Trade tariffs

US INCOME INEQUALITY: How we got here and how we can change

Posted on by Helena

If we knew what causes income inequality peaks, could we change it?  

As history reveals, Income Inequality is cyclical. The current peak began in 1970 and there would seem to be little in the stratosphere to bridge that from continuing unabated.

Historically, between 1850 and 1950 the income equality among all peoples of the US, UK and Netherlands stabilized.   But across the board after WWII, those numbers spiked and continued a straight upward trajectory.   Economists vary somewhat on the current causes of the spike, but a few make logical sense:

  1. Globalization. Globalization meant increased trade, meant cheaper goods from China, meant labour in the US could not compete, meant labour caved and created a ridge of zero growth for an entire working class sector. It wasn’t labour unions, it was competition.   It was the beginning of the end for small mom and pop stores as big money swirled in and created the mega markets replete with cheap Chinese products.   One stop shop – save time – buy more – charge it!  Of course free trade wasn’t actually ‘free’ – tariffs were imposed over every market and those tariffs were not equal, hence trade imbalance began simultaneously. Despite being advised to not lower tariff’s, Reagan did anyway, no other country followed suit, and the US deficit spiraled out of control while China and the EU laughed.

And over the course of 50 years, not one president was willing to fix trade to make it truly ‘free’ – as in no tariffs.   Trump offered zero tariff trade with Germany, the EU, Canada, and Mexico – the EU and Germany declined.

  1. Technology Revolution.   While no one wants to sensor technology or squelch it, it has vast ramifications on income and labor and it can take a generation or more to catch up.   It creates bubbles of wealth for people that have no real philanthropic bent other than to funnel their wealth into tax avoidance foundations. Technology advancement also alienates a class of people who don’t have the ability or wherewithal to create an entirely new career or expertise. As such, they move ‘down’ the ladder.
  2. Education.   In Europe it is accepted that not everyone attends college, in fact the percentage is relatively small.   The US proposes that everyone is ‘entitled’ to a college degree because that enables them to make more money…   Really?   A degree in Art, or Language, of Philosophy, or Communications is really a non-degree and yet they are the most prolific.   While Germany has the right idea, they make it a communist dictatorial determination instead of a choice.   Germany stresses specific technology or trade certifications in lieu of college.   The stigma of not being a college graduate is mitigated, and a specialized trade is facilitated. The number of college graduates in Germany is roughly 20%, compared to the US rate of 34%. But what happens after graduating is more important.   And that is where a middle class is created.
  1. Taxes.   A touchy subject to be sure but when the 1%ers are paying the same rate after deductions as the average household, obviously this is not a true progressive system – and is likely meaningless with the exception of those on the cusp of moderately higher incomes being squeezed.

How do you keep the billionaires in the US if the Tax Man is going to up the ante?

Technically speaking, despite the US calling itself a Republic, it truly is a Monarchy with totalitarian bits and pieces.   The billionaires are the monarchs, and everyone else, the peasants, are left to scramble in order to eek a living.   In the US we’ve simply eliminated the terminology and replaced it with alternate terms that effect the same result – Monarchial rule.

The Bolsheviks assassinated the Tzar of Russia and his entire family because according to socialist history books, the peasants claimed an uprising due to wealth inequality.   But the Bolsheviks simply instituted their own version of Monarchial rule under the guise of Communism, the faces of the rulers changed, and money shifted hands.

This ‘shift’ is what the Socialists in the US are hedging for in order to make the Marxist totalitarian state – complete.  This is our fight!

Billionaires have two obvious qualities:  ; 1. They like to spend money on lavish things that only they can afford and, 2. They like power.

So if you are going to keep your billionaires you have to be willing to concede either power or taxes.  Painful.

Ultimately, today,  in order to reduce income inequality one measure that Trump is vehemently pursuing is scaling back tariff differentials. Another is Sovereign sustainability.

