|
Venezuela – After Opposition Support ‘Deflated’ – U.S. Targets Food Aid Supply
The hot-air figures the U.S. used for its regime change efforts in Venezuela failed to do their job. The New York Times declares their movement "deflated".
Eleven hours after the story went live (and the White House had called?) the headline changed.
While it still repeats propaganda claims, the report makes clear that Guaidó is lacking public support:
CARACAS, Venezuela — It was a daring gambit: Juan Guaidó, Venezuela’s opposition leader, stood by a military base alongside dozens of uniformed officers and political allies, calling for a military uprising against President Nicolás Maduro.
…
Three weeks later, Mr. Guaidó is shuttling among a half-dozen safe houses to escape capture. … And the protests that filled the streets with Mr. Guaidó’s supporters are dwindling ..
…
Weakened and unable to bring the political crisis gripping Venezuela to a quick resolution, Mr. Guaidó has been forced to consider negotiations with Mr. Maduro. Both sides have sent representatives to Norway for talks, a concession Mr. Guaidó previously rejected.
This change is a turning point for the opposition, which in January had gathered momentum, attracting broad international backing and huge crowds of supporters. Now, that momentum has nearly dissipated — a testament to Mr. Maduro’s firm hold on power even as the country crumbles around him.
The government of Venezuela is talking with some of the opposition parties, there is no confirmation yet that Guaidó's party, which is the most radical opposition element, is actually involved. It is doubtful that the government would want to 'negotiate' with it.
Interestingly the NYT now leaves out the false "interim president" attribute that it previously used to describe Guaidó.
That Guaidó failed with his clownish coup attempt does not mean that the U.S. will give up on its regime change efforts.
Venezuela's economy is in a deep economic crisis. The cause are not the minor socialist attempts its government made, but the economic war the U.S. is waging against it:
United States sanctions are ravaging Venezuela’s vital oil sector and imports, making it increasingly difficult for Mr. Maduro to govern. The country largely ground to a halt over the weekend because of a lack of fuel — a shortage that Mr. Maduro has blamed the sanctions for.
Luckily no one in Venezuela has yet to die for lack of food. But there are severe problems:
[T]hree years have passed since oil prices plummeted from over US $100 a barrel in early 2014 to around US $40 in early 2015. Three years have also gone by since the first sanctions against Venezuela were implemented by the Obama administration, since being intensified by the current US government. The result has been a combination of these two factors with the enormously complex structure of the Venezuelan food system, which is reliant on imports, heavily colonised by northern tastes and swollen by the oil boom of recent decades. Currently, and despite all efforts, the dynamics of food-access depends on income: those who have more money eat more and better.
In 2015 the opposition used its support from large producers, importers and distributors to create artificial scarcity of food and hygiene products. The government responded by creating the Local Provision and Production Committees (CLAPs) which deliver monthly packages to more that 6 million families:
The CLAP program is an arrangement between the government and grassroots groups aimed at distributing subsidised food and other basic household goods to low income Venezuelan households.
The poor welcome their packages but the more wealthy opposition supporters in the U.S. and on the ground always hate the program:
While Venezuela’s commune movement largely supports the CLAPs, the opposition has long claimed the program discriminates against households that don’t support the government. According to the government, the CLAPs have reduced hunger and food scarcity across the country.
The packages program is means based. But there are also CLAP markets (vid) where everyone can buy. CLAP does not discriminate between government or opposition supporters. It just happens that the poor are not the ones who support the neo-liberal politics the opposition parties prefer.
During recent riots opposition supporters burned down CLAP storehouse and packaging centers.
The Trump administration is now joining the opposition effort to increase the number of people in Venezuela who go hungry:
The United States is preparing sanctions and criminal charges against Venezuelan officials and others suspected of using a military-run food aid program to launder money for President Nicolas Maduro’s government, according to people familiar with the matter.
…
Sanctions and fraud indictments are under consideration against Venezuelan military officials and politicians as well as Venezuelan business people and foreign partners, the sources said.
…
Many Venezuelan families rely on the subsidized food program, known by its Spanish initials CLAP, for their basic necessities in the oil-producing South American nation …
How can a Maduro government subsidized food program "launder money for President Nicolas Maduro’s government"? Their is no logic in the argument the Trump administration makes.
The move will be ineffective. It will not help to 'regime change' the government. Targeting subsidized food distribution for the poor will not increase support for the opposition. Any disruption of CLAP will be blamed on it. The less the people receive, the more they will dependent on even a reduced CLAP and on other government programs.
It is pure viciousness, not thought through politics, that drives this.
