Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Josh Marshall: You may have noticed that Joe Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia next month and that he plans to hold a summit with the de facto ruler of the country, Mohammed bin Salman - usually called MBS. The Saudis have us over a barrel. Now we're suing for peace. Not a pretty picture. But we have no choice.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So why would the US do this? Well, that's pretty straightforward. We have no choice. The Saudis, and really MBS has played the most brass knuckle kind of hardball with the US. And he's won. I don't think there's any other way to put it. There's a complex set of causes behind the inflation that currently plagues the US and global economy. The exact interplay between supply chain disruption, pent up demand from the pandemic, demand driven by stimulus spending, changed work and leisure patterns driven by the pandemic isn't clear. The relative importance of each is a matter of on-going controversy. But a critical part of the equation is energy prices - both in their political impact and as a driver in the economy overall.

There is also Russia's new partnership with OPEC through OPEC+. That's weighed in the balance too. But that's another part of the same equation. The Saudis have been more solicitous of Russia than the US. This has all come even more to the fore after the Russian invasion of Ukraine which put even greater pressure on global energy supplies - oil and natural gas. It may be Ukraine that finally forced the White House to cry uncle.

This.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-14 09:03 PM | Reply

f'em.
let's close up.
we can still sell weapons.
take our oil off the world market.
we don't need them. ---- them.

#2 | Posted by ichiro at 2022-06-15 12:22 AM | Reply

sell weapons to their enemies, not them.

#3 | Posted by ichiro at 2022-06-15 12:23 AM | Reply

That's a pretty good article. Short version, he with the most oil rules.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-06-15 12:31 AM | Reply

Capitalism broke us.

MBS knows we will never, ever nationalize oil.

Meanwhile, MBS oversees Saudi Aramco.

The game is rigged, and we are so in love with free market ideals we can't figure out they don't apply to oil.

You have to be an American to be this stupid. The rest of the planet has figured it out.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-15 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

As it turns out, refusing to invest in energy diversification over politically motivated denials of climate change isn't such a good idea.

So now we have to suck up to one slighter lesser despot for their oil so we can make up for the difference after confronting a bigger despot.

And, we get pay more gold-plated lambos.

#6 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-06-15 01:19 PM | Reply

sell weapons to their enemies, not them.

#3 | POSTED BY ICHIRO AT 2022-06-15 12:23 AM | REPLY

Funny thing is, following the 9/11 narrative, an overwhelming majority of the hijackers were Saudis. We turned on a dime and invaded Iraq and kept on selling the Saudis weaponry. Then we made it impossible for americans who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack to sue the Saudi government for compensation.

www.cnn.com

#7 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-15 02:28 PM | Reply

This is how you know America is failing.

Back in the day, the CIA would have assassinated MBS by now and installed a puppet in his place.

Those were the days the world feared America.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-15 02:47 PM | Reply

Funny thing is, following the 9/11 narrative, an overwhelming majority of the hijackers were Saudis. We turned on a dime and invaded Iraq and kept on selling the Saudis weaponry. Then we made it impossible for americans who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack to sue the Saudi government for compensation.
www.cnn.com
POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2022-06-15 02:28 PM |

Fact

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-15 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The Saudis have been exporting extremism since the 80s. They send their radical clerics to all these Muslim locals to get them out of SA and they then create radicalism. They send them money for humanitarian things and it turns into weapons. Place after place where Muslim radicalism has sprung up - the Saudis were there a few years already.

Honestly if we lined up religious radicals in front of firing squads the world would be so much better off and more peaceful.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-06-15 03:38 PM | Reply

Then we made it impossible for americans who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack to sue the Saudi government for compensation.
www.cnn.com
#7 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Womp womp.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-15 04:36 PM | Reply

"The Saudis have been exporting extremism since the 80s. They send their radical clerics to all these Muslim locals to get them out of SA and they then create radicalism."

The Saudi Royal Family has a deal with the Mullahs: You let us do the politics, and we let you do the religion.

