts I selected from this insightful classic book and assembled them as a short article. I urge you to delve into this piece (and then to read the full original chapters) and to mull over the substance of fascist situations and moves, as well as their linkage to free market and economy of self-interest, which generate anti-individualistic and repressing endeavors directed to change not only the political sphere and societal fabrics, but human consciousness itself.
Economic Sociology and Political Economy
Karl Polanyi on the Rise of Fascism and Market Economy
Oleg Komlik | founder and editor-in-chief of the ES/PE, Chairman of the Junior Sociologists Network at the International Sociological Association, a PhD Candidate in Economic Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ben-Gurion University, and a Lecturer in the School of Behavioral Sciences at the College of Management Academic Studies

BBC — Theresa May under pressure over Trident missile test


Accidents do happen. May not ready to talk about it.

BBC NEWS
Theresa May under pressure over Trident missile test

Tony Wikrent — Rex Tugwell of FDR's Brain Trust: The New Deal in Retrospect

Rexford Guy Tugwell (1891-1979) was an economist and one of the most important and innovative members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first Brain-Trust. Tugwell studied economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania under Simon Patten, at the time one of the leading economists in the USA and one of the last great economists to emphasize the difference between productive economic activity, and economic rent seeking. Patten was a founder of the American Economics Association. 
This was decades before Wharton was infested by neoliberalism and became an MBA mill.

This account by Tugwell provides an excellent short history of the pre-war Roosevelt administration. I greatly wish I had been aware of it nine years ago, in time to have posted it during Obama's first campaign. It would have served as a signpost to an alternative to neoliberalism, which Obama unfortunately followed steadily as he moved from one accommodation with Wall Street to the next. In addition to my reading of countless articles these past 8 years, I have read Obama’s two autobiographies, Plouffe’s book, and the biographies by Halperin and Heilemann, Remnick, and Alter, and the excellent book detailing the influence of Wall Street by Suskind, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President. One thing that strikes me is that neither Obama, nor Plouffe, nor anyone else close to Obama, ever spoke of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal as if they were actually familiar with them or wished to emulate FDR. I suspect they have never studied Roosevelt and the New Deal, at least not with the goal of learning how to govern as well and as dynamically as FDR did. Obama and his team certainly never discussed the heroic measures Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins took to get millions of people a paying job so they wouldn’t starve in the winter of 1933-34....
Obama, like Bill Clinton, modeled himself on Ronald Reagan rather than FDR. Actually, it was Jimmie Carter that began the turn of the Democratic establishment to the right.

The post contains a copy of R. G. Tugwell's "The New Deal in Retrospect," The Western Political Quarterly, December, 1948, Vol. 1, No. 4.
It also contains a link to Michael Hudson's article on Simon Patten on productive investment versus economic rent.

Dani Rodrik — Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?

The question in the title is perhaps the most important question we confront, and will continue to confront in the years ahead. I discuss my take in this paper.
More on nationalism versus internationalism.

Dani Rodrik's Weblog
Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?
Dani Rodrik | Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

Julie Matthaei — The Women’s March on Washington and the Coming of Age of Feminism


"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, 
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." 
— spoken by Perez in Act 3, Scene 2, The Mourning Bride (1697) by William Congreve

Signs of the Fourth American Spiritual Awakening?

Branko Milanovic — My interview for a Korean paper "Hankyoreh"


Good summary of Branko Milanovic's views.
Interviewer: First, could you please introduce your book briefly. What was your motivation to write this book, and what is your main argument in it?

