This is an elevated comment, from Stewart M.
By StewartM
Author: Ian Welsh Page 24 of 410
The era of the superpower is over. The new missile and drone technologies have made naval dominance impossible and ended the ability to devastate relatively advanced nations without them being able to shoot back. There is no power in the world that has the capabilities and might of the old USSR and the USA from 1945 to 2010 or so.
We have three great powers: China, the US and Russia.
There are regional powers: Brazil and Iran and the EU and Turkey and Japan and even India, which punches way below its population numbers.
But even a backwards, bombed to hell country like Yemen can defy America’s hold on the seas.
(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)
The EU is particularly amusing, in that they could have been one of the great powers, but over and over again chose austerity, contraction and vassalage to America. The ship is sailing out of port, it’s theoretically possible they could turn it around, but politically impossible. Their day: indeed, their centuries, are done. Pathetic.
This is going to be a fair different and more constrained world. There will be more wars and revolutions. Great Powers will actually have to seriously compete for the allegiance of important minor powers, though China’s been doing this for a couple decades now, offering huge benefits compared to the US.
Russia’s getting in on the game. Where China offers development, Russia offers to fix your military problems for you, or at least make them manageable and to sell you oil and grain cheap.
America and its allies offer your elites membership in the club, in exchange for impoverishing or otherwise screwing over your own population. If you don’t do what they say, they lecture the hell out of you and try to sanction you into an early grave, if they don’t launch a coup or use you as a cat’s paw in a war.
If America wants to compete, it’s going to have to start offering some deals that don’t suck.
Nations will be more free to act as they choose than they have been in, literally, centuries. Since they were forced into unnatural shapes and relations by the great powers and superpowers, this will lead to significant changes, especially in places where ridiculous borders were drawn which ignored geography and ethnicity. (This is most true in Africa, but not only there.)
But the most important thing is simply that the age of the military colossus is over. China is the new industrial colossus, but climate change and environmental collapse is likely to spike that before they reach their full growth.
Welcome to the post-European Age.
And Trump is very slightly ahead in the polls.
As is usually the case in modern American elections, much that is important isn’t at stake in this election: most notably whether or not the genocide in Palestine will continue. Both candidates and both parties are under the thumb of the Israeli lobby. Nor is an end to the terminal decline of the American Empire on the ballot, though Trump pretends it is.
That isn’t to say the election doesn’t matter, but it’s a choice between two terrible candidates. Trump is clearly senile and mercurial is the kindest word one can use to describe him. Harris is not that bright, and appears to fall into the Bush Jr. category: something happened to damage her. Plenty of rumors of alcohol problems, though I don’t know if they’re valid.
Both candidates are moral and ethical monsters, whose ambition and vanity are such that they would kill or impoverish any number of people to achieve their personal goals. (No, don’t even. This isn’t in question.)
I can’t be bothered to endorse either of them. This is a case of “would you prefer Satan or Beelzebub?” Unless you’re in a swing state I’d strongly urge you to vote third party or spoil your ballot. Even in a swing state you should seriously consider it.
About sixty percent of Americans think that the two-party system is broken, but they won’t vote for a third party because they think it’s a wasted vote, and this collective action problem makes continued decline inevitable.
(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)
Domestically it’s clear that Harris, who says she wouldn’t have done a single thing differently than Biden, is the candidate of status quo decline. Things will keep getting worse in about the same way. Trump will shake things up, primarily because of who he will appoint to government and their plans of taking over the bureaucracy.
Democrats aren’t serious about abortion rights, but Trump will make the situation even worse. His economic policies will be disastrous in different ways than Harris’s: tariffs aren’t a bad idea, but without industrial policy and policies designed to end rent-seeking and funnel resources into industry they won’t don’t do much but cause different types of pain. His appointments to the supreme court will be awful, though that ship has sailed and until Democrats are willing to court pack it seems unlikely there will be any near-term change.
This election was Harris’s to win, but she didn’t want it enough to distance herself strategically from Biden. It wouldn’t have taken much, I’d bet that just some serious talk about taming the inflation which ordinary people feel but economists insist doesn’t exist would have done it. Or she could have come out against genocide, and courted the left instead of the right by campaigning with Liz Cheney, et al.
But at the end of the day, people like Harris would rather the right win than do anything seriously left-wing like “not mass murder”, which is now so far from the central axis of American politics that it amounts to extremism, and is treated by universities, the political class and the justice system as the hand maiden to terrorism.