Going against that deal is how you get exiled or beheaded. Saddam had a similar approach to people like Moqtada Al Sadr in his secular Republic.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-15 04:39 PM | Reply

the answer is easy...

energy diversification. As Musk said, there is enough
solar energy in a solar farm the size of Rhode Island to
power the entire U.S. power grid.

the real world implementation, however, is difficult. Billions
spent in new infrastructure getting past a 'sold out to the
oil lobby' republican party. Not to mention Manchin and Sinema.

long ago, I remember my father telling me, "Son, those with
the gold in life, make all the rules"...it still proves true today.

power, greed, corruption, all of these things prevent change
from occurring. We will always need some oil, at least until a
cheap synthetic alternative can be mass produced. But we could eliminate
much of the dependence we have to it, if, as a nation, we could only
find the collective will to do so....well, that, and kick out enough
'sold out' politicians.

#13 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-06-16 06:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

__________
Back in the day, the CIA would have assassinated MBS by now and installed a puppet in his place.

None of this would be necessary if Putin's puppet Donald Trump and Jared Kushner weren't successful in practically installing Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as de facto king of Saudi Arabia, instead of who that was supposed to be - very US-friendly Mohammed bin Nayef (MBN). Don't forget that Saudis have arrested and exiled Osama bin Laden in 1991 and his family disowned him, long before 9/11 - in fact, one of the reasons for bin Laden's grievances and jihad against the US was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia.

July 5, 2020 The dazzling rise and tragic fall of Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Nayef
www.washingtonpost.com

Aug. 24, 2020 Sheikh Mohammed bin Nayef's Lawyers Raise Alarm Months After MBS Detained the Former Crown Prince
www.thedailybeast.com

Aug. 31, 2020 How Saudi Prince MBS Played Trump and Got the Keys to the Kingdom
www.thedailybeast.com

Apr. 20, 2022 Jared Kushner's Saudi Toadying Paid Off to the Tune of $2 Billion
www.thedailybeast.com
---

the answer is easy... energy diversification. As Musk said, there is enough solar energy in a solar farm the size of Rhode Island to power the entire U.S. power grid.

If you have any background in STEM, or just physics and math, you would quickly figure out that it's BS, bull manure with corresponding greenhouse gasses.

As Musk said... Musk says a lot of things, like buying Twitter is about "free speech, not about money..." Except now that it was explained to him and he is finding out that it will cost real money, his own money, he is trying to get out of the deal. If you trust Musk so much, get into Tesla EV, program Autopilot and close your eyes while it "safely" delivers you to destination. Just because it feels like Russian Roulette there is no need to worry - Musk said it should work perfectly... by 2019.
June 15, 2022 "Tesla Autopilot and Other Driver-Assist Systems Linked to Hundreds of Crashes"
www.nytimes.com

And the infrastructure to build the all-electric economy will take decades, especially with underpowered cycle technologies like wind and solar... meanwhile maybe we should heed the energy diversification call and drill for oil and gas (or we'll just have to pay more and to other, not always "friendly" countries) and build modern, safe nuclear plants.
2022-04-15 drudge.com

Musk wants you to buy his BS along with his very expensive EV cars (and their expensive and toxic replacement batteries) that have a profit margin 3x higher than "greedy" oil / energy companies, and solar panels and converters and batteries, all while he gets Billion$ in government's / taxpayers' "carbon tax" rebates for being "green".

And of course, with Trump's "reputation" in decline he wants to be the next GOP / political KINGMAKER - DeSantis is his new passion. Given that his business accomplishments are at least real, in part due to luck, in part due to free government money, in part because he was not cheap and did hire some of the best people who knew what they were doing and saved his enterprises from bankruptcies.

Now that his crypto (Dogecoin, Bitcoin) "guru" rep is in shambles, politics are logical next step - it's all about BS.
__________

#14 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-16 07:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Musky DeSantis?

A scent made especially for Trumpers! Get yours at Walmart today!

Trumpers, who have proven HL Menken quite the sage indeed.

Dumbed down populaces are ripe for authoritarian MIC (now just called Giant Corporations) dictatorships all over the planet.

Ike Maytags in his grave.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-16 07:30 PM | Reply

Hey remember when the pandemic hit and everyone was working from home and gas prices went negative?

We already know how to put the screws to Saudi Arabia get people off the damn roads. Wide adoption of work from home could cut global oil demand 10% might not make the saudis starve but it would pinch them.

#16 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-06-16 07:39 PM | Reply

__________
There's a complex set of causes behind the inflation that currently plagues the US and global economy. The exact interplay between supply chain disruption, pent up demand from the pandemic, demand driven by stimulus spending, changed work and leisure patterns driven by the pandemic isn't clear.

