American working people and citizens generally elected Donald Trump because their lives have been devastated by economic collapse in the era of “globalization,” which they cannot stand any longer. They need, again, the “American System,” going back to Alexander Hamilton’s vision of the leading manufacturing and inventing nation in the world. We now have a chance for that, if we act quickly.
The panic-stricken Democratic Party, with some of its leaders calling for mass resistance against an election outcome they refuse to accept, has to wake up. Do they want a “color revolution” of groups funded by megaspeculator George Soros to overthrow the U.S. government — an “American Maidan” as in Ukraine?
Free trade, environmentalist policies and Wall Street bank bailouts have injured millions, just as badly under Obama and Clinton as under the Bushes. Constant “regime-change” wars by Bush and Obama have ruined countries and spread terrorism worldwide; and their ultimate target has been Putin’s Russia, which is ready for cooperation to defeat the terrorists. Recently, extraordinarily fortunate proposals have been made by government officials in Japan and China, to mobilize major investments to attack the worst problem in the American economy — its obsolete and broken infrastructure.
A second meeting of President Trump with Japanese Prime Minister Abe is scheduled this Friday, Feb. 10, accompanied by Cabinet-level meetings involving the President’s nominees for Commerce Secretary and Trade Representative. Nikkei Press Agency reported yesterday that up to nearly 5% of Japan’s $1.4 trillion national pension fund, the GPIF, could be invested, as Abe said Feb. 1: “I wish to discuss [japanese] contributions toward improved productivity and competitiveness in the entire U.S. industrial sector, or a large framework that includes aid for infrastructure development.” In addition, reported Nikkei, “Long-term financing for high-speed rail projects in Texas and California would be provided through such avenues as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.”
At the same time, the head of China’s sovereign wealth funds, Mr. Ding Xuedong of the China Investment Corporation, has stated that those funds would like to convert their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, estimated to be as much as $100 billion, into an “infrastructure build” in the United States.
But the United States has no national bank or credit institution to organize such investments. It is unprepared to direct them away from speculators, and into high-technology infrastructure projects and scientific advances. And without restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, it cannot shut off the massive Wall Street speculation casinos which have crashed the economy.
This sets a very short timetable for action. In order to seize these opportunities, U.S. economic policy has to be dramatically and rapidly changed from the “globalization and deindustrialization” era — as is necessary in any case. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Establish a “Hamiltonian” national bank for infrastructure and manufacturing. Plan new high-technology platforms like a national high-speed rail grid, revitalized exploration of space, development of fusion and plasma technologies.
These reflect Lyndon LaRouche’s “Four Laws to save the nation.” Some of these are President Trump’s promises, yet unacted on. A national mobilization to hold his feet to the fire on them, is the only sane thing to do.
James McGregor, Greater China Chairman of consultancy APCO Worldwide, has proposed that the U.S. work with China to define long-term economic and trade relations based on the U.S. traditions of Alexander Hamilton’s state intervention outlined in his 1791 Report to Congress.
In his Feb. 3 review of U.S.-China trade relations and disputes in Foreign Policy magazine, McGregor says that China used the same tools employed by Hamilton for its own progress: “protective tariffs, import bans, subsidies for encouraged industries, export bans on key raw materials, prizes and patents for inventions, the regulation of product standards, and the development of infrastructure for finance and transportation.”
The Asia Tigers and Japan “followed this path” and “China got its start in 1994 with the ‘Outline for Industrial Policy’ that copied many of Japan’s protectionist policies…” He also compared the Chinese Communist Party and government control of the economy to that of FDR’s World War II War Production Board, where “The United States became the world’s largest centrally planned economy overnight.”
Although often phrased in the adversarial terms of one who watched American industry decline in the face of China’s rise, McGregor proposes that Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping meet face-to-face in annual two-day summits, alternating between the two countries, where “reciprocity,” perhaps his answer to what Xi Jinping calls win-win, “should be the bedrock underlying trade and investment agreements….”
McGregor wants a revival of TPP to deal with what he calls China’s “techno-nationalism” and alleged technology theft but admits that China is now pushing “Made in China” becoming “Made by China” with forced domestic innovation. The challenges of this focus, though, require foreign expertise, which leads McGregor to bring in Alexander Hamilton in the section headlined, “China Needs a Deal and So Does the United States.” He adds, “So we have no reason to demonize China. Perhaps we should even congratulate China on its masterful performance. The country has gone down a well-worn path.” How to make a deal? He writes: “China needs outward investment to gain the technology…. The United States needs to protect the country’s technology base and rebuild our industrial base. Both sides are focused on jobs.”