In such a decaying Empire, the truth is there are few good, viable, choices left. Pick your arch-demon or vote for someone who at least isn’t into mass murder but won’t win.
Israel has three great assets:
- Its air force;
- Its spies;
- America.
What it doesn’t have is a good army:
After nearly five weeks of intense fighting, Israeli soldiers have managed to enter several border villages, advancing a maximum of just under two kilometres in some areas. However, they have been unable to establish overnight positions. These forces have resorted to widespread destruction, levelling homes and mosques along the border to create “scorched earth” zones. This tactic, however, exposes Israeli tanks, making them vulnerable and preventing adequate concealment as they cautiously advance through Lebanese villages. Consequently, Israeli casualties have surged
Or, to put it another way, Netanyahu’s mouth has written checks that Israel’s ground forces can’t cash. So Israel is back to wanton destruction, mostly by air.
I’ve said for years that Hezbollah’s army is one of the best in the world, man for man, and so far it seems that judgment is vindicated.
Israeli forces are currently only engaging Hezbollah’s “spoiling attacks” within the “engagement area”. They are yet to penetrate the “main battle area,” where Hezbollah’s primary defences and “striking forces” are positioned. Hezbollah’s strategy integrates conventional and guerrilla warfare tactics, employing adaptable defences above and below ground. It focuses on attrition strategy, using mobile defence tactics to harass and weaken enemy forces before drawing them into decisive engagements. These tactics include tactical retreats that expose enemy flanks, allowing Hezbollah to strike at Israel’s advancing spearhead, systematically disrupting momentum and inflicting heavy losses.
Meanwhile Israel’s attack on Iran does not appear to have done great damage and Hamas ordered Northern Israeli villages being used as invastion staging points to evacuate, and has started hitting them with missiles and drones, leading to another couple hundred thousand Israeli internal refugees.
(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)
But the weak suffer what they must, and Northern Gaza has spent October under complete embargo of food and water. The Israeli genocide of Palestinians continues, and the clear intention is to occupy North Gaza permanently once its residents are displaced or dead.
Indeed the Israeli way of war is now clearly “genocide uber alles” with Israel’s air attacks in Lebanon prioritizing civilian buildings, with multiple attacks on hospitals, at least one attack on an orphanage and repeated warnings that they will strike first responders who try to save lives.
Israel is attempting to break the will of civilian populations through terror. Israel’s war doctrine is mass terror, ethnic cleansing and genocide, with attacks meant to maximize civilian casualties both during and after the attack. The fewer hospitals, doctors and so on, the more people who will die or be permanently maimed.
This is a war of the cowardly against civilians, which makes sense: Israel’s occupation has left its military specialized in brutalizing civilians. It had great difficulty against Hamas, a rag tag militia with missiles and other weapons built in basements. Against Hezbollah’s ground forces: seasoned, well equipped and dug in, it has been unimpressive.
The problem for Israel is simple enough: terror from the air doesn’t win wars and doesn’t break moral. Instead it makes people more determined to resist, not less.
If Israel, after its assassinations and attacks on warehouses had declared victory, it would still look strong. But engaging with Hezbollah on the ground has proven a serious mistake.
Israel is a great example of “those who are abused become abusers.” Israel might as well be Nazi Germany when it comes to both ideology (national ethnic supremacy) and actions: genocide of a despised ethnic/religious group.
It is a sad thing to see, both for their victims and for themselves. They have become monsters, and with polls indicating over 90% support for the way the war is fought, it’s clear that this has infected the mass of the Israeli citizenry.
When Israel is finally defeated, likely in a future war, it will need to completely de-Zionised, in a way Germany was never properly de-Nazified.
This entire war is sad and stupid and based on the fundamental injustice of taking other people’s land and homes. It is pursued thru terror, mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing and war crimes are so routine they happen every day as a matter of policy.
Every nation who supports Israel in this is stained by Israel’s crimes. We all know genocide is happening, and our countries have supported it, made it possible and opposed all efforts to end it.
To riff on Jefferson, we had best hope that there is no just God.
Some topics deserve a mention but not a full article and that’s what quick takes are for.
***
This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.
***
I’ve written about US ship building problems before, but it’s not just about that, the Navy is retiring ships faster than they are being built. (And yes, China is building them way faster than it is retiring them.)