Milton Friedman repeatedly said: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Friedman argued that prices always rose whenever too much money chased too few goods.

Lawrence Summers, chief economic advisor to Clinton and Obama and Treasury Secretary in Obama -Biden administration, Mohamed El-Erian and several other high-level economists warned since late 2020 that American economy was in danger of overheating, because he was looking in the right places for evidence of inflation - stock market prices, housing prices, alternative investments including art and crypto, and the most important, $9 Trillion on Federal Reserve balance sheet, combined with zero/near-zero Fed interest rates and nearly $10 Trillion in various "stimulus" programs between Trump and Biden administrations. All of which was going to spill into the "real economy" especially in light of supply chain interruptions and "reopening demand" for commodities.

And that's without additional $2 Trillion that Biden wanted to print while there were no people to fill the jobs already bidding up in price - in other words, increasing demand without corresponding increase in supply. Thanks to Manchin, it didn't pass or we would have a full-blown disaster by now even without Putin's war.

Completely predictable, yet here's Janet Yellen falling on the sword, saying she didn't expect it?

When Biden talks about "greedy" oil / gas / energy companies having a higher "profit margins" this year, he doesn't know what he is talking about. They do have much higher "net profits" in dollars but only because higher prices for oil (driven by futures markets and demand and supply) mean higher net profits, while they maintain the same "net profit margin."

BTW, stock of Exxon-Mobil is just now back to where it was in 2014, and at its low in September 2020 it was one third of its 2014 price . British Petroleum stock is slightly higher than half what it was in 2014. French TotalEnergies is below what it was in 2014. PetroChina stock is one third (!) of its 2012-2014 price. Shell plc is down 25%, and at its low in September of 2020 it was one quarter of its 2014 price.

So it has not been all honey and roses for these companies, and yet they are engines of our economies. Companies were some of the first to stop their E&P in Russia, and exit writing off up to $5B in equipment and potential annual profits. Demonizing them when they finally make some heftier profits, due to environment that politicians themselves created is not only unfair, it's counterproductive and somewhat Soviet-like. Remember what Putin did to Yukos oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at the time the richest man in Russia?

I understand the politicians, particularly on the left, always blame "evil" "non-ESG" industries for higher prices and accuse them of profiteering, to shift the blame for poor and counterproductive policies, but this is a stupid political and practical move. Companies need profits for future projects and maintenance - they need "seven years of plenty, to be ready for seven years of famine." They are not going to start new drilling projects to bail out a politician, just to be told "you can't drill there" when the prices come back to "normal" - they need long term assurances and lead time, not the political "show trials."

Makes Biden look weak and flailing. That's one reason Xi just threw a lifeline to Putin, after backing off for a time, when he saw how badly Russia performed against Ukraine.
__________

#17 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-16 08:44 PM | Reply

"Friedman argued that prices always rose whenever too much money chased too few goods."

We've been giving more and more money the "too much money" side for 47 years now.

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

As for "too few goods" we can take housing as an example. Real estate prices have gone up everywhere comoared to a few years ago:

"The U.S. housing stock needs to expand to accommodate a growing population. Over the last 10 years the U.S. added approximately 33 million people. Over that same period cumulative total housing starts were just 9.3 million. This figure misses manufactured housing (MH) shipments, which also provide a supply of new housing. But MH shipments have been weak for most of this decade, averaging under 100k per year." lenkiefer.com

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-16 09:02 PM | Reply

"While families on tight budgets struggle to pay the sky-high price of gas, these five oil companies more than tripled their profits in the first quarter of 2022."

www.businessinsider.com

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-16 09:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I understand the politicians, particularly on the left, always blame "evil" "non-ESG" industries for higher prices and accuse them of profiteering, to shift the blame for poor and counterproductive policies, but this is a stupid political and practical move."

I see what you are saying, and the partisan predictability of both sides blaming the other.

But in this case, Putin's non-ESG military action is as big a counterproductive policy as anything Biden has done.

With respect to the business cycle:

Big Oil is doing the transition Big Tobacco did, buying up food companies and establishing a lifeline in a less publicly hated industry. That's what the record profits are for. Full stop.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-16 10:37 PM | Reply

But in this case, Putin's non-ESG military action is as big a counterproductive policy as anything Biden has done.

I am not so sure ...

That's what the record profits are for. Full stop.

What about the bigger record losses?? Full Stop ... what stupid ------- saying ...

