"The US has demonstrated a remarkable ability to shoot itself in both feet" wrote Ria. Agreed, but it's not just the USA: it's the UK and all the other nations wedded to neoliberal economics. It's designed to impose feudalism on all their populations so that their super-rich minority can become super-richer. Scotland's only hope is to escape from the UK, set-up out own fiat currency and financial systems, and re-embrace Keynesian economics. Our people are sovereign (as demonstrable in Statute) and it's long past time when we should run our country in their best interests; not follow the neo-lib dogma that is destroying the world economy and the future prospects for the human race.
I'm no economist or have an inside track on what's going on at high politics levels, I just try and join the dots to give me a credible/possible explanation.
Post WW2 and the Bretton Woods arrangement, gold (price controlled by the US) was the standard for trading stability, creating a coalesced Europe and first line of defence against Russia.
Europe with a bombed out industrial base could invest in new industrial infrastructure. The US not being bombed was stuck with an industrial base that was fast becoming old and left behind. They did well, for a time, and also with the emerging new digital age. But the land of the free was free to seek cheap labour and increased profits elswhere.
Nixon dumped Bretton Woods, France and the UK were packing away dollars to convert to undervalued gold. The US had the power to pull the levers and make the trading countries accept the dollar as the world reserve currency, in return for access to the US market and US security. Security reads, nukes, missiles and or bases on your soil giving increased US security.
Having reserve currency status gives control and allows the US to run a huge deficit with impunity.
Several times the oil dollar trading has been challenged, Saddam Husein, Col Gaddafi and latterly Venezuela. Disrupting and costly to deal with, but dealt with. The BRICS group is a much bigger and different game, it is this that Trump and his internal supporters are trying to strengthen against.
Trump's tariffs are to create negotiating levers and bring in some needed dollars without taxing the wealthy and bring some much needed manufacturing, that went overseas back to the US. Cars and computer tech in particular? The US will need to maintain the dollar as the reserve currency, another big ask for the tariff levers.
The ball is not in the US court any more, hence the tariffs. It is going to be an interesting, if precarious watch.
I propose, if there is a future, that the global community set up therapy to help countries to adjust to the new reality, of not having an empire (are you listening England) or no longer having the biggest seat on the world stage.
Yes, Leah, the Trump version of economics is utter nonsense, but some people around Trump must actually believe this shit.
The US was heading for a major international disaster before Trump was elected for his second term, so he did not create the disaster by himself, but he has certainly helped to develop the problem for the US economy. It is interesting to observe a car crash in slow motion and from a safe distance while one of the drivers is speeding ahead with enthusiasm.
Leah you hit the nail so firmly on the head so many times , if I were an ordinary American I would be demanding to know WHY we NEED 750 military bases in 80 countries whilst Russia ONLY has less than 20 and China has 1 yes 1
Why does a sovereign supposed democratic country NEED so many bases with the added costs of supplying and operating them, are we intending taking over the world , what is it with these warmongering scum , Trump , Starmer , Swinney, and that is only 3 of them, IF any of these clowns want military action they or their families should be first on the front line
I recognise Trump, Starmer and numerous others as "warmongering scum", but I'm struggling to see Swinney as one of them. Not only is he one of the least belligerent leaders in the world, he (and Scotland) don't have the economic levers to be belligerent even if they wanted to. As long as our economy is controlled by Westminster it will be that way; UK Gov extractionism will ensure we are effectively a colony in all but name.
The Scottish Government welcomed the increase in UK defence spending and all the negative things that entails for Scotland - not exactly a progressive stance.
Thanks again Leah for explaining so clearly the true nature of US and UK nonproductive financial capitalism. The future I read about as a teenager has arrived except that Issac Asimov’s kindly human laws of robotics have been ditched.
You mentioned the excesses of private monopoly ownership of UK utilities. Surely Thames Water is the apotheosis of that collapsing rentier capitalism. Since 1989 this company has gone from debt free profitability to £19 billion bankruptcy. Rivers can no longer be swam, raw sewage dumping rose by 50% last year, and even the seas are dangerously contaminated. The drinking water is disgusting. Regulation is notional.
Twenty six years of systemic failure - so the solution is … ? more of the same. Natch. Change the private equity outfit from Australians to Americans, increase customer bills by 59% and hey presto! ( Thames is the biggest private water company serving a quarter of the UK population. )
Two problems make this a risky proposition. First, there are no assets left to strip as the ‘surplus’ land and property are long gone. Second, massive capital investment is urgently required just to keep plant, pipes and drains functioning. Shareholders might know where the money went.
England is the only country in the world to fully privatise water. Do plutocrats just need more time prove the viability of their business model or have they created a dystopian nightmare ? Discuss.
The long term plan is to make America competitive again, I can't see Americans stitching t-shirts Bangladeshi style anytime soon, guns & sweatshops could be a very explosive combination!
By 'trade war' we of course mean a war on trade. War on the thing that connects nations. The thing that represents their common interests. A war on trade is a war on peace. It is a war on civilisation.