The US Navy is retiring ships faster than it builds them. pic.twitter.com/UXQkiKht9O
— Russ Greene (@GreenPlusAnE) January 25, 2024
***
Seems that the extra surveillance for the Paris Olympics will become permanent. Surveillance state, HO!
Offered without comment:
Layoffs in a picture: pic.twitter.com/Xc39jpTa3H
— Aakash Gupta (@aakashg0) October 22, 2024
***
***
Add to, “what a mystery!” and “Who would have expected!”
The analysis revealed that the mortality rate of Americans ages 1 to 19 rose by 11% between 2019 and 2020 and an additional 8% between 2020 and 2021.
***
The new BYD Seagull EV costs $9,700 American, though that price is only really available to Chinese, they kick it up a lot even for countries without tariffs.
***
ASML’s CEO previously indicated he expect China to learn how to make lithography machines and that ASML and the West would eventually lose essentially the entire market. What he didn’t say is that once China can make these machines, they’ll then take the entire non-Western market too. Truly sanctions stupidity.
This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.
So, it’s clear from the response to my last post that some readers aren’t familiar with the effects of austerity on balance of payments and vice-versa. Balance of payments is, oversimplified, how much money is going in and out of a country.
When money goes into a domestic economy, if it is used to buy something that is imported, that effects balance of payments negatively.
If you’re selling more than you buy, which can mean services as well as good, then that helps balance of payments. It also includes financial games: so if people are sending money to the London financial center, well, that improves BoP. London’s the world’s second largest financial center, after New York.
Now here’s the thing. Britain doesn’t grow enough food to feed its population. It doesn’t have a lot of industry left. North Sea oil is depleting, to the point that Britain became a net importer of oil in 2013. (Take a look at that chart.)
When the government spends money it isn’t magically siloed from causing import demand. The government cut back on heating subsidies, for example, and limited child support payments to two children. Without that money, oil and other demand is not as high as it would be otherwise.
Indeed, nothing is really siloed. If the government spends, almost always some of that money is going to go overseas and spike imports.
Britain controls its own printing press. It can print as many pounds as it wants, but it can’t make people in other countries take the money. The more they print, the less the pound will be worth, and the more inflation there will be because the dropping pound will increase prices of imported goods.
The pound is not the world trading currency any more. It hasn’t been since WWII. It can’t print pounds the way the US can print dollars and expect everyone to just take them.
Austerity is, in many ways, cruel and stupid, but if Britain (or Canada, or Australia, or even Europe) is to print money without it causing serious economic issues and to actually reindustrialize, it has to be done intelligently, along with serious industrial and domestic economic policy. (Currently tons is printed, but siloed to the rich, which keeps general demand from exploding but destroys markets’ ability to function properly.)
Now the thing is that Britain is a high cost of living economy: food and housing are expensive. Very expensive. Workers need to be paid well to survive, and that makes Britain un-competitive against lower cost (or higher productivity) countries.
If you wanted to make Britain competitive again, you’d have to crash housing and rent, to start. You can imagine how politically fraught that is: people who have high net worth due to real estate aren’t going to like it.
Then there’s the issue of the City, the financial center. Financial center profits are HIGH. That’s a problem, because people would rather put money into finance than into industry or farming or whatever since returns are better. Finance cannibalizes the rest of the economy. So you have to weaken the city and silo it, and probably tax it a lot. That’s hard to do, because the City has a lot of power, and there’s a real issue because it does, actually, bring a lot of money in to Britain, it’s just that money doesn’t get spread around.
When you industrialize, or re-industrialize, you have to make sure that money in the domestic market buys domestic goods, doesn’t buy a lot of foreign goods, and is used primarily on industrialization: capital goods, primarily. It’s unpleasant, it means a lot of goods (imported goods) aren’t available or are very expensive. Your new industry, ideally, either serves the domestic market, or is good for export, or both.
Austerity doesn’t exist just because governments are run by stupid psychopaths (though that’s part of it), it exists because of very real constraints caused by a need to send more money out of the country than is coming in to the country. In the seventies the UK was in so much trouble it had to actually go to the IMF for help, and join the EU so Europe would help it bail out.
Now, again, there are ways around this, but they require taking on powerful interests and hurting a big chunk of the population, especially in the short to medium term (about twenty years or so.) It means, as much as possible, making do with what you can produce yourself, and when you can’t, going cheap. No foreign fresh fruit imports, except the cheapest (hope you like bananas.) Cheap phones and appliances. Etc…
It also means ending all sorts of stupid financial games: no more Private Equity. No stock buybacks. No huge stock option grants. You want money reinvested. Currency controls so money doesn’t flood out. Possibly a dual currency.