While taxes were an initial consideration, the US system is so convoluted at this point it is near impossible to scrap the entire tax structure and recreate a true progressive flat tax – unless by EO.

When Trump is re-elected, Education could be the next transformation.   Reducing federal funding of universities and redirecting that funding toward technical and trade schooling would not only eliminate the socialist indoctrination, it would secure a greater number of students toward an attainable job market sophistication. Ultimately lifting the whiners out of media attention and forcing universities to rethink their curriculum methodology and their current superfluous degree programs.

Because today, in America, you can have a bachelors degree, $150,000 student debt, and be qualified to work as a hamburger flipper.

Like Climate Change, history reveals valuable insight.  Sometimes it is necessary to research a bit more aggressively – instead of simply trying to find the history that fits an agenda.   Putting the pieces together means Trump cannot accomplish this alone.  It means redirecting all the hate filled memes and  criticism toward a viable solution.   And then, there is TRUTH.

China Trade War – MSM Playing The Wizard Of Oz…

Posted on by Helena

CNBC’s Emma Newberger has published an article claiming that Goldman Sachs the has stated; “cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households…”   Goldman says there are two very detailed, item level studies that prove that Chinese imports remain at the same price. In addition, the US GDP could be hit by a .4% decline.

I suppose to some this sounds devastating. But when analyzed just a bit, the entire article is misleading at best, an illusion, and a tactical study in propaganda at the very least.

The article does not provide any link to any studies. It cites no statistics.   There is no historical graph.   In fact, it is red Jello with absolutely no cherries. Hospital food.

Between 2016 and 2017, the Consumer Price Index, before the levy of ANY tariffs, rose 2.1%.   In 2018, the CPI increased 1.9%.   Between 1970 and 2018, the CPI rose 25% with a starting point of -10%.   This increase coincides with the increase in the ‘money supply’ which doubled into Nirvana land during the Obama administration.

As for the US GDP rate, in 2017 it was 2.3%. In 2018, GDP increased to 2.9%. And in the first quarter of 2019, it increased 3.2%.   A .4% decline from the previous year would amount to a total reduction of .0116 resulting in a new rate of 3.18%.

Just three months ago, the very liberal CNN authored a story in which they claim that “the Chinese economy has slowed severely.   It has hit its lowest level in three years.   And it is much, much weaker than government figures suggest.” Local businesses blame the trade wars.   Senior China economist at Capital Economics claims the economy of China shrank 3% last year making the Goldman Sachs argument smell like a dairy farm.

The problem with the media is they do not have the power to ‘delete’ history, and so instead they attempt to rewrite it.   But a five minute research by anyone can quite literally unfold the truth and reveal a plethora of lies. In politics, they call them ‘gaffes’.   In the media, they are fake news.

Goldman Sachs is thus guilty of – fake news.

Barron’s claims that the US economy is slowing down. They site different methodologies for measuring the growth and choose to eliminate certain ones so as to lower the actual numbers.   But a measurement is only so good as it’s comparable historical measure. To conveniently eliminate certain industries because they might ‘artificially inflate’ the number means one would have to eliminate those numbers for all history. It is a defeating argument, designed to manipulate and propagandize the economy.

In essence, when analyzing the manufacturing industry of the US, Barron’s has determined that the current outlook is ‘half as bad’ as the decline from 2014-2016 during the Obama reign.

All numbers are intertwined.   If economists are going to extrapolate specific numbers without looking at the whole, then there will always be fluctuations, but the whole is the ultimate grade of an economy, not the individual parts.

The Gestalt theory, expressed in psychological terms in the 1920’s, understood that the whole is a sum of the parts.   Thus extracting ‘a part’ denies the whole. My father named his sailboat, “Gestalt”.

If one reviews the news from farmer and agriculture sites, as opposed to political news sites, the concerns are not so much China as: weather, disease, techniques, herbicides, trends, organics, toxicity, soil – all the normal discussions among those inside the industry.

What they aren’t discussing is – China.

