|
Yellen’s Visit To China Has Failed
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen visited China. There she tried to press the worlds biggest economy on several issues.
None of these points are in China's interest. In the U.S. Chinese companies are treated badly. U.S. financed climate investments in foreign countries, which are small, usually come with additional extraordinary demands that benefit the donating country rather than the receiving one. China does this differently. Fentanyl is not a global problem rather a specific U.S. one the causes of which are general social problems China and other have avoided to have.
The last demand Yellen made was even more crazy. She called for a full turn of China towards neoliberal policies:
"I pressed them on our concerns about China's unfair economic practices," [Yellen] said, citing barriers to access for foreign firms and problems involving intellectual property. She added that a more market-oriented system in China "would not only be in the interests of the U.S. and other countries. It would be better for the Chinese economy, as well."
Would China be where it is today if it had privatized its banking system and state owned companies? Would China be richer if it had let U.S. vulture funds buy up and bankrupt Chinese companies? Would it have managed to lift 800 million of its citizens from poverty if it had followed the economic advice of the U.S., the IMF or World Bank?
The answer to these questions is of course an emphatic "No".
Why Yellen thinks she can impress China with advice for a 'more market-oriented system', even as the U.S. blocks Chinese investments, sanctions Chinese companies and limits sales of certain products to China, is beyond me.
Yellen's visit failed to achieve anything. She had some talks with Chinese officials but achieved nothing. She lectured and made demands that no one in China will be willing to fulfill.
The Chinese side for one seems unimpressed by her performance:
Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a "winner-take-all" approach. While this may sound good, the key lies in how we define "healthy competition." Is it a US-style one in which the geopolitical appetite of the US is satisfied while China unconditionally cooperates? Or is it based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation? The root cause of the challenges in the China-US relationship lies in Washington's flawed perception of China. Unless the issue of the 'first button' is addressed, no matter how wonderful the ideas and wishes may be, they will remain nothing more than castles in the air.
Unless the U.S. accepts China as equal the relations between the countries will not turn around. The U.S. can grow with China only when it accepts that China is different from itself and has its own path towards further development.
As neither is the today's dominant viewpoint a further deterioration of the relations, largely to the disadvantage of the U.S., is the most likely prospect.
Yellen is quite crazy, not just deluded. She just replied this a few days ago:
“I just want to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, which is I think the United States can rest assured that the dollar is going to play the dominant role in facilitating international transactions and serving as a reserve currency in the years ahead. I don’t see that role being threatened by any development including the one that you’ve mentioned [BRICS common currency].”
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jul 10 2023 12:36 utc | 38
Yellen’s a hack, like Powell and 10/12 FRB governor padding insider trades, including but not limited to Mr “Irrational Exuberance” Greenspan. 40 years steeped in that pool of expert bankers’ bankers undoubtedly will flavor the HISTORIC pastiche plastered on Treasury’s headstone PRICE CAP COALITION “guidance” in the era of post-pandemic BIDENOMIC Inflation Reduction* acts.
Yellen Sees Recent Inflation as Transitory Rather Than Permanent Build-Back-Better prediction, June 2021
“We’re seeing some inflation but I don’t believe it’s permanent,” Yellen said at a press conference Saturday after the G-7 finance meeting in London. “We at least on a year-over-year basis will continue, I believe, through the rest of the year to see higher inflation rates — maybe around 3%.”
Yellen Rejects Notion Sanctions Could Undermine Dollar Dominance, March 2022 (“a few days ago”)
“When you think about what makes the dollar a reserve currency, it’s that we have the deepest and most liquid capital markets of any country on earth,” Yellen said. “Treasury securities are safe, secure and immensely liquid. We have a well-functioning economic and financial system and the rule of law. There really is no other currency that can rival it as a reserve currency.”
Sanctions ‘undermine hegemony of dollar’, US Treasury admits, April 2023
“There is a risk, when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar, that, over time, it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar”, Yellen said in an April 16 interview with CNN. She also noted that Washington’s use of economic warfare “does create a desire on the part of China, of Russia, of Iran to find an alternative” to the dollar.
Also, April 2023, Janet L. Yellen on the U.S.-China Economic Relationship at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies” priorities (1.) secure our national security interests and those of our allies and partners, (2.) continue to partner with our allies to respond to China’s unfair economic practices, and (3.) call on China to follow through on its promise to work with us on these issues—not as a favor to us, but out of our joint duty and obligation to the world
… Of course, an economy’s size is not the sole determinant of its strength. America is the largest economy net importer in the world, but it also remains an unparalleled leader on a broad set of economic metrics—from wealth to technological innovation. U.S. GDP per capita is among the highest [mathematical mean] in the world and over five times as large [sic] as China’s. More than resources or geography, our country’s success budget deficit can be attributed to our people, values, and institutions. American democracy, while not perfect, protects the free exchange of ideas and rule of law that is at the bedrock of sustainable growth [perpetual positive “g” rate]. Our educational and scientific institutions lead the world [to hell and back again]. Our innovative culture is enriched by [perpetual] new immigrants, including those from China [who haven’t been convicted by Christopher Wray]—enabling us to continue to generate world-class, cutting-edge [financial] products and industries….