All of this is painful. But if you don’t do it, decline inevitably continues and eventually you’re back to being a third world country.
Austerity is a pressure bandage on a wound that still won’t stop bleeding. It slows down the decline, but it doesn’t heal the wound.
Update: Just for kicks, here’s Germany’s BOP:
And China: 
Austerity Is Mostly Stupid… Mostly.
This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.
But there is some logic to it, especially in places like Britain. The fundamental problem is de-industrialization. You can print as much money as you want, sure, but if almost everything you need is made or grown or dug somewhere else well, you have a problem. The US avoids this thru having dollar hegemony, for now, but the UK doesn’t have that and the Euro ain’t what it used to be either. The solution is simple in concept: you need to re-industrialize with than printed money.
(This is a theme and topic we’ve covered before, but forgive me running thru it again from another angle.)
Industrializing or reindustrializing is hard, especially with open markets. You need very careful use of tariffs and subsidies, and you need to cut deals with the current hegemonic industrial power: aka. China. You need real industrial policy, in other words. And neoliberalism doesn’t believe in that.
Instead neoliberalism believes in this weird idea that markets are self-correcting and that whatever markets do is right. Nor does it believe in increasing wages for domestic demand, because it came to power during the oil shocks/stagflation period.
Raising wages and thus general domestic demand when you don’t produce enough domestically means money flooding out of the country. This isn’t necessarily bad. A lower pound or Euro is an export subsidy and helps reindustrialize, but it’s still a hard sell and it has to managed.
You can’t let the trade and balance of payments deficit grow too large. And you have to manage domestic demand: pushing people to buy what is produced locally and making imports for consumer goods expenisve, while funneling import buys towards capital equipment.
This playbook has been run many times. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the US in the 19th century, China most recently. We know how to do it. But it does require discipline and an ideological change from neoliberalism, plus a willingness to cooperate with the main industrial power
It’s damn near impossible to industrialize or re-industrialize without aid from the current industrial hegemon. That means getting into a trade war with China is counter-productive. You need to import capital goods from them, and sell them what you produce at competitive prices.
Japan and the USA had Britain. Japan (2nd time), South Korea, China and Taiwan had the United States. You need the markets, knowledge and capital goods.
This mean, in effect, that you need to cut a deal with the current industrial power. They don’t precisely have to be good deals (China offered to make American rich people richer), but the deal has to be something they want.
For US/China one obvious deal is to let them get goods like EVs into the US without tariffs if they build branch plants and help create a supply network in the US. Another obvious deal is to stop supporting Taiwan so much & another is to let them have the South China sea. The EU and Britain can make the same deals.
If the last two bother you, well, look at it this way: they’re going to get Taiwan and the South China Sea anyway, you’re just making it easier for them. You’re giving up things you’re going to have to give up anyway.
This requires a psychological change among Western elites. They need to be willing to admit that they are no longer the top dogs, at least economically and that they can no longer just impose the terms they want.
The longer you leave cutting deals with China to help you reindustrialize, the worse deals you’re going to get. Leave it too long, and reindustrialization may be essentially impossible.
Of course there’s much more to it than this. A complete rejiggering of internal markets is necessary. You have to gut finance and put it at the service of industry. Private equity has to be destroyed wholesale. People can only get rich by exporting or making goods for the domestic market which replace imported goods. Anyone doing significant import of anything but capital machinery (with an eye to building your own) can only be allowed to survive, not prosper.
Generally speaking, to use econo-speak, incentives have to be aligned for re-industrialization, and dis-aligned for anything predatory. Betraying elites must be crushed.
There is no solution to declining standards of living in the Anglosphere and the EU without re-industrialization (maybe Canada and Australia could find another way.) You’ve got to either produce what you need, or produce what others want to buy from you. It’s that simple.
We’ve raised something over $5,400 since the fundraiser started, meaning we’ve reached the first goal of $4K and our $2,500 out from $7,000 tier, at which point I’ll do 3 reviews of important books. At 10K, which is $4,600 out, I’ll write an article on:
…the fundamental process which keeps society together, how it fails and renews and under what conditions it fails to renew.
And at $13,000, I’ll write:
an article on the weaknesses of North American style police, and how a determined and ruthless opponent could take advantage of those weaknesses to rip them a new one.