What this reveals is that the MSM is manufacturing a Farming crisis without a farmer, they are creating an Economic crisis without a study or statistic, and they are creating an illusion without – magic.

In fact, the MSM is no different than the Wizard of Oz, a slight, old man, standing behind a great curtain, using machines to create smoke and noise so as to scare Dorothy and her companions, when in fact, there is nothing wrong – at all – and they all can find what they want inside themselves without the idiotic, narcissist behind the curtain.

POOF….

Trump’s China Trade War – The Facts

Posted on by Helena

The Federal Reserve and the World Bank at the behest of a handful of economists who are decidedly left leaning have published two scathing reports which claim that Trump’s trade war with China is costing US taxpayers upwards of $68 billion annually.

Of course the statements are biased. Of course they represent an agenda and potential fodder. If they are true.

Economists are an interesting breed. They sit in glass houses and create a conclusion without seeming to have a basic understanding of real world business and tend to adamantly disagree with each other on a broader scale while presenting a portion of the facts.

Somewhat like the climate change fiasco.

Trades are business contracts. They may be executed as a one-time transaction, transactions that occur over a series of months, and often are transactions that are locked years.   They take time to execute. Terms are pre-determined. Terms are re-negotiated.

These ‘Economists’ have made a determination based on data that is virtually impossible to track. In addition, their supposition ‘estimates’ an annual cost. But even that is wholly unreliable because the Tariffs were imposed over the course of several months in 2018, with intellectual property, aluminum and steel at the forefront.   They effectively began in July and phased in over a number of months.

China’s “implemented and ‘proposed’ tariffs” would affect $110 billion of imports. That does not mean the US exports stop. It means they will be levied a tariff which will effect the profit margin.

The economist’s reports both extrapolate the outcome as an annual loss. A year has not yet occurred.   In fact, there is only two months of trade numbers in 2019 to analyze. Certainly one can extrapolate based on previous data… right? Yes and no.

It is like a poll wherein a random sample of 1000 Democrats all residing in New York are sampled and the results will determine the US Presidential election…

Example:   During Obama’s reign trade data is available on a monthly basis.   At the end of 2008 when Obama came into office, the US trade deficit with China was roughly $268 billion.   By the end of 2016 when Obama left office, it was $347 billion. Before any tariffs had any measurable impact, by the end of 2017 the deficit had climbed to $375 billion.

This ‘non-important’ deficit has climbed every single year since it began in 1986. Since 2000, it has quadrupled. And not one sitting President did a damn thing.

Suddenly, with two measurable months of data available for 2019, the media is calling Trump’s trade war a calamity.

In actuality, the value of imports for January and February of 2019 were down 10% and 20% respectively compared to the previous year – before any tariffs were imposed.

Lets look at another trading partner – Germany.

When Obama came into power that deficit was roughly $28 billion. By the time Obama left office that deficit had spiked to nearly $65 billion. It torched at $68 billion by the end of 2018, well before Trump’s tariffs took effect. The first two months of 2019, the deficit had lowered nearly 10%.

Even in the world of an Economist, 2 months is clearly not enough of a data set to make any conclusion or opinion.   And yet they do. Why?

Obviously it is an attempt to discredit Trump and provide fodder for Democrats who are bent on finding fodder because they are frustrated with the incorrigible corruption, instead of truth.

What this also reveals is the larger picture in which both the US Federal Reserve and the World Bank are colluding in this massive demonization of all things Trump.     It also reveals that these institutions have provided absolutely no guidance or stipulations or concern for the annual increase in US trade deficit for the last 30 years.

Which technically is a reflection on their incompetence. Economic Policy is their mainstay. Their existence. So obviously they did not have the US in their sights for at least 30 years.

Why?
1) According to it’s own website, the World Bank’s field of study is on ‘Developing Countries’.   So why did they commission a report on Trump’s China trade – two well developed countries outside of the scope of their jurisdiction?