Yellen says a U.S. default could cause global financial crisis, CNN reports, May 2023 on the road to Hiroshima, “symbol of peace”
“A default would threaten the gains that we’ve worked so hard to make over the past few years in our pandemic recovery. And it would spark a global downturn that would set us back much further,” Yellen said Thursday in Niigata, Japan, where she is attending a meeting of G7 finance ministers and central bankers.
“It would also risk undermining US global economic leadership and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests,” she added. Yellen said Congress was no stranger to raising or suspending the debt limit — having done so almost 80 times since 1960 — and urged it to act quickly to do so once again.
But let’s pretend no one behind the G5 Wall of gov.cn noticed this rhetorical “connectivity”, US unilateral sanctions hither and yon, Joe Tzu’s leaky raft of INDOPACOM recovery “partnership”, or the 6th Fleet tunneling through the Strait, MoM. Furthermore, gov.cn did not prepare for another helping of wtf by stacking their bench of “counterparts” with fresh-faced, “western-educated” bank regulators—Li Qiang, He Lifeng, and Pan Gongsheng—to finger the re-heated BS that the US delegation is serving.
* OMB Mid-Session FY 2023 Budget Review Table 1, technical adjustment
Note: negative figures represent higher receipts or lower outlays
OMB The 2023 Mid-Session Review
In July, our economy had zero percent inflation …
Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 16:03 utc | 69
Posted by: snake | Jul 10 2023 14:24 utc | 62
Restarting the American industrial base is essential, if America is to survive,
This is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
It also needs to reject imperialism to avoid being:
a) drained of all it’s resources and
b) the devolution of the power of The State to foreign and private interests
Yet America without Imperialism is not possible, not while resembling anything you recognise as “America”.
the USA has gone global and that is not good for America.
On the contrary, the globalisation of the USA, beginning in the early 20th century (perhaps earlier) is the source of America’s military and economic power.
Without Globalism and Global trade America would be nothing more than another Anglo colony swamped in refugees, former slaves and LatAm immigrants. It would stand like some kind of Australia on Steroids while countries like China, India, Iran and the Russian Federation dominate the future of technology, space exploration and even warmaking …
Even your railways were built by Chinamen imported by globalist thinkers from China, your agricultural power and atheltics industry built on the backs of Africans imported by globalist slavers, your most advanced technologies created by foreign engineers and scientists sometimes literally brought in handcuffs from defeated countries in the Old World.
The “U.S.A” = “Globalism”
Getting Chinese out of USA funded, Universities,
There are no “USA funded Universities” anymore.
Your ‘Universities’ are private enterprises in the grand old Capitalist tradition.
They are owned and funded by the globalists, like your government. Like DeSanTis …
Moreover, if your McUniversities were indeed to expel all Chinese the collective academic output and quality would probably plunge by more than 50%.
As would the profits which make these McUniversities such a major source of revenue to fund the U.S government in the form of taxes.
From the development of the Nuclear bomb and the first U.S space rockets, Chinese have been a massive contributor to American technological and Industrial progress.
This is more true today than it was then.
If all Chinese were removed from the American Math Olympiad team there would probably only be one solitary Anglo left to represent the U.S.A.
So shall it be with it’s universities.
denying foreign investment in American Real Estate and American businesses,
Your fields would remain desolate and unproductive, kept idle in the hands of your billionaires.
Or perhaps, used for trailer parks and FEMA camps …
restricting wall street financing to only companies that stay within the confines of USA governed America,
The American population alone, as it stands is not capable of sustaining either the greed or the honest profit motive of the average American corporation.
The greed and profit motive of Wall street, their all consuming need for instant gratification, instant profits will disqualify every enterprise that requires time and care to nurture.
Wall Street are the Globalists, their Capital yearns to be free and will not be contained by the mere laws and borders of the U.S.A.
They cannot be restricted. Not by a Biden. Or a Trump. Or an RFK. Or a Bush or a Clinton.
All your leaders are capitalists and Capitalists Serve Capital.
Without the consumers of Asia and the Global South or barring that, middle class immigrants, most of America’s manufacturing, finance, technology brands would collapse.
Give me your greedy, your profit seekers, your poor
Your huddled masses chequebooks yearning to breathe free
The wretched capitalist refuse of your old world shore
Send these tax-havenless, stock-market tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the fiat door!
Give me your war refugees, your cheap labour
Your LGBTQ masses yearning to spend free
The wretched oligarchs of your Old European shore
Send these the greedy capitalist bores to me
I lift my cheque book beside the face of a golden whore!
will return the American industrial base to America and serve to halt foreign access into the American market of the type Wall Street gets its jollys off of.
America’s Industrial base cannot thrive while those of China, India, Russia, Europe and yes the RoTW are allowed to thrive.
For even if everything was done to support America’s industrial base the RoTW would produce cheaper, better products due to simply economies of scale.
Unlike the USA, these countries would have the entire world as their markets.
Eventually, nay immediately, Americans would find foreign products more affordable and desireable than American products.
Without being allowed to achieve economies of scale by trading with and in the global market American companies will be outcompeted in their own country by foreign producers, even unintentionally.
Unless your plan is to prevent the American consumer from buying foreign products too?
Americans should do business only with Americans.
Agreed. I hope that business includes pulling American military forces out of the hundreds of bases scattered around the globe – that business is probably the biggest america runs and would best be directed towards americans.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 16:31 utc | 75
Michael Roberts looks at the context of current inequalities.
“..historically, global inequality has followed three eras: the first, from 1820 until 1950, characterized by rising between country income differences and increasing within-country inequalities; the second, from 1950 to the last decade of the 20th century, with very high global and between-country inequality; and the current one of decreasing inequality thanks to the rise of Asian incomes, especially Chinese.
According to Milanovic, from the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the early nineteenth century to about the middle of the twentieth century, global inequality rose as wealth became concentrated in Western industrialized countries. It peaked during the Cold War, when the globe was commonly divided into the “First World,” the “Second World,” and the “Third World,” denoting three levels of economic development. But then, around 20 years ago, global inequality began to fall, largely thanks to the economic rise of China, which until recently was the world’s most populous country. Global inequality reached its height on the Gini index of 69.4 in 1988. It dropped to 60.1 in 2018, a level not seen since the end of the nineteenth century.
“…The first era of global inequality stretched from roughly 1820 to 1950, a period characterized by the steady rise of inequality. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 1820), global inequality was rather modest. The GDP of the richest country (the United Kingdom) was five times greater than that of the poorest country (Nepal) in1820. (The equivalent ratio between the GDPs of the richest and poorest countries today is more than 100 to 1.)….
“….The growth of global inequality during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century was driven both by widening gaps between various countries (measured by the differences in their per capita GDPs) and by greater inequalities within countries (measured by the differences in citizens’ incomes in a given country). The country-to-country differences reflected what economic historians have called the Great Divergence, the growing disparity between, on the one hand, the industrializing countries of western Europe, North America, and, later, Japan, and, on the other hand, China, India, the African subcontinent, the Middle East, and Latin America, where per capita incomes stagnated or even declined. In effect, this was a quantitative measure of the domination of a small bloc of imperialist countries over the rest.
“But Milanovic finds that global inequality began to dip about two decades ago. It has dropped from 70 Gini points around the year 2000 to 60 Gini points two decades later. This decrease in global inequality, having occurred over the short span of 20 years, is more precipitous than was the increase in global inequality during the nineteenth century.
“Does this mean that capitalism is succeeding in reducing inequality and there is now a great convergence? No, because the decrease is driven by really just one country’s income growth: China. And at the same time as China’s fast growth reduced the overall global inequality index; within economies, inequality has risen in just about all the major economies.
“Moreover, the richest income earners in the world remain living in the imperialist bloc. In 1988, 207 million people made up the top five percent of earners in the world; in 2018, that number was 330 million, reflecting both the increase in the world population and the broadening of available data. Americans make up the plurality of this group. In both 1988 and 2018, over 40 percent of the globally affluent were U.S. citizens. British, Japanese, and German citizens come next. Overall, Westerners (including Japan) account for almost 80 percent of the group. Urban Chinese broke into the globally affluent only more recently. But their share is still small, up from 1.6 percent in 2008 to 5.0 percent in 2018.
“Once you exclude China from the data, then there has been no global convergence at all. With China having vacated many of the slots at the bottom of the distribution, those are now filled mostly by poorer Indian households who now have lower living standards than their Chinese counterparts.
And in the imperialist bloc, the lower income groups have lost ground globally. The poorest Italian families were in the top 30 per cent of the world’s income distribution in 1988, but now only just make it into the top half. Importantly, the middle classes in all rich countries have now slipped down the global rankings…”
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/the-great-divergence/
Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 16:35 utc | 78
|
