A lame Australian response to a Donald brush off

I never heard of perkins before and likely as not neither have you

But if he can sling mud at the US and our capitalist economic system thats all liberals need to know

No doubt you have a different system in mind

 

Knowledge is a choice... you can open your mind or you can choose to stay ignorant. John Perkins was an Economic Hit man,

A quote from the book just for you Mac

 

What do you think china is doing now?

They must have read perkins book

I know that illiterate tribesmen in africa probably made some bad deals for their country after they became prime minister

But that was often because most of the dollars were going into their pockets

 

Yes indeed, because the only way to defend a country against these tactics is to do the same, strip smaller countries of wealth and resources to build your own wealth and military... enter Belt and Road..

But this also points the US being responsible for so many displaced people in the world, they've been at it for decades....

II've got to go so will leave with one more quote... one of my favourites

 

Displaced people?

I think the world would be worse off without the efforts of America since WWII

 

Well, I'm sure the people at the top don't mind the greatest inequality in the western world. Those on the bottom.........

 

Morrison. Possibly CINO Conservative In Name Only ?
After all, "the Australian peoples" have no direct say in their choices of Chief Executive.
No Conservative "Young Turk" can challenge Morrison's position as
leader of the Conservative Party via a popular vote. such as the Primary.
What a choice! This stogy bought ole guy named Labor or Liberal or Conservative or the other just the same.

Sadly, Australia bought into "grow we must" and globalism scams
when they could have taken care of Australia with an
Australia First attitude of Aussie Nationalism.
And probably resulted in a better condition for Australians today.


Dear Australia

If you don't want to be ignored,
elect Australian Nationalist as your leaders.
Australia First leaders.
Not Globalism we must.
Hike the rent on military and listening bases
that create targets in Australia.
Really, would be any more or less reliable to intervene
should China invade because Australia did or didn't?
Now that we got that settled,
Australia First!

Any Aussies out there who don't "get it"
are welcome to Moi's Globalism We Must Deprogramming intervention.
Conversation / Message interest.



Moi

​

 

Good point, this is the model for the current brand of predatory lending practices undertaken not just by US corporate institutions but with their global allies who together form what is loosely termed as the Washington or Atlantic consensus. The idea is to saddle the economic institutions of developing countries with egregious loans that the elites in the banking centres of those countries know can never be paid back. One default is imminent, the loans are used as a means to privatize land resources and public commons for exploitation by the lenders and then to force austerity on the populations of those countries as the tax-payers are forced to absorb the debt while the elites are generally given bailouts and further loans to keep the ponzy scheme going.

It is a little like what happened with the bailout of the banking centres after 2008 only developing countries don't have the power to just print money the way America as the worlds exchange currency can.

The EU, World Bank, and IMF have been using this model to extract resources basically rent free and subsidized by tax-payer of developing nations not only in Africa and and Asia but Europe as well. Greece is a perfect example where pensioners and students are now forced to underwrite the debt and bad loans their government undertook:

And it worked so well for the elites and bankers overseas, that they couldn't resist doing the same thing here in NA:

"How was the real economy to survive, then? Another hidden effect of financialization was super-concentration — the second force in the rise of predatory capitalism. Mom-and-pop capitalism is a healthy and beautiful thing, an economy of a million little shops, bakeries, artisans — but it takes only a modest attachment to a profit motive. But thanks to the rise of massive, global speculation, only aggressive quarterly profit-maximization was allowed. CEO earnings were hitched to share prices, and your share price only went up if your earnings did, relentlessly, illogicaly, crazily, every single quarter, instead of stabilizing at a happy, gentle amount — and so the only way left, in the end, to achieve it, was to build titanic monopolies, which could squeeze people for every dime. Once the economy had Macy’s, JC Penney, K-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears. Now it has Walmart. The story was repeated across every single industry. Amazon, Google, Apple. A new age of monopoly arose.

But monopolies had an effect, too. The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were “offshored.” That’s a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact — and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn’t have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even — you could make everything in that one sweatshop.

We’re used to thinking that offshoring “took” jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler — and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. The machine discovered that it could do in rich countries what it had done in poor ones — and so it began stripping away everything that made a job “a job.” Because the economy was increasingly composed of monopolies, giant companies, banks, and investors had the power to do so with impunity. Speculators began raiding pension funds. Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the “at-will job” and the “zero-hours contract” were created — social contracts that were only “jobs” in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn’t have benefits could now be fired on a whim — and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely?

Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who’d take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety, all those people for whom “a job” now meant something more like “a temporary soul-crushing way to avoid destitution."

https://eand.co/how-predatory-capitalism-imploded-the-future-6a6396b8f2fc

Trump gets is backwards when he says that America has been taken from by other countries. The truth is that America has been a beneficiary of globalization and uses tariffs and trade barriers as much as anyone:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...piggy-bank-that-everybodys-robbing-2018-06-12

But I can promise you you will never get any of the right-wingers on this board to acknowledge or even read any of this because it is far too easy to just repeat Trump's memes, lies and sound bites and blame everyone but your self for the America's economic difficulty and inequality.

It is actually very dangerous for America itself because instead of working with other nations to modernize and integrate production, they are instead isolating themselves from the world and threatening a very serious economic slowdown by disrupting trade and raising costs with tariffs and sanctions.

Even right-wing economists are starting to warn of a major global downturn by at least 2020. But you can't get Trumpers to wrap their brain around any of this because the orange one has them all convinced this is the best economy ever.....

 

Given that you're not American you can't be too sure of anything. It's a mighty attractive place for a lot of people.

 

His remark was both. He makes hit-and-run nasty generalizations about our allies that aren't true and are part of whiney, destructive narrative. He should be called on it.

There is a lot of residual goodwill for this country jackasses like Trump are tossing away. His clueless followers should do some thinking for themselves.

 

Do you really think our allies only want whats best for America?

If so thats laughable

And dont blame the euro hate for America on trump

Resentment of the US started long before trump took office

 

The larger point is that many of those 'developing countries' are developing, despite the corruption and nepotism within.

The US can ignore them and let them fend for themselves, as they were doing for thousands of years before the US came along, or assist as best they can through bank loans, etc. Perhaps the US should administer these countries, like a modern colonizer might do, until these countries have the potential to function in the modern world, sans corruption and with a proper educational system and a functioning bureaucracy.

 

Right. It's been going on for many decades, since America was created in fact, but each generation of Europeans feel they discovered it for themselves. If they were as well schooled and sophisticated as they believe themselves to be there would likely be less friction among the democracies and we could concentrate more on where the real international problems exist. http://www.pewglobal.org/2003/12/10/anti-americanism-causes-and-characteristics/

 

I understand you're deeply offended by the remarks but there are far worse things being said, especially about the US itself. This seems like another example of 'selective outrage'.

This is what was said "The world only cares what free stuff it can get from America". Note 'Allies' were not mentioned.

Foreigners quite liked Obama because he spent much of his presidency being critical of the US. Foreigners have never liked Republicans.

 

Straw man time? I was refuting your asinine statement: "The world only cares what free stuff it can get from America."

Why not? They don't care for Trump, but they prefer U.S. leadership in the world.

 

You need to understand - the POTUS is supposed to be liked only by Americans. Everyone else takes a hike.
In fact, if you have a POTUS that is widely liked worldwide then you have a POTUS that isn’t doing a very good job protecting US interests.
You can’t have a leader that makes everyone to give in and do things that favor America and be liked at the same time. That’s impossible. It’s like liking someone who punches you in your face. Or liking someone who raises your monthly bills. Your map just shows that Obama was a schmuck. I knew that from his actions when Russia annexed Crimea. Hope everyone else sees it now.

 

You keep posting those same polls

Why?

I keep telling you they are meaningless to me

They seem to prefer the obama “leadership” style called leading from behind

Which means let the world decide what it wants and America will give it to them

 

What makes you think I'm offended? Trumpites often run their mouths based on stuff they hear on Open Mouth Media for Village Idiots. I made no comment on morons in other countries.

Right. He didn't mention allies; he lumped allies in with our enemies.

Do you have evidence Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush were unpopular?

 

Because you said the post was an "utterly obnoxious, stupid comment". And "nasty" as well.[/QUOTE]

 

What does this have to do with @Mac-7's jackass comment, "The world only cares what free stuff it can get from America?"

This justifies making stupid generalizations about other peoples because...?

So, why do we have to go from a schmuck to a jackass?

 

Of course, you don't get it. The jerk you put in the White House is disliked, disrespected, and ineffective in world affairs.

Preferring a "leadership style" you characterize as "leading from behind"--whatever that means--translates into other people only wanting what they can get out of America? Hohhh-Kayyy...

 

It was a "nasty," "utterly obnoxious, stupid comment." Why would I be offended? Are you offended when someone comments negatively on other people?

 

Its past time we had a president who puts America first

 

The comment was not directed at any specific person or people. I'm never offended on these boards because I don't expect too much and am therefore never disappointed..

 

This will disappoint a lot of people. https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/02/...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push