A “Rapid Collapse” of the US is a highly subjective term, if you mean, will the US collapse overnight due to a single crisis event? Then no, that is highly unlikely because even modest modern states have comparatively large reserves of the resources (financial, political, cultural) which they can leverage to endure multiple crisis one after another or even several major crises simultaneously. Turkey is an example of this, as it has endured multiple crises (military, political, diplomatic, economic & monetary) since 2014 and no one is predicting an immediate collapse of the state, the overall situation is just predicted to get worse.
However, if you mean a “Rapid Collapse” within a single human lifetime, then that is much more possible. The Soviet Union had been dealing with a progressively worse economic and social situation since at least the mid-1970s before it collapsed, so that was a single generation, or put another way there were people old enough to remember Tsarist Russia who lived through world war 1, the revolution, the Russian civil war, world war 2 and then saw the collapse of the Soviet system. There were even more people who lived during the height of the Soviet system (mid-1950 to mid-1960s) who also lived to see the collapse (almost 2 generations, nearly 40 years). If we assume a similar situation for the US, whether you think of the height of American power as 2000 or 2003, then the collapse still comes long before 2050. Admittedly, applying the lessons of the Soviet System to the current American is an imperfect comparison, but the points I am making are
1. the US is quantitatively weaker in many respects (politically, culturally, economically, militarily, monetarily, diplomatically) now than it was previously, it has expended significant resources in the pursuit of an ever greater Empire and in doing so it has burdened itself with the higher upkeep costs required to maintain this enhanced Empire, this makes it less able to endure future crises (financial, militarily, diplomatic, etc..) that will certainly arise in the future.
2. People tend to overestimate the changes that will occur over a short timeframe (say within 5 years) and underestimate the changes that will occur over the long timeframe (within 10 or 20 years). The trend we’ve seen from the US over the past 15 years is increasing political and social instability, international hostility, exorbitant spending, and most notably an inability to resolve actual problems. Everything just gets kicked down the road for the next administration to deal with (I personally remember President Bill Clinton complaining about the need to solve the problem of illegal immigrant and that was more than 20 years ago). Eventually, the US will run out of road and they will have to “shed” or “default” on many of the obligations of the current US Empire, in doing so, it will effectively cease to exist as we currently recognize it and will be replaced by something else, just as the Soviet Union ceased to be and was largely replaced by the Russian Federation. The maddening questions facing us is how will the current US Empire end and what exactly will replace it.
Posted by: Kadath | May 23 2019 2:44 utc | 27
@Passer by #25
Your commentary exhibits a large numbers of misunderstanding and/or overlooking of important details.
Let’s start with: “It will be difficult for foreign users to stop using Google services and switch to Chinese analogues. Outside of the Chinese market, most use Google and other US apps and services. Chinese apps are currently not as popular and not known for high quality.”
Foreign users don’t need to use Google. China has its own search engine, as does Russia. Even in the US, there are still a large number of companies, including Microsoft, that can deliver search. Android in turn is not a gate towards cellular. Besides AOSP, there are plenty of cell phone operating system software which a company could choose to adopt. They just use Android because it is easier – note that interoperability really doesn’t matter. Play store matters somewhat more, but the reality is that you do not have to list an app in Play Store in order to install on a phone, unlike iOS/iPhones. The Chinese apps comment is utterly wrong; Chinese use Chinese apps plenty. It is just that the language barriers work both ways – foreigners don’t have any particular reason to use WeChat any more than Chinese have a reason to use Whatsapp.
As for quality: WeChat is able to selectively filter out images embedded in chat messages – that technological capability is beyond Twitter, Facebook or Google at the moment, granted that they have less reason to want to do so. The capability, however, is really impressive because it functions at the packet level.
Net net: you are ignorant over real state of what Chinese tech can and cannot do.
Next wrong assertion: “China will have to create a global information infrastructure rivaling Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.”
First of all, these companies have a global structure *only for their own purposes”. Google, Miccrosoft, Twitter, Facebook, etc don’t actually have anything to do with the actual information pipes, the last mile to the consumer, the telecoms and their regulation, etc. Even the Internet – the actual computers handling the data are, by and large, not operated by the above companies. They have enormous infrastructure but it is for their own purposes, and it is equally wrong to say that the billion plus citizens of China (numerically greater than the US and EU combined) have greatly less internet usage/traffic than the US and EU. Alibaba and Tencent have enormous infrastructure too, it is just (rightly) focused on their core audience. You confuse the state of a 3rd world nation and its “free riding” on infrastructure vs. what China can and has done.
“The estimates from …”
China’s GDP was 6% of US GDP in 1984. In dollar terms, it isn’t equal but it is absolutely greater in purchasing power parity. And more importantly, a “recession” in China is 6% growth while a boom in the US is 1.78% growth (2007) – even the “travails” of China today still have that nation gaining ground, by any measure, on the US.
“Things that could stop the US.”
