|
Robert Mueller Hearing A ‘Disaster’ For Democrats
The Democrats wanted Robert Mueller to testify about his report on their favorite conspiracy theories, that Russia influenced the U.S. election and that Trump colluded with Russia in this.
Mueller had made clear that he did not want to testify and that all he had to say was already in his report. The Democrats insisted. But today's hearing went poorly as even their partisan followers admit:
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw – 18:30 UTC Jul 24, 2019
Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced.
During the hearing multiple Democrats tried to get Mueller to support an impeachment of Trump. But Mueller never gave them that gift. The Democrats should thank him for that. An impeachment process against Trump is not popular:
A July Post-ABC poll found that 37 percent of Americans support Congress beginning impeachment proceedings, while 59 percent do not, with a 61 percent majority of Democrats backing proceedings.
It is high time for the Democrats to finally bury that nonsense and to start talking about progressive politics.
Mueller seemed to be not aware of many details of the investigation done under his name.
He said he knew nothing about GPS, the company hired by the Clinton campaign to contract with MI6 agent Christopher Steele to fabricate the 'dirty dossier'. There were lots of reports about GPS in the media and Mueller missed all of them?
He refused to answer why he did not indict Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese professor who planted the claim that 'Russia has dirt on Hillary Clinton' with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos later repeated that claim. The FBI then used that fact as the reason to launch its investigation against the Trump campaign. In his report Mueller claimed, without showing evidence, that Mifsud worked for Russia. That is unlikely and there is actual evidence that he worked with the British MI6.
Mifsud lied to the Mueller investigation. But unlike others witnesses who lied, Mueller never indicted him for making false statements. He punted on questions about this issue with multiple “Can’t get into that.”
He reacted similar when he was asked about Christopher Steele, the British agent who created and peddled the fake 'dirty dossier'.
There is still another Justice Department investigation ongoing that will look at the whole Russia affair from a different viewpoint. Was the FBI investigation into 'Russiagate' an illegal partisan effort to go after Trump? Who really initiate the whole 'Russiagate' campaign that seems to have been run by the British MI6? Was it John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, involved?
Little is known about that second investigation. It will hopefully come up with better evidence and results than the one Robert Mueller led.
@donkeytale #146
You said: “I’m not knocking Chinese growth I’m putting it in proper historical context.”
I don’t agree that your chosen historical context is correct.
A more appropriate comparison would be the US in 1932. China’s growth stage parallels the peak Industrial Age in the US; the US from 1875 to 1920 became the largest manufacturer of steel then (as China is today).
We all know what happened to the US economic miracle then: the Great Depression.
And how did the Great Depression happen? When US financial engineers caused the greatest bubble, then known, through the deployment of financial news engineering and margin debt. Literally all of the world’s gold (which was money then) was flowing into New York in the mid to late 1920s to take advantage of interest earned through loaning out margin.
The 1950s to late 1960s economic growth period was anomalous: the rebuilding of Europe and Japan without the US having suffered any infrastructure or population damage, and with enormous debt owed to it.
Is China experiencing anything like the 1920s bubble? I don’t see it.
Nor have they experienced the 13 recessions that the US experienced from 1870 to 1921:
1869–70 recession June 1869– Dec 1870 −9.7% — A few years after the Civil War, a short recession occurred. It was unusual since it came amid a period when railroad investment was greatly accelerating, even producing the First Transcontinental Railroad. The railroads built in this period opened up the interior of the country, giving birth to the Farmers’ movement. The recession may be explained partly by ongoing financial difficulties following the war, which discouraged businesses from building up inventories.[19] Several months into the recession, there was a major financial panic.
Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression Oct 1873 – Mar 1879 −33.6% (−27.3%) [nb 3] — Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[22] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96.[23][24]
1882–85 recession Mar 1882 – May 1885 −32.8% −24.6% Like the Long Depression that preceded it, the recession of 1882–85 was more of a price depression than a production depression. From 1879 to 1882, there had been a boom in railroad construction which came to an end, resulting in a decline in both railroad construction and in related industries, particularly iron and steel.[25] A major economic event during the recession was the Panic of 1884.
