2. Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing
The next article is by Daniel
Boffey on The Guardian:
This has a subtitle
Former adviser to Bank of
England among signatories to letter dismissing criticism of economic
plans, saying they are ‘not extreme’
This starts as follows:
More than 40 leading
economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have
made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing
claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s
campaign to be leader.
The intervention comes as
the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for
Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other
public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation
deducted from any compensation for renationalisation” if they are sold
at a knockdown price over the next five years.
The leftwinger’s economic
policies – dubbed Corbynomics – have come under sustained attack in
recent days, including by members of his own party, with Andy Burnham warning his party in an interview
with this paper not to forget the lessons of the general election about
the importance of economic credibility.
But with just under three
weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s
credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public
a letter defending his positions.
In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the
Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the
economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and
his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But
this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His
opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed
by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
I'd say: Of course
Corbyn's plans are not extreme! But not according to the Blairite liars
New Labour, indeed.
Then again, there is
In defence of the Corbyn
camp’s plans to renationalise privatised industries, John McDonnell MP,
who is the candidate’s campaign agent, said that privatisation had been
“a confidence trick”. He said: “Privatisation over the last four
decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the
spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print
money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to
the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence
“Under a Corbyn Labour
government this shameful era of governments and ministers colluding in
the picking of the taxpayers’ pockets will be brought to an abrupt end.
I agree - and no:
while I don't know how to undo privatization, I do believe all I have
seen of it was a massive scam, that paid the rich and took from
the poor, basically by offering the poor "freedom", but without telling
them that the only freedom that was furthered was that of the
And yes: you can
take back what was privatized by suitable legal changes, and you can
do so without endangering capitalism, if that is whay you want.
Apart One of the Biggest Lies in American Politics: “Free Trade”
The next article is
by Thom Hartmann on Naked Capitalism:
This is a bit difficult
to excerpt, because it treats a lot.
When Washington became
president in 1789, most of America’s personal and industrial products
of any significance were manufactured in England or in its
colonies. Washington asked his first Treasury Secretary,
Alexander Hamilton, what could be done about that, and Hamilton came up
with an 11-point plan to build American manufacturing, which he
presented to Congress in 1791.
By 1793, most of its
had either been made into law by Congress or formulated into policy by
either Washington or the various states.
Those strategic proposals
built the greatest industrial powerhouse the world had ever seen, and
were only abandoned, after more than 200 successful years, during the
administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton (and
remain abandoned to this day, as President Obama prepares to further
expand “free trade”).
China, instead of
our recent path, implemented most of Hamilton’s plan, and it brought
about a remarkable transformation of that nation in just a single
Hamilton’s 11-point plan
for “American Manufactures” laid out how to do it (it’s at the end of
In fact, Hamilton's
plan was one of protection and tariffs:
Protection of local
manufacturers, with local money, in part achieved by putting a tariff
on commodities offered from elsewhere in the world, so that these would
not out-compete locally made commodities. For note that if you
do not protect your local manufacturers, and do not
prevent them from moving to countries with
the cheapest wages and/or lowest costs, they will (and then you have to
buy from those countries and you lost an industry, as
has been happening in the U.S. in ever increasing tempo since Reagan).
In fact, much of Hamilton's plans worked for nearly 200 years, while
And it didn’t start with
Hamilton; he was just building on King Henry VII’s “Tudor Plan” of
1485, which turned England from a backwater state with raw wool as its
chief export into a major developed state which produced fine clothing
and other textile products from wool.
King Henry VII
this by severely restricting the export of wool from England with high
export tariffs and restricting the import of finished wool products
with high import tariffs.
King Henry learned this
from the Dutch. They copied the Romans. And the Romans got
it from the Greeks, three thousand years ago. It’s not new, and
it’s not rocket science.
Obama continues to follow his predecessors – Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and
Bush – in the religious belief that “free trade” will save us
all. It’s nonsense. “Free trade” is a guaranteed ticket to the
poorhouse for any nation, and the evidence is overwhelming.
(Ironically, the concept of “free trade” was introduced by Henry VII in
1487 as something that England should encourage other countries to do
while it maintained protectionism. It was invented as a scam.)
Yes, but I don't
believe Reagan, Bush,
Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama were that stupid and uninformed
(except - perhaps - Bush Jr.): Clearly they knew they were
lying, and indeed whom they were lying for - their big backers, the big
corporations and banks, whose managers and large stockholders are about
the only people
profiting from their policies. (And see the graphics below.)
Here is the difference Reagan made (and all other American presidents
It is only since the
era and subsequently with Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, that we
have forsaken tariffs and have been chanting the “free trade” mantra—to
our own detriment and destruction. A protectionist approach, including
tariffs, is what the USA needs so it can get back in the game of
manufacturing —before it’s too late.
Yes, but again: the “free trade” mantra was not a
"religious belief" but a conscious deception of everyone who
did not profit from transporting investments to China and other
nations, which is at least 90% of the American population.
Here is the outcome:
And the big corporations and
the big banks prosper, and they do so in considerable part
because they make it elsewhere, while the lower and middle
classes have not had a real raise since Reagan, when their incomes are
corrected for inflation.
When Ronald Reagan came
into office, as the result of 190 years of Hamilton’s plan, the United
States was the world’s largest importer of raw materials; the world’s
largest exporter of finished, manufactured goods; and the world’s
After 34 years of
we’ve completely flipped this upside down. We’ve become the
world’s largest exporter of raw materials, the world’s largest importer
of finished goods, and the world’s largest debtor. We now export
raw materials to China, and buy from them manufactured goods. And
we borrow from them to do it.
Here are two graphics (both used
This indeed shows it really started under Reagan and continues till
today (and note the blue bars are of the 90% poor and "middle class",
red bars of the 10% of the rich and their helpers).
Here is another view of the same:
Note the purple line that is completely flat since 1983: The
Deception: Washington Gave Answer Long Ago in
The next item is by
Matthias Gebauer, René Pfister and Holger Stark on Spiegel On Line:
This starts as follows:
The order from Washington
was unambiguous. The United States Embassy in Berlin didn't want to
waste any time and moved to deliver the diplomatic cable without delay.
It was May 10, 2015, a Sunday -- and even diplomats aren't crazy about
working weekends. On this day, though, they had no other choice. James
Melville, the embassy's second-in-command, hand delivered the mail from
the White House to Angela Merkel's Chancellery at 9 p.m.
The letter that Melville
handed over to Merkel's staff contained the long-awaited answer to how
the German federal government could proceed with highly classified
lists of NSA spying targets. The so-called "selector" lists had become
notorious in Germany and the subject of considerable grief for Merkel
because her foreign intelligence agency, the BND, may have helped the
NSA to spy on German firms as a result of them. The selector lists, which
were fed into the BND's monitoring systems on behalf of the NSA, are
reported to have included both German and European targets that were
spied on by the Americans.
The letter put the German
government in a very delicate position. The expectation had been that
the US government would flat out refuse to allow officials in Berlin to
present the lists to members of the federal parliament, which is
currently investigating NSA spying in Germany, including the
eavesdropping of Merkel's own mobile phone. But that wasn't the case.
Instead, the Americans delivered a more differentiated letter, making
it all the more interesting. Nevertheless, the German government
remained silent about the letter's existence.
And in fact it still
is, and yes: This was and is "Deliberate Deception". There is
considerably more in the article, which I leave to your own interests.
Proposals for the classification of Chronic pain in ICD-11
The final item today
is by AdminDxRW on dxrevisionwatch.
I think this item - not
a crisis item - will be of interest only to people with M.E.,
Fibromyalgia or with chronic pain, but then I have been
someone who has "M.E./Fibromyalgia" (in 1989) where the second
alternative was added especially because I have and had chronic pain
for a long time , and there still are people
with either or both
diseases who do follow my site.
So here it is:
Note that this is Part 1. There also is a Part
2 (on Fibromyalgia). Finally, while this is the kind of
information I like, it should be remarked that the whole
discussion is both fairly technical and provisional (because it
is about a proposed revision of the WHO/ICD coding for diseases and