McGregor makes little mention of the Belt and Road Initiative, and, although recognizing Xi Jinping’s exceptional leadership efforts since 2012-13, he nonetheless fails to mention the universal implications of Xi’s “China Dream” and what that means for a needed U.S.-China “win-win” arrangement.
In what it calls “Climategate II,” the London Daily Mail tabloid published an expose of data manipulation in preparation of the so-called “Pausebuster Paper,” which purported to erase the awkward “pause” in warming beginning in 1998, where temperatures didn’t conform to the computer models, refusing to show the rates of “warming” which the modelers desired. Climategate I, also by the Daily Mail, was the leaking of the e-mails (also showing data manipulation) of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Dr. John Bates, a top scientist just retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has come forward with what the Daily Mail calls “irrefutable evidence” of manipulation, charging that lead author of the duplicitous paper, Thomas Karl, specifically chose unreliable data-sets for his “evidence,” to falsely indicate “maximized warming.” That paper, published in the June 2015 issue of Science, was heralded by Obama, Cameron, and the Greater British Greens in general, in the run-up to the Paris Climate talks later that year.
Specifically, says the Mail, “The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues — known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000-2014 from just 0.036C per decade — as stated in version 3 — to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. ”
Compounding the fraud, Karl and his team then “adjusted” the data-set of temperature readings from floating bouys (considered much more reliable, since ships act as their own source of heat) and “adjusted” it upwards a full 0.12 degrees Centegrade, to make it “conform” to the chosen data from ships. In addition, the crew “ignored” another data-set, this one from satellites reading mid-atmosphere temperatures, which also did not fit their desired outcome. Another set — land-based data — suffered from computer software flaws which produced inconsistent, unreliable results.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is currently investigating that specific NOAA paper from his Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Smith was ridiculed for subpoenaing the “scientists,” even though Karl had since left Washington. As Smith explained it to the Daily Caller, “Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along — that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s [Obama’s] climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity,” Smith said.
Ironically, that medal was given to Bates by Obama.
The Wall Street Journal yesterday cited an unnamed “senior administration official,” claiming that the Trump Administration wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. This drew an appropriate response by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, who told Sputnik, “WSJ and many others engage in nothing other than seeking out causes for unfounded speculation, and attempt to poison the atmosphere in the relationship” between Russia and the United States, which is warming after eight years of Obama brinksmanship.
From the standpoint of Russian-Iranian relations, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov also denounced the story.
“We do not agree with this approach,” Peskov said when asked whether the Kremlin agreed with the statement of President Donald Trump, who called Iran the “number-one terrorist state.” “You know that the Russian Federation has partner-like and good relations with Iran. We are cooperating on a number of issues; we value our relations in the trade and economic sphere, and look forward to their further development,” he told reporters.
“It is no secret that positions of Moscow and Washington are diametrically different on a whole range of international and regional policies. This cannot and should not become an obstacle to the establishment of normal communications and pragmatic, mutually beneficial relations between Russia and the United States,” Peskov said, regarding whether Moscow’s and Washington’s stances on Iran could be an impediment to establishment of ties.
Ryabkov, for his part, said that Moscow regrets the latest sanctions the United States imposed on Iran after its latest missile test. “We regret that this happened,” Ryabkov told reporters, noting that the existing mechanism ensuring the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program is being implemented without “specific problems.”
Ryabkov pointed out that Iran’s missile test did not violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the UN Security Council resolution calling on Iran to refrain from nuclear-capable missile activity. “We have communicated this position to the U.S. side, too. We hope that the strict and accurate interpretation of the JCPOA provisions and the resolution will be important in determining Washington’s future course in this area,” he said.
Since the sanctions include companies in China, the Chinese made a representation to the United States over the expansion of the sanctions. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang said during a press briefing: “As regards new U.S. sanctions against Iran that include Chinese companies, we made a representation to the U.S. side,” Lu said at a briefing. He stressed that China remained opposed to any unilateral sanctions, especially those that affect a third country.