#21 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-06-16 11:10 PM | Reply

"While families on tight budgets struggle to pay the sky-high price of gas, these five oil companies more than tripled their profits in the first quarter of 2022."

What about their record losses? Did you care then?? Nope ..

#22 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-06-16 11:10 PM | Reply

" What about the bigger record losses?"

In operations? Or are these paper losses, due to things like depletion and accelerated depreciation?

And are all subsidies counted, direct and indirect, or is keeping the Gulf open and safe considered a freebie?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-17 12:59 AM | Reply

__________

We don't have much of a disagreement, just nuances.

We've been giving more and more money [to] the "too much money" side for 47 years now.

Yes, that's what 'printing money' beyond desired rate of inflation is about. That doesn't mean that these money were unproductive or deployed in bad assets or investments - most of them were probably used well and appreciated. It takes money and knowledge and patience to make money - that's the difference between "investor class" and "spending / non-investing class."

As for "too few goods" we can take housing as an example. Real estate prices have gone up everywhere compared to a few years ago:

Yes, that's one of the "hard" "asset classes" the investor class likes to invest in - for the most part it outpaces the rate of inflation, in some areas more than others - and as I pointed out, it was one of several clear indications of "monetary stimulus" being overinvested and inevitably leading to inflation spilling into "real life" - that's essential Milton Friedman, same as it was in 2006-2008. Stock market peaked in 2006, housing market somewhat later, both way before "Lehman moment" in 2008, for those who paid any attention.

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

That makes sense - money makes money; better education (bought by money) often leads to better business and personal ties, corporate positions and better investment decisions.

One caveat about "top 20%" (super-rich, very rich, VHNWI, HNWI, and upper middle class) - in the US they are not static, they are very dynamic, especially in the era of rapid high technology and societal changes, i.e., composition of today's 20% may be very different from "top 20%" 10 years ago, and only a few names in common with "top 20%" of 20 years ago. Many of the names even in top 1% would not be known or recognized 10, 15, 20 years ago. At the same time some fall out of 20% due to bad investments or bad economy or mismanagement or bad luck - take investors in Revlon which declared bankruptcy today, or many people / companies who overleveraged before COVID19 hit... So "top 20%" are a lot more fluid than what statistic usually imply - a static group of people.

But in this case, Putin's non-ESG military action is as big a counterproductive policy as anything Biden has done.

Biden didn't start inflation, but he certainly helped it along with his own stimulative policies without regard to inflation and top-notch economists, with some of whom he has worked closely when he was VP. Inflation has already been raging for awhile due to host of reasons, including energy costs - that's just one of the reasons Putin chose the moment to invade - he has what people / countries need because their energy inputs are not diversified - not by class / use, nor by supplier - that's by the way, the danger of let's say only depending on electricity for everything, even if we could do this overnight instead of decades building infrastructure, with hydro, solar, nuclear composites. To Biden's credit, he responded reasonably well, though haltingly and often not aggressively enough, to Putin's War.

Yes, Putin's War did pour gasoline / oil (pardon the pun) on already bad inflation, but it didn't create it - that's a secondary supply shock, in addition to extremely loose monetary policy and "de-globalization" started by Trump (prompted by Putin, no doubt) with self-defeating and self-taxing tariffs on China goods and pushing China towards Russia and closing even more to US goods and cooperation.

Big Oil is doing the transition Big Tobacco did, buying up food companies and establishing a lifeline in a less publicly hated industry.

Why is that bad? If we ever not need oil, gas as forms of energy (even though several of energy companies are working on "clean" fuels) then it would be productive conversion of capital.
__________

#24 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 01:20 AM | Reply

__________
"While families on tight budgets struggle to pay the sky-high price of gas, these five oil companies more than tripled their profits in the first quarter of 2022."
#19 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-16 09:42 PM

___

Right, this article and Biden in his speech are comparing the fiscal year 2021 with the fiscal year of 2020 - you know, "The Year When The Earth Stood Still" and for the most part didn't do much driving, restaurants were closed etc., so the prices of oil and gas were commensurate with demand and supply was high enough for everyone.

So tripling (or quadrupling, quintupling...) of "profits" in nominal terms, while sounding impressive and exorbitant, is meaningless. The really important parts are not in the article / speech:

1. The "profit margins" in both years were about the same.

2. The stocks of these companies have dropped to multi-year lows in September of 2020, and some only recovered to 2019 level or less, despite "RECORD PROFITS" and are still below 2012-2014 levels, so obviously investors don't think they are doing as well as they have been doing decade ago.