2) The second part of these reports claims that US agriculture farms have been hit hard by Trump’s tariffs.   But the agriculture business isn’t the mom and pop farm of a hundred years ago. Mainstream media have been sounding the alarm on the changing face of farms for a decade or two.

Statistics: Most small farms are ‘hobby farms’.   Tax incentives during the Bush and Obama years gave wealthy elites the ability to classify their compound acreage in the middle of such places as Long Island and the Hamptons as farmland, take a tax benefit, and produce enough to feed a cat.

Secondly, ‘large farms make up less than 4% of all farms and account for more than 66% of all sales. And that number continues to edge higher.   They are corporate farms.

And third, the Federal government continues to subsidize small farms up to $20 billion annually.

The value of agricultural exports to China is roughly $23 billion, which represents about 5% of all production in US.

It isn’t just the US Swamp that is fearful of Trump. It is The Swamps that exist globally.   He has turned their power off. He has broken the rules. He does not recognize their structure. And he wants to fix the chaos that they have so dedicatedly created for well over a hundred years.

Certainly there have been a few anomalies in the US; Kennedy, surely. But his fate and that of his brother reveal how determined the International Swamp is to maintain their brotherhood as is.

Lastly, the Federal Reserve Bank:   What is their job? Primarily – to address ‘banking panics’. Secondarily to manage money supply.   In 2012 when Obamanomics was considered an economic catastrophe the response of the Federal Reserve was not to commission economist papers, but to ‘do something’ to leverage that catastrophe. They have no business commissioning reports – outside of their Banking duties.

Trump recently threatened to take down the Federal Reserve; his animosity for that corrupt regime has been no secret.

The Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend.

Trump has been in office two+ years. He has fought for The People while being verbally attacked, legally attacked, his family in jeopardy, his life threated, and still he rose for us.  They are – running scared.

G7 Summit Ruled by EU Commission

Posted on by Helena

The G7 Summit is taking place in Quebec under the tutelage of Trudeau.   The purpose of the Summit is to talk about global topics chosen this year by Trudeau to include:  ocean pollution, trade tariffs, and climate change.  The Summit was originally created in 1973 by George Schulz.  It was to be attended by the finance ministers of four countries;  West Germany, UK, US and France.  It has historically evolved to include Canada, Italy, Japan, and Russia, although Russia was expelled in 2014.  

The President’s of these countries basically get together, have some food, meander around the property, and talk.  The only spouse to accompany her husband was Macron’s.  After two days, they go home and nothing changes.  From the perspective of a businessman, it is a huge waste of time.  From the perspective of the various politicians attending it gives them airtime. For Macron, it gives him hug time.

For example, in February 2009, the group of finance ministers met in Rome and pledged to take all necessary steps to stem the financial crisis.  That was the sum total of the meeting.  Seems to me a phone call could have accomplished that at a considerable fraction of the cost.

But it has become a media hype and everyone wears their Sunday best.  Furthering division, the summit conspicuously omits other global countries; Ireland, India, Scotland, The Netherlands, China, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc.., etc…  Instead it is more of a good ol’ boy platform wherein tradition is the only rationale.

The end result of this meeting seems to be that Trump and the EU will talk about trade in two weeks. Macron thinks the US should be expelled from future summits.  And as representative for ALL EU countries, Merkel stated that they all agree Russia should remain expelled.  I wonder if the ‘other countries’ were notified of their agreement before or after her statement?

Apparently, the new PM of Italy, Giuseppe Conte, stated that he felt Russia should be reinvited. However, the EU Council President, Donald Tusk, speaking on behalf of Conte said that Italy would toe the line and be a follower, not a leader.  I wonder if Conte is royally miffed!

Why would the EU Commissioner and EU Council President be at the G7?  They are not countries. 