Ongoing growth of inequality leading to UberTrump I and SuperUberTrump II in the 2nd to 5th elections from now.
US deficit spending causing overall debt to increase beyond 100% of GDP to 150% of GDP – which at present rates, could be in a double handful of years.
US decisions on more foreign entanglements creates a 2nd Vietnam – the first Vietnam is what forced the US off the gold standard and to unilaterally break the original Bretton Woods agreement.
The list goes on and on and on.
Note that I actually agree that the US could still turn things around, but only if the people running things either do a 180 on policy or they get kicked out en masse. Between Citizens United and normal oligarchical grip on power, I don’t see that happening.
“US debts? Problem can be fixed by raising retirement age, or cutting benefits by 17 % – 20 %. Will this increase internal problems in the US? Yes. Will this collapse the US? Most likely no. Now, if you look at projected US debt levels for 2050, they are very high. So at that point there will be a significant loss of power for the US. But the way i see it, no “rapid collapse” anytime soon. ”
Utterly, absolutely wrong. I agree that US debts are easily fixable – you simply inflate like mad. But the people who have the wealth now – and also hold the reins of power – won’t allow this to happen.
Cutting benefits and that kind of crap won’t do it, nor will raising retirement age.
The US deficit today has an average interest rate of 2.5%+ ; it was 2.2% or so 1 year ago. US Treasury link
That additional 0.3%, for the entire US Federal debt of $22.3 trillion, equals an additional $67 billion in interest payments every year. To put this in context, this is almost 2% of the entire federal budget.
Pimco says that the interest rate needed for a stable national debt in the US is 1.7%; we’re 0.8% over that.
More critically, the entire US debt is 25% of the entire planet’s GDP. Foreigners, both governments and individuals, used to buy a significant fraction of new US debt – they stopped doing so in 2012.
Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be.
All in all, your clearly provocative post has added insight or information to me.
Posted by: c1ue | May 23 2019 5:44 utc | 34
S | May 22, 2019 10:35:34 PM | 26
“The increasingly aggressive U.S. actions based on complete lies and fabrications betray their desperation and serve as a strong indicator that their collapse has already begun.”
Do you know western history? This is how things always were. Very, very aggressive. World wars, Cold war and everything. You mistook the relative calm after 1990 for normality. It wasn’t. The Empire was sleeping. Well, it now woke up.
International standing of the US? Why did India and Brazil move into pro-US direction? Why are Aus, Can, Japan supporting them eagerly? Why is the EU such a vassal? Where is the european army?
Economic collapse for the US? Not as long as the dollar is the world reserve currency. Replacing it will take lots of time. Europe is not willing to do that yet – the INSTEX mechanism for trade with Iran is not operational and the euro is shaky – see Italy or Greece.
China replacing processors and application ecosystems? That would have happened anyway, this is what Made in China 2025 is all about.The US decided to act before they are ready. It would have happened anyway, but in the current case the costs for China would be far higher, and growth projections for China dropped significantly.
c1ue | May 23, 2019 1:44:34 AM | 35
“It will be difficult for foreign users to stop using Google services and switch to Chinese analogues.”
Point behind this statement –
Android holds 75 % market share. With it, you very often get the rest of Google services. Users are comfortable with all of it and have experience with this. Why would they want to switch to unknown chinese OS and chinese apps? Btw why would people use chinese services (like search engine or Weibo for example) if they offer heavy level of censorship? I’m not sure that China is interested in globalising many of its own services, it looks like they want to keep them mostly for chinese speaking people, and for related internal censorship needs.
“China will have to create a global information infrastructure rivaling Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.”
They are a global propaganda and spying machine, and China does not have anything like this deployed on global level, only on local level, not to mention the profits they bring by dominating the global markets.
“The Chinese apps comment is utterly wrong; Chinese use Chinese apps plenty.”
Oh, i’m talking about the global level here, not about the situation in China. I don’t see where you got that. That Chinese use Chinese apps plenty is pretty well known. China also bans some western corps and mostly cornered its own market. But on a global level, they are not popular. Globally used software is US dominated.
“quality of chinese apps”
I will admit that this is what i heard from other people using such apps, i do not use many chinese apps. I’m sure that China will be dominating the world market if their apps were of higher quality. This is not the case now.
“China’s GDP was 6% of US GDP in 1984. In dollar terms, it isn’t equal but it is absolutely greater in purchasing power parity. And more importantly, a “recession” in China is 6% growth while a boom in the US is 1.78% growth (2007) – even the “travails” of China today still have that nation gaining ground, by any measure, on the US.”
In PPP is greater, but not in nominal. Most comparisons do use nominal gdp. IMF for example uses it to declare who has the world’s biggest economy. The nation is gaining ground on the US, this is a fact, but the projections these days are far different than those from before 2017. So my point is pretty clear – China catching up with the US in nominal GDP is being prosponed from 2024 to 2031 and maybe later. In other words the US is actively slowing down China. So that it gets old before it gets rich. This is the point behind the trade war, i believe.