"The US has demonstrated a remarkable ability to shoot itself in both feet" wrote Ria. Agreed, but it's not just the USA: it's the UK and all the other nations wedded to neoliberal economics. It's designed to impose feudalism on all their populations so that their super-rich minority can become super-richer. Scotland's only hope is to escape from the UK, set-up out own fiat currency and financial systems, and re-embrace Keynesian economics. Our people are sovereign (as demonstrable in Statute) and it's long past time when we should run our country in their best interests; not follow the neo-lib dogma that is destroying the world economy and the future prospects for the human race.
I'm no economist or have an inside track on what's going on at high politics levels, I just try and join the dots to give me a credible/possible explanation.
Post WW2 and the Bretton Woods arrangement, gold (price controlled by the US) was the standard for trading stability, creating a coalesced Europe and first line of defence against Russia.
Europe with a bombed out industrial base could invest in new industrial infrastructure. The US not being bombed was stuck with an industrial base that was fast becoming old and left behind. They did well, for a time, and also with the emerging new digital age. But the land of the free was free to seek cheap labour and increased profits elswhere.
Nixon dumped Bretton Woods, France and the UK were packing away dollars to convert to undervalued gold. The US had the power to pull the levers and make the trading countries accept the dollar as the world reserve currency, in return for access to the US market and US security. Security reads, nukes, missiles and or bases on your soil giving increased US security.
Having reserve currency status gives control and allows the US to run a huge deficit with impunity.
Several times the oil dollar trading has been challenged, Saddam Husein, Col Gaddafi and latterly Venezuela. Disrupting and costly to deal with, but dealt with. The BRICS group is a much bigger and different game, it is this that Trump and his internal supporters are trying to strengthen against.
Trump's tariffs are to create negotiating levers and bring in some needed dollars without taxing the wealthy and bring some much needed manufacturing, that went overseas back to the US. Cars and computer tech in particular? The US will need to maintain the dollar as the reserve currency, another big ask for the tariff levers.
The ball is not in the US court any more, hence the tariffs. It is going to be an interesting, if precarious watch.
I propose, if there is a future, that the global community set up therapy to help countries to adjust to the new reality, of not having an empire (are you listening England) or no longer having the biggest seat on the world stage.
My tuppence worth.
Worth much more than tuppence my friend.
Yes, Leah, the Trump version of economics is utter nonsense, but some people around Trump must actually believe this shit.
The US was heading for a major international disaster before Trump was elected for his second term, so he did not create the disaster by himself, but he has certainly helped to develop the problem for the US economy. It is interesting to observe a car crash in slow motion and from a safe distance while one of the drivers is speeding ahead with enthusiasm.
Andy Anderson
Leah you hit the nail so firmly on the head so many times , if I were an ordinary American I would be demanding to know WHY we NEED 750 military bases in 80 countries whilst Russia ONLY has less than 20 and China has 1 yes 1
Why does a sovereign supposed democratic country NEED so many bases with the added costs of supplying and operating them, are we intending taking over the world , what is it with these warmongering scum , Trump , Starmer , Swinney, and that is only 3 of them, IF any of these clowns want military action they or their families should be first on the front line
I recognise Trump, Starmer and numerous others as "warmongering scum", but I'm struggling to see Swinney as one of them. Not only is he one of the least belligerent leaders in the world, he (and Scotland) don't have the economic levers to be belligerent even if they wanted to. As long as our economy is controlled by Westminster it will be that way; UK Gov extractionism will ensure we are effectively a colony in all but name.
The Scottish Government welcomed the increase in UK defence spending and all the negative things that entails for Scotland - not exactly a progressive stance.
Thanks again Leah for explaining so clearly the true nature of US and UK nonproductive financial capitalism. The future I read about as a teenager has arrived except that Issac Asimov’s kindly human laws of robotics have been ditched.
You mentioned the excesses of private monopoly ownership of UK utilities. Surely Thames Water is the apotheosis of that collapsing rentier capitalism. Since 1989 this company has gone from debt free profitability to £19 billion bankruptcy. Rivers can no longer be swam, raw sewage dumping rose by 50% last year, and even the seas are dangerously contaminated. The drinking water is disgusting. Regulation is notional.
Twenty six years of systemic failure - so the solution is … ? more of the same. Natch. Change the private equity outfit from Australians to Americans, increase customer bills by 59% and hey presto! ( Thames is the biggest private water company serving a quarter of the UK population. )
Two problems make this a risky proposition. First, there are no assets left to strip as the ‘surplus’ land and property are long gone. Second, massive capital investment is urgently required just to keep plant, pipes and drains functioning. Shareholders might know where the money went.
England is the only country in the world to fully privatise water. Do plutocrats just need more time prove the viability of their business model or have they created a dystopian nightmare ? Discuss.
The long term plan is to make America competitive again, I can't see Americans stitching t-shirts Bangladeshi style anytime soon, guns & sweatshops could be a very explosive combination!
By 'trade war' we of course mean a war on trade. War on the thing that connects nations. The thing that represents their common interests. A war on trade is a war on peace. It is a war on civilisation.