1887–88 recession Mar 1887 – April 1888 −14.6% −8.2% Investments in railroads and buildings weakened during this period. This slowdown was so mild that it is not always considered a recession. Contemporary accounts apparently indicate it was considered a slight recession.[26]
1890–91 recession July 1890 – May 1891 −22.1% −11.7% Although shorter than the recession in 1887–88 and still modest, a slowdown in 1890–91 was somewhat more pronounced than the preceding recession. International monetary disturbances are blamed for this recession, such as the Panic of 1890 in the United Kingdom.[26]
Panic of 1893 Jan 1893 – June 1894 −37.3% −29.7% Failure of the United States Reading Railroad and withdrawal of European investment led to a stock market and banking collapse. This Panic was also precipitated in part by a run on the gold supply. The Treasury had to issue bonds to purchase enough gold. Profits, investment and income all fell, leading to political instability, the height of the U.S. populist movement and the Free Silver movement.[27] Estimates on unemployment vary, it may have peaked anywhere from 8.2–18.4%.[28]
Panic of 1896 Dec 1895 – June 1897 −25.2% −20.8% The period of 1893–97 is seen as a generally depressed cycle that had a short spurt of growth in the middle, following the Panic of 1893. Production shrank and deflation reigned.[26]
1899–1900 recession June 1899 – Dec 1900 −15.5% −8.8% This was a mild recession in the period of general growth beginning after 1897. Evidence for a recession in this period does not show up in some annual data series.[26]
1902–04 recession Sep 1902 –Aug 1904 −16.2% −17.1% Though not severe, this downturn lasted for nearly two years and saw a distinct decline in the national product. Industrial and commercial production both declined, albeit fairly modestly.[26] The recession came about a year after a 1901 stock crash.
Panic of 1907 May 1907 – June 1908 −29.2% −31.0% A run on Knickerbocker Trust Company deposits on October 22, 1907, set events in motion that would lead to a severe monetary contraction. The fallout from the panic led to Congress creating the Federal Reserve System.[29]
Panic of 1910–1911 Jan 1910 – Jan 1912 −14.7% −10.6% This was a mild but lengthy recession. The national product grew by less than 1%, and commercial activity and industrial activity declined. The period was also marked by deflation.[26]
Recession of 1913–1914 Jan 1913–Dec 1914 −25.9% −19.8% Productions and real income declined during this period and were not offset until the start of World War I increased demand.[26] Incidentally, the Federal Reserve Act was signed during this recession, creating the Federal Reserve System, the culmination of a sequence of events following the Panic of 1907.[29]
Post-World War I recession Aug 1918 – March 1919 −24.5% −14.1% Severe hyperinflation in Europe took place over production in North America. This was a brief but very sharp recession and was caused by the end of wartime production, along with an influx of labor from returning troops. This, in turn, caused high unemployment.
Depression of 1920–21 Jan 1920 – July 1921 −38.1% −32.7% The 1921 recession began a mere 10 months after the post-World War I recession, as the economy continued working through the shift to a peacetime economy. The recession was short, but extremely painful. The year 1920 was the single most deflationary year in American history; production, however, did not fall as much as might be expected from the deflation. GNP may have declined between 2.5 and 7 percent, even as wholesale prices declined by 36.8%.[31] The economy had a strong recovery following the recession.[32]
Of course, to be fair, it is a different era: with fiat currencies, central banks and central bankers and monetary policy. Nonetheless, even in the modern era we have seen 3 bubbles in the US which affected worldwide economies yet didn’t derail China’s growth.
Secondly, and this is my own thesis: the use of debt financing to create – infrastructure, products, human capabilities, social goods – is different than debt financing for profit. My suspicion is that the creation of the above cannot help but improve the lives of everyone much as the Industrial Revolution could not help but improve standards of living due to vastly increased productivity, even as it oppressed the people actually making it work.
My view of the danger in China isn’t the form of government or debt financing – those are ultimately just tools. It is whether the central core of that government continues to see the creation of value – and secondarily from that value, common good, or derails into pure selfish enrichment.
The US has clearly fallen into the 2nd category; Latin America has been there for over a century. Europe? Trying, but not there yet (And not obviously going to get there although the ECB/Bundesbank is doing its damnedest).
Posted by: c1ue | Jul 26 2019 19:02 utc | 148
|