In 1977, the UK PM, James Callahan, made the unilateral decision to henceforth include the EU Council and EU Commission as a part of the summit.  Supposedly, Juncker and Tusk are there as a united front to represent the remaining EU countries that are not invited.  Why?   Why not let sovereign nations speak for themselves?   Because in reality they are not sovereign, their voice is censored.

If the G7 Summit is really about the EU, and given Canada is a parcel of the Queen of England, why would the US or Russia have any desire to participate?  Both Tusk and Juncker are representatives of ‘open society’ and globalization.   They have collectively taken over the Summit which was originated in the US.

After losing a re-election bid in Poland, Tusk became the EU Council President.   He has since been openly accusatory that the current President of Poland and his conservative party are puppets of Putin.  In addition, he claims that the EU values are quite polar opposite from the values of Poland under conservatism and nationalism. In 2017, Juncker initiated an investigation into the President and his Party claiming ‘judicial independence concerns’.  

The bottom line is the fact that according to the EU any country that is not governed by a Socialist Party towing the line of the EU ‘values’, is operating under a fascist government and sanctions will be levied including being stripped of voting rights.

Hungary is also facing potential sanctions by the EU for their stance on conservatism.   Hungary has come under attack for expelling Soros and refusing to bow to the EU demands for African immigrant quotas.

Slovakia is facing condemnation for similar stances.

BREXIT is meaningless as long as Theresa May continues to be a pawn of MI6 and the Merkel.  What is more relevant is the growing number of countries that are standing up to the Royal Arm of the EU Commission and Council who tend to act much like the Wizard of Oz – behind a red curtain.

Which country in the EU will be next?

The Trade Deficit Is A Serious Debt!

Posted on by Helena

As the Trade Tariff hubbaballoo points a finger back at Trump it is interesting to note that not one country was willing to negotiate. Given the inconsistencies in the current tariffs that truly are penalizing US products, not one country saw fit to simply come to the table with a proposal. Canada’s Trudeau was probably the worst example because his retaliation was more of a childish response calling out Pence because the deal had an expiration limit of five years, and then refusing to talk any more.   Are these people really college graduates?   Did their business acumen come from a cereal box? They are truly acting like five year olds.

Who is really the villain here? The EU countries, Canada and Mexico have all created an advantage for their economies and trade, Trump was closing the gap and every country balked and instead chose a ‘tit-for-tat’ business approach…

The argument tapped by Liberal media is that trade includes goods and services, and when services are added to the overall picture – Canada is a surplus partner – albeit everyone else – isn’t. Ok. Trump offered Canada an out – and they refused.

So what is the point?   The point is we need to close the gaps.

The Washington Post goes on to declare that a trade deficit does not mean the US is actually losing real money, it just means American’s buy more goods from other countries than other countries buy from the US. How incredibly inane.

“A trade deficit represents an outflow of currency” – definition courtesy of Investopedia.  

In 2007, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco wrote a white paper that gives greater perspective to the deficit. According to their research the balance began to shift to a deficit in the early 1990’s when Clinton was President. In order to finance the deficit, the US borrows from abroad and/or sell assets to foreign countries to cover the imbalance.

The paper quotes various views of the cause of the deficit and whether it is a concern.   Of course, if the US has to borrow or sell off assets to pay for the deficit each year, ultimately there will be no assets left to sell, and borrowing will come to an end.

The cause of the deficit is debatable. But economists would agree that many factors contributed to the crisis, and therefore many factors will have to change in order to alter the consequences.   Including; government budget deficits, national savings and domestic investment.

In addition trade is affected by exchange rates and tariffs. A weaker dollar makes US goods more affordable for foreign purchasers.   Tariff’s create an unfair added cost.

Bottom line the US trade deficit is a serious issue that has a finite consequence.   It’s borrowing to pay for your borrowing, ultimately, the money/assets will run out. By doing nothing – it is certain death.   It is selling America to the highest bidder. And Trump is trying to stave off the disaster set in motion by Billy Clinton and Georgie Bush – both of whom are entrenched in the Cabal and Swamp.