3. Some of these companies have just exited the Russian market leaving equipment and profitable E&P projects behind and writing off $Billions in losses.

4. Where do you think the money for exploring and then investing in new long term drilling projects come from?

5. While families on tight budgets struggle to pay the sky-high price of gas - tell that to people who hate and want to shut down oil and gas companies while we are waiting for their long promised "cheap and clean" all-electric utopia from wind and solar... Apparently if you give Elon Musk the state of Rhode Island he can do this in no time for everyone in the entire US.
__________

#25 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 02:39 AM | Reply

And are all subsidies counted, direct and indirect, or is keeping the Gulf open and safe considered a freebie?

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2022-06-17 12:59 AM | FLAG:

Are we playing the "Hegemony is a subsidy" game? If we are going to go this route with oil companies and talking about energy diversification, then all of the oil company subsidies also apply to "green energy" products, as they are manufactured petroleum products, but we also get to add in African security. We've also had Special Forces on the ground in DRC fighting the Allied Democratic Forces for 6+ years now. Cobalt isn't free.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-06-17 09:58 AM | Reply

"Why is that bad?"

It's only bad if you think $5/gal gas is bad.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 10:23 AM | Reply

"Are we playing the "Hegemony is a subsidy" game?"

If we are, that just means oil is winning the subsidy game by even more.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 10:25 AM | Reply

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

"That makes sense - money makes money; better education (bought by money) often leads to better business and personal ties, corporate positions and better investment decisions."

And it also makes sense that this leads to inflation.

The structure of income distribution is inflationary.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 10:27 AM | Reply

How could it not? Nobody has come up with something better to sit at the top of the manufacturing pyramid. One thing they leave off the microgeneration pamphlets... you have to climb to the top of your 50 foot tower and change the gearbox oil on your windmills...

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-06-17 10:32 AM | Reply

"How could it not?"

Well, it could be less inflationary by distributing gains in income more broadly.

That would also give rise to, you guessed it, broader prosperity.

Like we had from 1946-1975.

Only Democrats want that, though. Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents think wealth accretion at the top is the good kind of structural imbalance.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 11:58 AM | Reply

Apparently someone here is heavily invested in oil companies... I won't mention names.

- money makes money

Yes, "the rich get richer" is because capitalism flows money upwards... and crony capitalism helps it along by buying politicians and writing the rules.

Which is why financial regulation is so important to at least try to level the playing field even just a little, which is
way upfield for most people.

It's like a poker game where one player has a billion bucks and the rest have a thousand. No matter the luck or the skill levels of the players, the same player will always win in the end.

Which is why TR tried to break up the monopolies created by the Gilded Agers and FDR offered a New Deal.

We need a bit more of both these days... days in which big corporations have been made Super Citizens under the Law, and the SC has made sure that what was bribery of politicians for over 200 years is now 'bidness as usual'.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 12:00 PM | Reply

__________

Apparently someone here is heavily invested in oil companies... I won't mention names.

No need to. NEVER invested in energy companies, and as I pointed out already several times, they were very bad investment for at least last 8-10 years. Though favorite Dem multibillionaire investors George Soros and Warren Buffett have before and just recently invested even more in oil companies like Occidental Petroleum. Its stock still below 2018 level and well below 2011 level, though doubled in the last 6 months, so they did well for themselves and their investors. Oil (upstream, downstream and midstream) and gas are extremely capital-intensive business and need capital accumulated in "good times" to invest and survive in "bad times" - it's a boom-and-bust business - "Seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine."

Without oil and gas contributions in the last 100 years the world would not have anywhere near the progress in economies, farming and technologies we have today. But sure, go ahead and demonize them. I don't think you can say the same about tobacco... or marijuana, or opioid and other drugs, which seem soon to be legal almost everywhere but caused deaths, mental and physical health issues, homelessnes.

- money makes money

If you have trouble understanding the concept, you - like most in the US - have serious gaps in your financial education, or should lay off your Marx & Engels' Das Kapital and pick up copy of 1776 Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. If you want something more recent, try Niall Ferguson's Ascent of Money - book or PBS series.