I really appreciate everyone who’s given. Donations and subscriptions from readers which have kept this blog alive and running. Times are hard, since Covid each fundraiser has become more difficult, because people are hurting, in particular from inflation.
I think this is a place where we tell the truth as we know it and where we try to make educated guesses about what the future holds. Every year it seems there are fewer places like this left.
If you’re in trouble financially, if food or shelter or medicine is an issue, please don’t give.
But if you can afford it, and you like my writing, I’d appreciate it if you did.
What strikes me is our loss of leadership competency, from the extremely competent people who managed us through the depression and through WWII to the clowns of today.
I’ve been involved in Youtube exchanges where some idiot creates a video claiming how we “saved” the USSR in WWII via Lend-Lease. First, that is that factually untrue. The USSR saved itself; Lend-Lease was such a trickle in 1941-1942 that it had essentially NO effect on the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, and very little impact on the Battle of Stalingrad in the fall-winter of 1942. Stalingrad at the very least marks the point where “the USSR will survive and not lose” so Lend-Lease didn’t “save” the USSR. Lend-Lease did help the USSR, but the bulk of it (60 %) came in the last 10 months of WWII well after the USSR had turned the tide and driving back the Wehrmacht out of the USSR. The most important part of Lend-Lease help wasn’t the weapons we sent, nor the locomotives, nor the steel, nor the petrol, nor even the trucks (the most common ‘fact’ brought up). It was the food we sent–in 1942 42 % of the USSR’s arable land was occupied, and the USSR instituted a rationing program where soldiers, workers in essential industries, and children got first priority on food. If you weren’t one of those, you didn’t get much, and hunger contributed mightily to the USSR’s civilian death rate in the war. The FDR administration promised the USSR 10 % of US food production to help, but could only manage to deliver 3 %.
But my point in mentioning Lend-Lease is that such Youtubes miss the main reason why we did what we did in aiding the USSR. It wasn’t some act of friendship or mercy, we weren’t just ‘being nice’; we did it OUT OF ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST. George Marshall and the US military leadership were not sure we could win WWII without Soviet help; at the very least if the USSR went down to defeat and Hitler obtained access to the USSR’s resources it would prolong both the length and sacrifice of the US and UK. The military problem the US faced was war both in Europe and the Pacific, with far-flung bases and long supply lines that “ate” up manpower and required a powerful Navy and Air arm to protect. We thus couldn’t raise an army of hundreds of divisions and supply it overseas, to do the work that the Soviets were providing the West by grinding up the Wehrmacht. Keeping the Soviets in the war was quite vital; ergo Lend-Lease.
In short, Marshall and his ilk had a clear and correct notion of what the US could do, and what it couldn’t do. The manpower restrictions on ground forces meant “no land war in Asia” which meant we wouldn’t field armies in China. Instead, we focused on a ground force manpower-minimizing “island hopping” strategy where we only took relatively few key islands and just left Japanese ground forces in elsewhere stranded and cut-off from supply. The bulk of the ground forces we did raise were going be used to defeat Hitler, whom Marshall correctly identified as the biggest threat to the US, given Germany’s technological skills and industrial base.
This kind of calculation is what we’ve lost. In WWII, we knew we were powerful, in some ways relative to the world more powerful then than now, but we knew we couldn’t do everything and that we shouldn’t even try. But after WWII, inside the US spread the notion (largely spread by conservatives and the anti-communists) that we had really ‘done it all’ and won the war without much of anyone’s help. Why did we cave to Stalin at Yalta? Why didn’t we let Patton drive the Soviets out of Eastern Europe? We had the bomb after all! (cue in Henry Stimson rhetorically patting his coat pocket). WE WERE OMNIPOTENT!
The first generation who acted on this belief, a belief definitely not shared by those who planned and executed WWII, was the “Greatest Generation” who had fought it as common soldiers when they assumed leadership—JFK through Reagan/Bush I. It led to Vietnam and to interventions everywhere, because we could and should impose our will upon the world. It was exacerbated when (as you say) financial means of scoring economies replaced measures of actual industrial capacity and output, from Clinton to today. What gets me is that the US’s leadership is more arrogant and more convinced of its supremacy despite the fact by all objective measures, whatever power the US actually has is far less relative to the rest of the world than the US during WWII during Marshall’s and FDR’s time. Yet Marshall and FDR knew we weren’t omnipotent and couldn’t ‘do it all’. And I fear nothing less than a massive comeuppance will change their attitudes.
(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)