BM: My motivation was to present a picture of the world and the distribution of income and economic power in it during the era of globalization. This is a very remarkable period in terms of its effects on income distribution, not solely within countries but between countries as well. It is probably the greatest reshuffle of global income positions with people from formerly poorer countries going up in the global income distribution since the Industrial revolution. I thought it was very important to describe and analyze these changes....
Global Inequality
My interview for a Korean paper "Hankyoreh"
Branko Milanovic | Visiting Presidential Professor at City University of New York Graduate Center and senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), and formerly lead economist in the World Bank's research department and senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Brian Romanchuk — Postscript To Misunderestimating MMT

Gerard MacDonell has a follow up article to his earlier critique of MMT (my previous article was my response to his critique). I just want to expand on a couple of points, and respond to his response...
Bond Economics
Postscript To Misunderestimating MMT
Brian Romanchuk

Lars P. Syll — The inequality gap — five sickening facts


The points that Oxfam lists are results rather than causes. The symptom is asymmetrical distribution. The question is the causal factors and attendant conditions underlying those results and how to correct them before there is political upheaval.

One of the causal factors is asymmetrical distribution of power, socially (class status and networks), politically (influence, privilege), and economically (wealth begets increased class status, power and wealth).

The challenge is not wealth redistribution but leveling the distribution of social, political and economic power.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
The inequality gap — five sickening facts
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

David Deming — Will Manufacturing Jobs Come Back?


What this Means:

Automation is a long-run problem that demands a long-run solution. Convincing manufacturing companies to keep — or bring back — jobs, one company at a time, is not going to restore the millions of jobs that have been lost to technological change. We must reorient educational institutions and job training around “human” skills that are difficult to automate. These skills include creativity, complex problem-solving, and the ability to work with others in fluid, team-based settings.
Deming also notes,
Employment could also be increased through public sector “make work” programs, although these programs are generally inefficient and do little to address long-term structural issues.
A job guarantee can be a component of a solution but it is not the solution. The job guarantee is chiefly addressed toward cyclical rather than structural unemployment, although it is possible to include structural issues, too, such as including public funding of retraining.

But the structural problems that global society and the global economy face owing to technological innovation will require creative solutions that can only be addressed by out of the box thinking. The whole concept of "work" and "jobs" needs to be revisited as the world embarks on the Information Age, the Knowledge Society and the Third and Fourth Industrial Revolution that are happening simultaneously owing to technological innovation.

What Deming doesn't consider is distributing the increased opportunity for leisure owing to technological innovation and the reduced need for labor. This could be accomplished by longer time spent in education and earlier retirement by providing public funding as a social dividend. Leisure has long been the basis for culture. Increased distributed leisure can be expected to generate unprecedented cultural benefits.

The economy, including technology, is the material life-support system of a society. Culture is the spiritual foundation of a society. Leisure waters the root of culture by nourishing the human spirit.

Econofact.org
Will Manufacturing Jobs Come Back?
David Deming | Professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research

Material people taking over in the Grand Alliance


We can see the Trump speech stressing infrastructure and seeing it also as a means to a political ends:


it was telling how much time he spent talking about infrastructure and jobs for ALL Americans, twice sounding racially inclusive notes. 
Stephen Miller, the speech's principal writer, and Steve Bannon, whose worldview dominated and who helped with the prose , see a huge infrastructure bill as a way to attract voters, especially minorities, who opposed Trump in 2016. 
They argue privately they will shake up voting coalitions if they run new roads, repair tunnels and provide web access to other classes or regions of forgotten Americans.



And UK's May coming over this week as Trump's first visitor has a similar plan in mind for the UK domestically:


The prime minister has promised to deliver a blueprint to “get the whole economy firing”, and cover themes such as training, research and development, “place”, and infrastructure. 
 The strategy aims to tackle a “long tail” of underperformance in industries, places and individuals in a bid to reduce inequalities, Mrs May will announce.  It will include a £170m boost for technical education. 
The prime minister will say she wants to “extend the same opportunity and respect we give university graduates to those people who pursue technical routes”. 
 The cash will be used to set up Institutes of Technology across the country to deliver high-level training in STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. 
There will also be an expansion of maths education in secondary schools, a review of regional inequality in STEM graduates, and more centralised information about technical training courses for potential applicants.