You keep blaming capitalism, but if you had met someone from former or current socialist (communist or fascist, like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea) countries, you would know that they don't really have a middle class and the distribution of 99% country's wealth (like nationalized oil in Venezuela) goes to the top 0.1% "dear leaders" in government (like Castro Bros. in Cuba), and then the rest of population is "equally miserable". Why do they seem to always have what we usually call "dictator" or "strongman"? We just had a scare with one of those in the US, didn't we?

Capitalism brought prosperity - granted, unequal prosperity - to the world at large. Socialism i.e., communism and fascism - like Soviet Union and now Putin's Russia, Mao's China, 1930's Germany - brought nothing but "equal misery" and wars to the people in those countries and their neighbors - because nothing takes mind off poverty like "patriotic wars".

If you find your perfect utopian non-capitalist country, please let us all here know.
__________

#33 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 02:30 PM | Reply

Making the mistake that Canada or any number of northern European social democracies aren't also capitalist economies, just well run ones, and or that they must needs be Stalinist or Maoist communist countries if they aren't abusive elitist Super Citizen crony MIC types... is a worse mistake.

Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world except for all the others.

But it doesn't have to be crony capitalism, it can be well regulated, socially acceptable, and patriotic... unlike what we have now.

Let's try not to think in extremes only, 'k?

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 04:28 PM | Reply

#33 Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

That's a very different reality than the late 19th and to mid 20th century you're trying to bait and switch on us.

Your history of WWII overlooks quite a bit.

WWII was a war between European Capitalist powers, and between German Capitalism and Soviet Communism. The American and English Capitalists sided with the Communists to defeat the German Capitalists.

Then, the American and English Capitalists let the Communists take half of Europe, that they hadn't held before. Thanks, Capitalism!

You're obviously not dumb, so watching you drink the Capitalism wealth apology Kool-Aid is just sad.

Oh and since you brought it up, what's the Capitalist Utopia? Singapore, old Hong Kong?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 04:31 PM | Reply

#33 Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

That's a very different reality than the late 19th and to mid 20th century you're trying to bait and switch on us.

Your history of WWII overlooks quite a bit.

WWII was a war between European Capitalist powers, and between German Capitalism and Soviet Communism. The American and English Capitalists sided with the Communists to defeat the German Capitalists.

Then, the American and English Capitalists let the Communists take half of Europe, that they hadn't held before. Thanks, Capitalism!

You're obviously not dumb, so watching you drink the Capitalism wealth apology Kool-Aid is just sad.

Oh and since you brought it up, what's the Capitalist Utopia? Singapore, old Hong Kong?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 04:31 PM | Reply

"Are we playing the "Hegemony is a subsidy" game?"

Only if you want to use Actual Math.

And the comparisons to "green" are moot. My question was: were the record losses from operational expenses, or depletion and depreciation ... and yes, hegemony.

I've seen too many clients who had a positive cash flow and a loss on paper.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-17 05:43 PM | Reply

__________
The American and English Capitalists sided with the Communists to defeat the German Capitalists.

Not just sided - actually helped - "Lend-Lease program" - just like one we now use to help Ukraine to hopefully fend off Russian / Putin's fascists.

Let's get your "history" straight:
First, German Fascists (National Socialists aka Nazis) made a Non-aggression "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact with USSR / Soviet Communists to divide some East European countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia (starting with Sudetenland, just like current "Russian" Donbas in Ukraine), Finland etc.

Second, after dictator Hitler's German Fascists decided to break the pact and invade dictator Stalin's Communist Soviet Union - BTW, that's exactly when American Communist Party stopped liking and supporting Hitler's National Socialist (fascist) Germany.

"Then, the American and English Capitalists let the Communists take half of Europe, that they hadn't held before. Thanks, Capitalism!"

Really? Before what, exactly? What would you suggest they have done at that point? Patton's 250K army against 2.5M of their "allies against German fascists" Russian army that was bombing everything in their way on the way to Berlin, through Poland and Czecholovakia? That's you "capitalist" problem? That's a really warped view of "capitalism."

If your contention is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a mistake by not opening the Second Front earlier because he promised that no US soldier would set foot fighting in Europe, I would agree with you, but that has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "socialism" - it has to do more with democracy and freedom against socialist totaliarism (communist or fascist).
__________

#38 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 06:54 PM | Reply

__________
#33 Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

I already gave you the caveat about 20% "statistics" - 20% is a "static" number, the people in the 20% are very much not "static." But you can hold on to that "statistic" if you like.