“Ongoing growth of inequality leading to UberTrump I and SuperUberTrump II in the 2nd to 5th elections from now.”
It is possible. But i do not see Trump winning another election. A recession is projected to hit by 2020, so it will be extremey difficult for him to win again. Now that you mention inequality, it is already very high in Russia and China, according to GINI it is at US levels.
“US deficit spending causing overall debt to increase beyond 100% of GDP to 150% of GDP – which at present rates, could be in a double handful of years.”
Under current law, with no reforms, US debt to gdp is projected to reach 93 % in 2029.
“US decisions on more foreign entanglements creates a 2nd Vietnam”
I do not think the US will get into another big war, i think it is aware of its limitations. So it will be hybrid wars from now on.
“Cutting benefits and that kind of crap won’t do it, nor will raising retirement age.”
It will fix the US budget and growth in debt to GDP according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Social Security will be fixed by 17% across-the-board benefit cut today; in 2034, that cut rises to 23%.
Also: the US health care system is very inefficient, compared to Europe. US tops the world in health care spending, which is a big driver of US deficit growth. Health care reform and implementing european practises will be able to significantly cut spending.
For the retirement age increase stopping the growth in US debt, this is the view of Martin Feldstein.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-23/marty-feldstein-warns-debt-crisis-coming
“More critically, the entire US debt is 25% of the entire planet’s GDP. Foreigners, both governments and individuals, used to buy a significant fraction of new US debt – they stopped doing so in 2012.”
I agree with that. The world can not finance the US by buying new debt. And it can not bail it out. Although most US debt is not held by foreigners. But i suspect that dollars will be printed instead, and the US already has the world reserve currency. The Euro does not seem capable of replacing the dollar, too many problems in Europe. They also don’t have an eurobond to compete with the US treasury market. China, from what i read, is far away from internationalising the RMB. It has very small share in global reserves and payments. From what i’m reading (Adam Garrie) this is planned for the medium term, but not for now.
“your clearly provocative post”
As for the post being provocative, i deliberately made it that way. Because i want to spur a discussion about the issues i’m interested in and i learn interesting insights from all of this.
Schmoe | May 22, 2019 11:09:49 PM | 30
Did you really post “. . . why would Trump be boasting so loudly. . .”?
Yes, this point sounds good (at first). But Trump’s boasting was in the context of a recent interview where what he said is backed up by current IMF (and other) projections – that China will not be catching up with US gdp anytime soon. Thus i see the trade war as doing its purpose – slowing down China, until the demographic issues there kick in.
“I would also add that your comment on a 17% -20% reduction in benefits solving retirement issues is way off if you consider state and municipal pension obligations, and even more off if you consider unfunded Medicare obligations, and not even close to reality if you add union, state and municipal healthcare liabilities. ”
I wrote about these issues above in the comment, but for state level debts and pension risk – they are currently not high in most US states, with the exception of IL and NJ.
“most states have healthy reserves and inherently strong fiscal flexibility, Illinois and New Jersey both have low levels of reserves relative to the potential revenue decline in our recession scenario. In addition, they both show weakness in their pension risk scores.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-21/illinoisans-will-be-among-nations-hardest-hit-next-recession
City wise, the 3 biggest US cities have large debts, though. So this will affect the situation in the US negatively.
Cyril | May 23, 2019 11:22:52 AM | 46
“Your general message was that the U.S. is still unstoppable.”
No. My general view is that the US will fight hard to retain its power, and that there will be a gradual decline of it. But no “muh rapid collapse real soon”. I personally blame Europe for this, if Europe switched sides it will be all over by now.
“Okay, I’ll address one of your points”
First – it is forecast from April, made before the current escalation. It contains writings such as “Conditions have eased in 2019 as the US Federal Reserve signalled a more accommodating monetary policy stance and markets became more optimistic about a US-China trade deal”. Which is no longer the case.
Second – the IMF sees China as losing more than the US.
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2167587/trade-war-escalation-will-cut-chinas-gdp-16-cent-and-us-09
Posted by: Passer by | May 23 2019 17:27 utc | 50
c1ue | May 23, 2019 2:43:57 PM | 56
“You’re still being ignorant of reality. Android is not “owned” by Google; you can get an AOSP (Android Open Source Project) set of code and roll your own. Companies like Cyanogen and others have been doing this for some time.”
Android is being mainly developed by Google though. It provides its updates, etc. As of now, Google dominates the development of Android, competing Android ecosystems are currently dwarfed by Google. They decide where the overall development of Android goes. And Google dominates the apps for it. Most Android devices ship with a substantial amount of proprietary software from Google.
“So while there is some impact from Google’s pulling of Huawei’s access to Google’s version of Android, it is not the same as banning Huawei from making an Android OS phone.”
They will have their Android OS (it is not ready yet), but will they be able to compete with Google for the dominant app ecosystem? Store, various services, etc? As well as the quality of their Android? Btw Microsoft, Panasonic and Toshiba just stopped cooperation with Huawei. Huawei will be under constant attacks and sabotage, unlike Google.
“Regarding Chinese apps: You said: ” But on a global level, they are not popular”
“Uh, there are 7+ billion people on the planet. Around 20% are in mainland China. The US and EU combined at a bit over half the population of China. Why again does Chinese demand not matter at a global level, even by itself? More importantly, just how important are US and Western European apps for Southeast Asians? South Americans? Africans? It matters to the app makers, it doesn’t matter to Huawei or China.”
US plus EU plus Japan, plus Anglospere combined may represent smaller population, but they are far bigger market than China.
Western apps are popular everywhere, with the probable exception of China, as the West dominates sofware development and the software industry, see Windows or Android (which is dominated by Google) for example. This is why almost all of the the world’s largest software corporations are Western. Best selling software, etc. See Windows, Office, Adobe, or the popularity of Google’s search engine, which represents 76 % of world wide searches.
“Purchasing power is what matters for real life goods and services. Nominal is economist’s and central banker’s imaginations. Whatever the actual difference in size, the reality is that China has grown enormously and is continuing to grow faster than the US. If we assume a 6% growth rate going forward for China and a 2% growth rate going forward for the US (both optimistic but reasonable), then China catches the US in nominal GDP in 2020 if they’re nominal GDP is 10% smaller today. If 20% smaller, the catchup occurs in 2023. This is a very, very short period of time.”
Nominal GDP estimates are commonly used to determine the economic performance of a whole country or region, and to make international comparisons. It is the original concept of GDP. PPP basis arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards between nations. PPP also does not take into account difference in the quality of goods and services. IMF also uses nominal GDP to recognise who has the biggest economy.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-nominal-vs-gdp-ppp.php
Chinese growth rate for the 2020s is currently projected to be 5 – 5,5 %. US growth rate – 2%. My point stands, older (from before the trade war) projections were about China catching up with the US in 2024, and the newer projections are about China catching up in 2031. Since the IMF projects bigger losses for China than for the US (due to the trade war), this will additionally slow down China.
That said, i have no doubt that China will at some point catch up with the US, but the US strategy IMO is to slow down China until its bad demographics and aging population kick in.
“A recession that hits in 2020 means Trump wins another term. Only if the recession hits next year, will it occur in time for Trump to suffer the economic consequences. You forget that recessions are never recognized until at least 6 months after they start.”
The economy was already feeling very bad in 2008 even before the recession was recognized. There were many worried people at that point. Lots of tension in the air. Moreover, as US demographics are changing, with every year becomes harder and harder for a republican to win. So demographic trends are against Trump.
“I have no idea where you are getting this from. Even wikipedia says US federal debt to GDP is already over 100%”
This over 100% number includes the debt that the US government owes to itself. Intra-Governmental Debt. You will often find two figures – one about 106 %, and another about around 80 %. The CBO projections and other instituions (IMF) use the ~ 80 % estimate – which is only about debt towards third parties (non US government parties).
https://www.thestreet.com/politics/what-is-the-national-debt-14848010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2019-01/54918-Outlook.pdf
“Social Security is still more or less breaking even today. The above is nonsense, because the surpluses Social Security had been accumulating for the past 2 decades was appropriated and spent by the US government (and owed to Social Security).”
It is not nonsense, it is Maya MacGuineas’s Testimony to Congress. She and CRFB specialise exactly on that.
http://www.crfb.org/papers/maya-macguineass-testimony-perils-ignoring-debt
“Social Security isn’t the problem – it is overall US Deficit spending which largely equates to the military budget. I’m seeing zero pushback on military spending – today and in the foreseeable future, and so $1T+ annual deficits are going to continue vs. GDP growing around than $300B per year. That’s why the debt to GDP is going to hit 150% sooner rather than later.”
Actually Social Security is a problem, and it is identified as such by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
As far as military spending is concerned, under current law it is projected to decline from 3,1 % of GDP to 2,5 % of GDP. Debt to GDP is currently projected to hit 93 % by 2029. This is under current law, after a crisis hits in 2020 i doubt that anyone will have an appetite for increased military spending.
“Martin Feldstein”
He is Professor of Economics at Harvard University though. One could also make a similar argument against you and your econ knowledge because you don’t even know that US net government debt to gdp is around 80 % and not 105 %, which is a total (gross) government debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Cyril | May 23, 2019 7:18:08 PM | 65
Payments have declined, but as far as FX reserves are concerned, not so much. The USD represents 62 percent of global FX reserves, same as in 1995. As well as 55 percent of international loans. The other big problem is that the contenders are weak as of now. The Euro is shaky, and the internationalisation of the RMB is still at very low level. If the global FX market can not discover its price, the RMB won’t be a popular currency.
Thus no change in US dollar reserve currency status anytime soon, maybe after 2030.
Cyril | May 23, 2019 5:48:05 PM | 61
“Thus the U.S. will lose the trade war, big time.”
Again, the IMF does not agree with that.
“Europe did switch sides in the UN vote that overwhelmingly annulled Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”
That wasn’t a switching of sides, Europe has always maintained that it will not recognize Jerusalem as an Israeli capitol. There is nothing new in this position.
In most cases Europe is generally supportive of the US, or at least passive to its activities. In very few cases, not supportive. But is is a part of NATO and thus it is a vassal entity.
It generally supported sanctions against Russia, the attack on Syria, the attack on Libya, the independence of Kosovo, it actively supports Ukraine and tries to absorb it, sends freedom of navigation warships to support the US in Asia, stoppped buying oil from Iran, stopped most trade with Iran, did not launch trade mechanism with Iran bypassing the US, it supports the US in Venezuela, Germany is against Turkey buying the S-400, etc.
Nord Stream 2 is not an argument. There is nothing new in that, Germany traditionally buys russian energy and this is what it did during Soviet times too. Germany likes to make money. Which does not mean that it wasn’t hostile to the Soviet Union or that it is not hostile to Russia currently. Germany was one of the important initiators of the Ukraine events and the main backer of anti-russian sanctions within the EU. Moreover, most in the EU, including France and the European Parliament, do not support even Nord Stream 2.
Posted by: Passer by | May 24 2019 18:26 utc | 72
@Passer by #73
You said: “Android is being mainly developed by Google though. It provides its updates, etc. As of now, Google dominates the development of Android, competing Android ecosystems are currently dwarfed by Google. ”
You keep talking about things which you clearly have zero competence in.
Yes, Google is a top 10 contributor to open source – but this contribution is a shade of 1%. And very little of it is Android.
The same article notes that Android base code is only 7000 lines.
So, Google does not make the most contributions to Linux nor does it do the same for Android base code.
The second error you make in your ongoing display of Dunning Kruger is your failure to understand the difference between Android and the drivers, libraries, firmware etc surrounding it. What Google charges for is in this area, not in the Android kernel itself, and it is here that Google Play Store is included.
I strongly recommend you stop talking about areas which you clearly have zero competence.
You said: “They will have their Android OS (it is not ready yet), but will they be able to compete with Google for the dominant app ecosystem? ”
You clearly don’t have any idea on the app ecosystem. Go read my razor/razor blade analogy posted in a different thread. Huawei has no need whatsoever to compete with the Google Play Store; the one and only benefit for Google Play Store support is to try and attack Samsung users in the first world. You do not require Google Play Store to install apps or even maintain them – it is simply the default on Android devices, but you can install Android apps from a web page or an email.
You then said: “US plus EU plus Japan, plus Anglospere combined may represent smaller population, but they are far bigger market than China. ”
Bigger market in what way? The entire Apple App store generates $29 billion in 2017 – not nothing, but Apple sold 216 million iPhones in 2017. The Android market is much larger in install base but the revenue generated by Android apps is only about equal to the Apple App store revenue. So once again, your lack of competence shows itself.
It is not at all clear that the app revenue generated by the Chinese market is significantly smaller than the US or EU, particularly since the Chinese apps market has incorporated a much higher percentage of everyday payments into its revenue stream.
You then said: “Western apps are popular everywhere, with the probable exception of China, as the West dominates sofware development and the software industry, see Windows or Android (which is dominated by Google) for example. This is why almost all of the the world’s largest software corporations are Western.”
This is so ridiculous that I won’t even reply. Dunning Krueger strikes again. The only part of this which is true is that the largest software corporations are Western – unfortunately, 99.9999% of all apps and a similar ratio of app revenue is not generated by Western corporations
You said: “Nominal GDP estimates are commonly used to determine the economic performance of a whole country or region, and to make international comparisons. It is the original concept of GDP. PPP basis arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards between nations. PPP also does not take into account difference in the quality of goods and services. IMF also uses nominal GDP to recognise who has the biggest economy.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-nominal-vs-gdp-ppp.php
Chinese growth rate for the 2020s is currently projected to be 5 – 5,5 %. US growth rate – 2%. My point stands, older (from before the trade war) projections were about China catching up with the US in 2024, and the newer projections are about China catching up in 2031. Since the IMF projects bigger losses for China than for the US (due to the trade war), this will additionally slow down China.”
More gobbledygook. Using whatever numbers you choose and whatever the relative nominal GDP sizes are today, China will catch the US in nominal terms in 5 years or less.
“The economy was already feeling very bad in 2008 even before the recession was recognized. There were many worried people at that point. Lots of tension in the air. Moreover, as US demographics are changing, with every year becomes harder and harder for a republican to win. So demographic trends are against Trump.”
Straight from the Democratic National Committee playbook. And yet look who sits in the White House.
“This over 100% number includes the debt that the US government owes to itself. Intra-Governmental Debt. You will often find two figures – one about 106 %, and another about around 80 %. The CBO projections and other instituions (IMF) use the ~ 80 % estimate – which is only about debt towards third parties (non US government parties).”
Sadly, you again have skipped looking into the details. How much of this “owed itself” is Social Security? Those debt payments can’t cancel out because they represent future outflows from Social Security. Same for the Committee for blabberty blah. There are plenty of people who want to attack Social Security – but the reality is still that Social Security is funded by the Social Security taxes; that the revenue from these taxes have exceeded outlays for 2 generations; and that future “shortfalls” are simply misidentified because they were already paid, decades past.
Sorry, but your credibility continues to sink, if that is even possible.
“As far as military spending is concerned, under current law it is projected to decline from 3,1 % of GDP to 2,5 % of GDP. Debt to GDP is currently projected to hit 93 % by 2029. This is under current law, after a crisis hits in 2020 i doubt that anyone will have an appetite for increased military spending.”
Your numbers are wrong – among other things, they ignore all manner of off-budget spending (which is very considerable), future increases (which, to date, have never ceased) and things like VA spending. Zero cred.
“”Martin Feldstein”
He is Professor of Economics at Harvard University though. One could also make a similar argument against you and your econ knowledge because you don’t even know that US net government debt to gdp is around 80 % and not 105 %, which is a total (gross) government debt.”
Harvard, schmarvard. I don’t care where he’s a professor – if he is an expert economist and has failed to predict any of the past 3 recessions, then he has zero credibility. If he is on the Board of Directors of AIG and failed to steer them successfully out of the 2008 GFC without literally hundreds of billions of dollars of federal government bailout, that would itself sink his credibility.
Your knowledge, obtained by reading other people’s work – people who have an agenda to sell and which you are clearly ignorant of – is continuing its trend of providing no substance or actionable intelligence.
This is my last post in response – I have spent some time to understand if you are actually an idiot or simply misinformed. The conclusion is clear.
Posted by: c1ue | May 26 2019 15:48 utc | 73
c1ue | May 26, 2019 11:48:30 AM | 74
Me said: “Android is being mainly developed by Google though. It provides its updates, etc. As of now, Google dominates the development of Android, competing Android ecosystems are currently dwarfed by Google. ”
You said: “Yes, Google is a top 10 contributor to open source – but this contribution is a shade of 1%. And very little of it is Android. The same article notes that Android base code is only 7000 lines.
So, Google does not make the most contributions to Linux nor does it do the same for Android base code.”
Why is Wiki claiming that: “Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google.” then?
https://www.android.com/ is a site managed by Google.
More of it – “Android has been the best-selling OS worldwide on smartphones since 2011 and on tablets since 2013. As of May 2017, it has over two billion monthly active users, the largest installed base of any operating system, and as of December 2018, the Google Play store features over 2.6 million apps.”
“AOSP has been used as the basis of competing Android ecosystems, such as Amazon.com’s Fire OS, which use their own equivalents to GMS. ”
In other words those who use AOSP are not called Android.
Do you claim that other OS (based or not based on AOSP) have the same popularity as Google’s Android?
“They will have their Android OS (it is not ready yet), but will they be able to compete with Google for the dominant app ecosystem? ”
“You clearly don’t have any idea on the app ecosystem.”
Per wiki – “Android is also associated with a suite of proprietary software developed by Google, called Google Mobile Services[10] (GMS) that very frequently comes pre-installed in devices, which usually includes the Google Chrome web browser and Google Search and always includes core apps for services such as Gmail, as well as the application store and digital distribution platform Google Play, and associated development platform,”
Huawei will have to create all of this for its new OS. How competitive will be compared to Google’s very popular software suit?
“You do not require Google Play Store to install apps or even maintain them – it is simply the default on Android devices, but you can install Android apps from a web page or an email.”
Yes, but an App store makes things more convenient for consumers and they like it. Huawei will have to create an app store for the new OS too. Again a setback for the company.