So you see the non-material people getting thrown out and now some material oriented people taking over.

Material system outcomes will accordingly improve over the next 4 years.





Peter Turchin — A Quantitative Prediction for Political Violence in the 2020s

In 2010 I made the prediction that the United States will experience a period of heightened social and political instability during the 2020s. Recently, several people challenged me to make this prediction more quantitative. There are all kinds of caveats, and I will get to them eventually.
But first, the TL;DR version.
Structural-demographic theory (SDT) suggests that the violence spike of the 2020s will be worse than the one around 1970, and perhaps as bad as the last big spike during the 1920s. Thus, the expectation is that there will be more than 100 events per 5 years (see the upper panel in the figure). In terms of the second metric (the lower panel) we should expect more than 5 fatalities per 1 million of population per 5 years, if the theory is correct.
And there you have it. If violence doesn’t exceed these thresholds by 2025, then SDT is wrong.
Cliodynamica — A Blog about the Evolution of Civilizations
A Quantitative Prediction for Political Violence in the 2020s
Peter Turchin | Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, Research Associate in the School of Anthropology, University of Oxford, and Vice-President of the Evolution Institute

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Patrick Armstrong — Trump Day One

My interest, as a non-American, is, first and foremost, in Washington’s future foreign policy (which really means, these days, war – there hasn’t been much of anything else this century). As I wrote four months ago “To me, the choice in the US election is utterly simple: the most important thing is stopping the perpetual wars of the New American Century.” I believed then and believe more strongly today that US President Trump carries the hope that this will be so....
The theme of his approach to foreign relations is this:
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.…
“The understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first“; when did we last hear an American President promise that? Indeed the theme of the Twenty-First Century has been that only “Exceptional America” has important interests. From a former Vice-President: “the most powerful, good and noble country in the history of mankind“; from a former President: “I believe America is exceptional, in part because we have shown a willingness… to stand up, not only for our own interests, but for the interests of all.” What other nation’s puny, erroneous and mundane interest can possibly stand against such glory, righteousness and sanctity?….
Russia Observer
Trump Day One
Patrick Armstrong

Violent Protest


Have to agree with Spencer here.  Trump has to put the wood to these people or he will be perceived as weak.





Trump first visit day 1: CIA


Straightening things out with the career people at that agency as job one, seems like his election was met with relief by those in attendance.

War with the mainstream press continues only now Trump has not to deal with the old political barriers in the Executive Branch.


Video of Trump's short statements made to CIA staff here.

Robert Parry — Selectivity in Trashing Trump

If — in a rush to demonize and impeach President Trump — Democrats and progressives solidify support for wars of choice in the Middle East, a New Cold War with Russia and a Davos-style elitism, they could further alienate many people who might otherwise be their allies.
In other words, selectivity in opposing and criticizing Trump – where he rightly deserves it – rather than opportunism in rejecting everything that Trump says might make more sense. A movement built entirely on destroying Trump could drop Democrats and progressives into some politically destructive traps.
As veteran who served during war time, I am anti-war when it comes to wars of choice rather than national defense. I will oppose the war party no matter what else they embrace politically.