Oh and since you brought it up, what's the Capitalist Utopia? Singapore, old Hong Kong?

There is none, there is no Utopia - THAT'S THE POINT.

You're obviously not dumb, so watching you drink the Capitalism wealth apology Kool-Aid is just sad.

Drinking the Socialist "equality" (Egalite, Fraternite) Kool-Aid is much dumber, given the history of socialism - it's not even much practiced in France anymore - they just rejected Putin's / Le Pen's fascism there, though barely - socialism is very seductice, unless you spend some time living under it.

Capitalism is the WORST economic system in the world except for all the others.

"Capitalism is the BEST economic system in the world except for all the others." -- rephrasing Winston Churchill's words to fit your liking doesn't make it so.

Again, try living under communism, fascism, theocracy or just talking to people who risked their lives and livelihoods to escape those regimes to come to capitalist USA, Canada or Northern Europe or people from "caravans" from Latin America trying to do the same. We don't see mass movement the other way, and if you want to live in a "better" capitalist system liek Canada or Northern Europe or Singapore, New Zealand, Australia (?) then you're free to do so, unlike in totalitarian regimes. I am afraid, Hong Kong is now much less "capitalist" than was before Chinese Communists took over.
__________

#39 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 07:19 PM | Reply

I never said the top 20% was static, so you're apparently refuting a point I never made.

(And it's the CIA's observation, if you think it's misleading take it up with them. It survived the past three administrations. Apparently they think it's worth mentioning.)

Regardless, the income distribution used to be more broad based. Since 1975, we've only been fattening up the top 20%.

As such, the top 20% have more and more capital to invest in things like houses, driving prices up.

I'm sure you get it, so I can't imagine why you're pretending you don't.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 07:47 PM | Reply

I'm just glad that Mythbomber has a soulmate here now... hey, maybe Ayn Rand and von Mises had twins!!

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 07:53 PM | Reply

Oh and since you brought it up, what's the Capitalist Utopia? Singapore, old Hong Kong?
There is none, there is no Utopia - THAT'S THE POINT.

Hahaha!

So you rhetorically ask where's the socialist utopia, to pooh-pooh Socialism.

But somehow, the lack of a capitalist utopia, meanwhile, does not throw shade on Capitalism.

Ooookay!

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 08:18 PM | Reply

__________
As such, the top 20% have more and more capital to invest in things like houses, driving prices up. I'm sure you get it, so I can't imagine why you're pretending you don't.

I am not pretending I don't get it, I am very good with dynamic and qualitative statistics. I am not arguing that the "statistic" in itself is wrong at all - it actually makes perfect sense and it is self-explanatory, which I pointed out in my original post. "Money makes money" and makes for better education and personal and business connections, better jobs etc. - what's not to understand?

(And it's the CIA's observation, if you think it's misleading take it up with them. It survived the past three administrations. Apparently they think it's worth mentioning.)

Great, of course, it's not misleading at all - it's just incomplete and it's also purely quantitative, not qualitative. It leaves out the "static' versus "dynamic" relationship, i.e., many people who are now in the "top 20%" have not been there back 10-20 years ago and probably won't be there in the next 10-20 years. You don't think it's important? Fine. Ignore it.

So when you say "Regardless, the income distribution used to be more broad based. Since 1975, we've only been fattening up the top 20%. there are couple of questions:

1. Who is "we" that have supposedly "distributed" the "income"? And if we don't like the "we" who is "distributing" the "income" who do we want to be "distributing" it?
2. Who are the "top 20%" since they are all very different people through all these decades?

For example, some people who got into top 20% by buying some crypto and NFTs in the last year may not be in the top 20% next year... or may be ever again?

You know the thing about statistics - "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"

I am trying to explain, expand and enhance the context of a particular statistic. I don't see why it's a problem, if you want to ignore it, fine.
__________

#43 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 08:23 PM | Reply

"Again, try living under communism, fascism, theocracy or just talking to people who risked their lives and livelihoods to escape those regimes to come to capitalist USA"

Meanwhile, since right around 1975, the Capitalists move their factories from America to Communist China.

History teaches us that Capitalism depends on Communism to survive.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 08:24 PM | Reply

__________
But somehow, the lack of a capitalist utopia, meanwhile, does not throw shade on Capitalism.

Of course, not, because nobody is arguing that Capitalism is Utopia.