“You then said: “US plus EU plus Japan, plus Anglospere combined may represent smaller population, but they are far bigger market than China. ”
Bigger market in what way? The entire Apple App store generates $29 billion in 2017 – not nothing, but Apple sold 216 million iPhones in 2017. The Android market is much larger in install base but the revenue generated by Android apps is only about equal to the Apple App store revenue. So once again, your lack of competence shows itself.
It is not at all clear that the app revenue generated by the Chinese market is significantly smaller than the US or EU, particularly since the Chinese apps market has incorporated a much higher percentage of everyday payments into its revenue stream.”
Market in sofware plus hardware (phones, tablets, etc). I’m pretty sure that US plus EU plus Japan, plus Anglospere combined have significantly bigger market than China, based on purshasing power alone. They represent around 40 % of the world in GDP PPP, China is about 19 %.
Western apps are popular everywhere, with the probable exception of China, as the West dominates sofware development and the software industry, see Windows or Android (which is dominated by Google) for example. This is why almost all of the the world’s largest software corporations are Western.”
“This is so ridiculous that I won’t even reply. Dunning Krueger strikes again. The only part of this which is true is that the largest software corporations are Western – unfortunately, 99.9999% of all apps and a similar ratio of app revenue is not generated by Western corporations”
Yes, they are popular, for example Google has the world’s most popular search engine, while Windows is one of the most widely used desktop OS, Google’s Android is the most popular mobile OS in the world by a large margin. Then there is IOS and others.
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-acquisition-884194/
So who generates 99.9999% of app revenue? Chinese companies? Why don’t they dominate among software companies instead?
Which Countries Lead the World in Software Development?
https://blog.andersenlab.com/en/which-countries-lead-the-world-in-software-development/
Revenues from IT Products and Services
“Ireland leads the pack in terms of revenue from IT-related products and services with an estimated $57.65bn of annual revenue. India, with its growing army of programmers, is in the second place with $55.67bn, while third place is held by the US, which sells IT products and services worth $34.22bn annually. ”
“More gobbledygook. Using whatever numbers you choose and whatever the relative nominal GDP sizes are today, China will catch the US in nominal terms in 5 years or less.”
Nope, if you use whatever numbers you want you can get whatever results you want. Currently, the latest projections show China catching up in 2030.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-25/hsbc-sees-china-economy-set-to-pass-u-s-as-number-one-by-2030
This prognosis was made before the escalation of the trade war. According to the IMF China will lose more than the US, so if they are correct, China will catch up even later.
“Straight from the Democratic National Committee playbook. And yet look who sits in the White House.”
California is a good example how the changing demographics led to Democratic Party dominance. So yes, the more time passes, the harder it becomes for a republican to win an election. 2018 election results were pretty bad (for the republicans) in Texas and Florida, they barely made it, these states are becomig purple states.
“Sadly, you again have skipped looking into the details. How much of this “owed itself” is Social Security? Those debt payments can’t cancel out because they represent future outflows from Social Security. Same for the Committee for blabberty blah. There are plenty of people who want to attack Social Security – but the reality is still that Social Security is funded by the Social Security taxes; that the revenue from these taxes have exceeded outlays for 2 generations; and that future “shortfalls” are simply misidentified because they were already paid, decades past.”
For more info on this
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0CkppRLaQoAJ:https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-government-doesnt-really-owe-dollar16-trillion-in-debt+&cd=1&hl=bg&ct=clnk&gl=bg&client=firefox-b-d
“Your numbers are wrong – among other things, they ignore all manner of off-budget spending (which is very considerable), future increases (which, to date, have never ceased) and things like VA spending. Zero cred.”
These are not my numbers, these are Congressional Budget Office estimates. If you think they are wrong you can write a study on it and send it to Congress, they will appreciate it.
“Harvard, schmarvard. I don’t care where he’s a professor – if he is an expert economist and has failed to predict any of the past 3 recessions, then he has zero credibility. If he is on the Board of Directors of AIG and failed to steer them successfully out of the 2008 GFC without literally hundreds of billions of dollars of federal government bailout, that would itself sink his credibility.
Your knowledge, obtained by reading other people’s work – people who have an agenda to sell and which you are clearly ignorant of – is continuing its trend of providing no substance or actionable intelligence.”
This does not mean that he must be wrong for everything he says though. Yes, everybody has agenda, including him. Do you know what his agenda is? Or you are ignorant of it too and just speculating?
This by the way, (raisning retirement age and cutting benefits) is not simply his idea, as you can see from here –
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/raising-eligibility-ages-good-budgetand-economy
or here
“the 2010 Simpson-Bowles plan, which many experts considered the gold standard of deficit reduction plans, would have put debt on a downward path and reduced overall spending, including military spending. It also would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments and put Social Security on a sustainable footing by reducing some benefits and raising the retirement age.”
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/national-debt-dilemma
Posted by: Passer by | May 28 2019 0:12 utc | 76
|