Consortium News
Selectivity in Trashing Trump
Robert Parry



Jon Rappaport — One takeaway from Trump’s inauguration speech: gangs

I could list 10 interesting things Trump said yesterday. And of course, words aren’t actions. Yet. But here is one remark you’re not going to get, and never did get, from any recent president:
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities…And the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
To which Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) replied:
“It was militant and it was dark. The crime, the gangs, the drugs, this ‘American carnage,’ disrepair, decay. You can’t imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that.”
She’s right, because the outgoing president never did anything to stop the carnage. If she thinks Trump’s language was too militant, she should try talking to mothers who live in those inner cities, who are trapped and held hostage by gangs, who want a nation of laws, and can’t find a way to live safely with their children by eating Obamas’s high-flying empty rhetoric.
Obama somehow managed to spend eight years in the White House and never mention, with any significance, GANGS. Eight years…and nothing. Yet he was The One who was going rescue America’s inner cities.
Find an inauguration speech by any recent president in which the word GANGS appears.
Is the whole point of being presidential an avoidance of stark realities? Is that what all the Rachel Maddows want? They’re not living in those neighborhoods. They’re not up against the gangs and the crime and drugs every day and every night.
The truth is, it’s offensive for a president not to mention these things....
Jon Rappaport's Blog
One takeaway from Trump’s inauguration speech: gangs
Jon Rappaport

David Henderson — Ominous Inaugural Addresses

If Donald Trump understood trade and immigration, that would not be ominous at all. Because if he made every decision on trade and immigration "to benefit American workers and American families," he would decide to move in the direction of lower tariffs and import restrictions and fewer restrictions on immigration. Remember that "American workers and American families" includes pretty much all Americans, including those who gain from buying cheap imports (which, by the way, is all of us) and those who gain from hiring cheaper labor. The fact of gains from trade and immigration is not controversial in the economics literature. What makes this statement ominous is that Trump doesn't understand trade.
What's ominous is that economists like this don't understand ordinary families problems and the effects on politics in a representative democracy. This election was unusual in that the establishment of neither party was able to prevail precisely because they were not paying attention to this. This is the reason for Brexit, too, and it is also the reason for the disintegration of the Eurozone and the rise of the right in Europe.

Why these pundits don't get is that immigration is not an economic issue as much as a political one and the embedded labor in imports is ersatz immigration.

"Build the wall" is symbolic of this. As I recall, Lou Dobbs was the first to pick up on this, although it may have been Pat Buchanan that was first. Both was mocked for it as was Donald Trump, but DJT parlayed it to victory — unless you believe the lame excuse that "Putin did it."

These establishment types are clueless about reality and can only see the world through their models based on restrictive assumptions that make them worthless in application to political economy and policy formulation.

Econlog
Ominous Inaugural Addresses
David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and is also associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California

Alastair Crooke — What is this ‘Crisis’ of Modernity?

Raúl Ilargi Meijer:
The people at Conflicts Forum, which is directed by former British diplomat and MI6 ‘ranking figure’ Alastair Crooke, sent me an unpublished article by Alastair and asked if the Automatic Earth would publish it. Since I like his work and I (re-)published two of his articles last year already, ‘End of Growth’ Sparks Wide Discontent in October 2016 and Obstacles to Trump’s ‘Growth’ Plans in November 2016, I’m happy to. 
His arguments here are very close to much of what the Automatic Earth has been advocating for years, both when it comes to our financial crisis and to our energy crisis. Our Primerssection is full of articles on these issues written through the years. It’s a good thing other people pick up too on topics like EROEI, and understand you can’t run our modern, complex society on ‘net energy’ as low as what we get from any of our ‘new’ energy sources. It’s just not going to happen. 
Here’s Alastair:
The Automatic Earth
What is this ‘Crisis’ of Modernity?

Joe Concha — MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Trump inauguration speech 'Hitlerian'

MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Friday that President Trump's inaugural address was both "Hitlerian" and meant to mimic Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“When he said today ‘America First,’ * it was not just the racial — I mean, I shouldn’t say racial, the Hitlerian** background to it, but it was the message I kept thinking," Matthews said.
Lunacy.

The professional pseudo-left has lost it.

Unhinged.

Clueless about what is actually going on and the failure of the left in adopting neoliberal, neoconservative, and liberal interventionist policies that ran counter to the leaning of the electorate.

The Hill
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Trump inauguration speech 'Hitlerian'
Joe Concha

* Note that "America First" is now generally associated with Pat Buchanan before Donald Trump took it over and ran with it successfully. However, those more historically inclined will associate it with Charles Lindbergh, who advocated for a noninterventionist policy in the lead up to WWII. 

** Lindbergh was denounced as a Nazi sympathizer and Hitlerian.

See Charles Lindberg's Noninterventionist Efforts & America First Committee Involvement





Matthew Allen — The Blame Game Begins: Obama Administration Says Syrian Rebels Encouraged US to 'Work with' Al Qaeda

Smell that? Yes, that's the magnificent aroma of Washington trying to cover its ass now that its brilliant strategy of "arming human scum and shipping them into Syria by the Toyota-load" has failed miserably.
Here is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes talking about the horrible moral dilemma Washington faced while arming random (but "moderate"!) weirdos in Syria:

What’s strange is, I met with the Syrian opposition, and often they would argue that we should work with al-Nusra, who we know is Al Qaeda. And I’m sympathetic if you’re in a neighborhood where al-Nusra is defending you against Assad. You want us to work with them. But let’s say a U.S. president does that, and then al-Nusra is using weapons that we gave them against us. That’s something you never recover from, right?

"We didn't want to directly/indirectly aid al-Nusra — and even if we sometimes did, by accident, the 'moderate' rebels made us do it!"
We remember employing a similar line of argument ... in first grade....
"The devil made me do it."

Washington's grand vision for Syria (a failed state that can be used to destabilize Iran and train psychos to send eastward, with their final destination being Russia) has failed. And the ass-covering begins....
Arming terrorists is state sponsorship of terrorism.

The Bush administration will be remembered for officially sanctioning torture and rendition. The Obama administration will be remember for arming terrorists of the same organization that attacked the US on 9/11.

Russia Insider
The Blame Game Begins: Obama Administration Says Syrian Rebels Encouraged US to 'Work with' Al Qaeda
Matthew Allen

Also

Politico
What Worries Ben Rhodes About Trump
Michael Crowley

Ellis Winningham — New Series on Income Inequality

Those interested laypersons and members of the general public who are unfamiliar with econometrics will undoubtably find the following passage hard to swallow given the language. Bear with it until the end, and I will translate for you.…

In layperson’s terms, what all of this says is that Milton Friedman and his co-conspirator, Anna Schwartz’s attempt to claim that the velocity of money was constant, was total bullshit.

So, what then does this all mean to you?

Quite frankly, a lot and it is very important information that the public needs to understand.
 
Therefore, I’m writing a somewhat comprehensive series on income inequality which will begin with a look at post-World War II policies of full employment up to the 1970’s. Next, I will discuss the OPEC cost shock, the Great Inflation, and the rise of Monetarism. From there, I will discuss the end of full employment, union busting, wage suppression to 1992 and the coming of “New Democrats”. I will then finish with a look at private debt expansion.
So, there’s lots to discuss in the coming weeks. 
Ellis Winningham — MMT and Modern Macroeconomics
New Series on Income Inequality
Ellis Winningham

Brian Romanchuk — Misunderestimating MMT


Brian responds to Gerard MacDonell's "The trouble with MMT" (Modern Monetary Theory).

As usual, the criticism doesn't seem to take into account the body of MMT literature and the historical debate within Post Keynesianism surrounding the issues. Moreover, it assumes away recognized issues in conventional theory. Brian deals with this deftly.

Bond Economics
Misunderestimating MMT
Brian Romanchuk

Government just raised the price of US housing


The rote teaching: "its about price not quantity..." in action, about a 1 2/3% increase:





Phil Butler — What’s Wrong in Canada’s Halls of Power?


Justin Trudeau was banking on a Clinton presidency. Now that Trump is POTUS...?

NEO
What’s Wrong in Canada’s Halls of Power?
Phil Butler

Also
Dr. Reynaldo Ileto, a leading Filipino historian, is concerned about Duterte’s survival, should he move too quickly with the regional realignment:
“He cannot break up with the United States too abruptly… he’d be killed.”
For a while, in Manila, we were discussing the pattern established; the way the West treats the ‘rebellious’ countries and their governments: Ukraine, Brazil, and even the former President of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo.
“Arroyo moved closer to China”, explained Dr. Ileto: “They got her indicted for corruption. Only Duterte managed to release her.”
Antagonizing China, even provoking it into a military conflict, has been the mainstay of US foreign policy in Asia, at least during the later years of the Obama administration. This dangerous trend will most likely continue, even accelerate, since Donald Trump has already taken office.
President Duterte’s stubborn determination to reach a peaceful arrangement with China may put him squarely on the hit list of the Western Empire.
Prof. Roland Simbulan from the Department of Social Sciences of the University of the Philippines confirms what Dr. Ileto suggested above:
“If Duterte moves too fast, he will be overthrown, by the military. He is an outsider. Police and army hold grudges against him. Many top military commanders here were trained by the US, and often even corrupted by the US. Duterte’s anti-US and anti-imperialist policy goes beyond rhetoric; it is real. He is confrontational, he is against the US foreign policy towards the Philippines and the world.”
The Philippines in the Center of Asian Realignment
Andre Vlchek

B-52 Strike on Syria yesterday


Bringing out some heavy equipment.  Probably done under Obama yesterday but anything further  will be under Trump of course.





Alexander Douglas —— For Policy Sexy Times, Make it Basic Income Time??

Although UBI proponents speak in monetary terms, their proposal is useless unless it guarantees people real income. You can give people money, but there has to be enough real stuff they can buy with their money in order to live....
Alexander Douglas at Medium
For Policy Sexy Times, Make it Basic Income Time??
Alexander Douglas | Lecturer in Philosophy, University of St. Andrews

Fed's Williams says raise rates now


This monetarist guy cites an aging workforce and lack of productivity capping growth at 2%.   Does not want unemployment to fall any lower than current.

Continuing to set up a policy conflict between the Fed and Trump.

San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President John Williams on Friday repeated his view that the U.S. central bank needs to reduce monetary stimulus before the economy overshoots the Fed's employment and inflation goals and the Fed has to "slam on the brakes." 
An aging workforce and low productivity growth will keep the United States from growing faster than about 2 percent annually on a sustainable basis, Williams said 
 Donald Trump, sworn in as the 45th U.S. president just hours earlier, has promised his economic policies will boost growth to 4 percent. 
Williams, who does not vote on Fed policy this year, did not directly address the disconnect, but said the Fed does not want to see the unemployment rate, at 4.7 percent, falling lower and lower, and inflation, now at about 1.75 percent, to rise higher and higher. 
Instead, he said, the Fed's goal is stabilize both at near current levels, and to do so, it needs to raise rates further.

Yellen does not seem to be as (to them) hawkish, but these types of comments are becoming more frequent from the non-Yellen cohort among the Fed.

So fiscal help may be on the way sooner from higher rates if this view keeps picking up steam...






Friday, January 20, 2017

Pepe Escobar — Here's How the Trump Presidency Will Play Out

… an influential New York business source, very close to the real, discreet Masters of the Universe, who correctly predicted Trump's victory weeks before the fact, after examining my argument ….
If you like intrigue.…

Sputnik Internaitonal
Here's How the Trump Presidency Will Play Out
Pepe Escobar, Columnist

Ullrich Fichtner — Time for an International Front Against Trump

With the inauguration of Donald Trump as U.S. president, America is set to move into a more isolationist and more self-interested direction. The rest of the West must now stand up to defend our values.
Unhinged.

Spiegel Online
Time for an International Front Against Trump
A Commentary by Ullrich Fichtner, Der Spiegel

Also at Spiegel

Donald Trump and the New World Order
Christian Esch, Martin Hesse, Alexander Jung, Peter Müller, Ralf Neukirch, Britta Sandberg, Michael Sauga, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark and Bernhard Zand