When "Thanks, Capitalism!" apparently critisizes capitalism for not being one and implies that socialism is or is better than capitalism? Otherwise, what's the point?

These are starting to get strange arguments. Socialism is great because Capitalism is no Utopia, when no one said it was?

I think we are done here.
__________

#45 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 08:35 PM | Reply

The Happiest Countries in the World are so because of the Nordic Model and social corporatism.... you know, as opposed the ever more nationalist authoritarian crass crony capitalism, not to mention bounties on women, institutional racism, planned poverty, and threadbare social net and education availability, that we have here. So I won't mention it.

en.wikipedia.org

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 08:42 PM | Reply

"When "Thanks, Capitalism!" apparently critisizes capitalism for not being one"

Not sure where you got that idea.

You brought the notion of utopia into this conversation.

It's your straw man, not mine.

"Thanks, Capitalism" refers to things like companies moving jobs from America to China.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 08:42 PM | Reply

= Socialism is great because Capitalism is no Utopia,

Still with the extremes only approach... addressed in my #34. Interesting. This may be psychological.

Perhaps the wiki link above can help.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 08:46 PM | Reply

- like companies moving jobs from America to China.

It's their go to tactic if bribes to the right politicians fail... which usually werks just fine.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-17 08:48 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, since right around 1975, the Capitalists move their factories from America to Communist China.

History teaches us that Capitalism depends on Communism to survive.

Survive? Strange conclusion because since 1980s US companies deployed capital building factories in and importing goods from Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, Ireland, Eastern Europe and yes, China - i.e., wherever the costs happened to be cheaper and strengthening commercial ties.

China of course, Communist on paper, but since Deng was moving away from "communist" structure, for example there are now more billionaires in Bejing than in New York City - is that how "they" "distribute" the "income" to their "top 20%"?

Until Xi and Trump (Putin's puppet), the idea of capitalist China, even under loose control of CCP by using commercialism and globalization has been very successful and contributed to much wealthier and US-friendlier Chinese population as well as disinflation in the West, but it's nuts to say that the West depended on it to "survive," - it's the other way around - China was a backward underdeveloped country until it started trading with the US and later deploying capital to build factories.

Moving China towards capitalism was an achievement that kept many economies humming and more peaceful Asia-Pacific theater. It's too bad Putin / Trump effed it up by using tariffs and idiotic "trade wars" - which by the way was applauded by socialist-labor faction in the US.

For example, it's Cuba complaining that the US has embargo and doesn't trade with it, not the other way around. Same with North Korea - capitalist countries are not trying to survive without trading with it.

Do you think former "Warsaw Pact" Eastern Europe countries regret no longer being Communist or being in NATO? Somehow the US and West "survived" them becoming capitalist?

You got it so backwards. Bizarre. That's your brain on Karl Marx.
__________

#50 | Posted by CutiePie at 2022-06-17 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"wherever the costs happened to be cheaper"

Thanks, Capitalism!

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 09:17 PM | Reply

"For example, it's Cuba complaining that the US has embargo and doesn't trade with it, not the other way around."

???
The US embargoed Cuba for a half a century, specifically to tank the Cuban economy.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 09:20 PM | Reply

"Do you think former "Warsaw Pact" Eastern Europe countries regret no longer being Communist or being in NATO? Somehow the US and West "survived" them becoming capitalist?"

Hungary provides an interesting contemporary answer to that question. As does Serbia.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 09:22 PM | Reply

"Moving China towards capitalism was an achievement that kept many economies humming and more peaceful Asia-Pacific theater."

Signed,
Uighurs

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-17 09:23 PM | Reply

Biden is 200 years old; like every other boomer he gives zero ----- about what happens 20 years from now.

So burning oil is his solution.

---- you and your kids; if there is one thing boomer republicans and democrats agree on; it's sacrificing the future to make their asses more comfortable in the present.

If that means teaming up with a murderous dictator? Who cares? That's the future's problem.

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2022-06-17 11:07 PM | Reply

Here's just one result of "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression
www.pewresearch.org
The share of 18- to 29-year-olds living with their parents has become a majority since U.S. coronavirus cases began spreading early this year, surpassing the previous peak during the Great Depression era.

Look at the second graph.

You can see the downward trend from 1948 to 1960, a bottom from 1960 to 1980, and then it really start going back up from 1980 through toady.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-18 12:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort