Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that?

That Inflation rate what you referred to is simply wrong.

Do note that it was made in 2019, three years ago. So enough of that kind of bullshit and here's some actual inflation figures of the present:





@frank is right on this.

Talking to automated bots. But I don't think the objective is to have a discussion. Just to express their views and dominate the thread and ad hominem others. — ssu

You too?

"These people are like automated bots who just want to dominate the thread, so there's no substance to their arguments"

"They just engage in ad hominem arguments"

ad hominem argument
noun

A type of fallacious argument in which the attempt is made to refute a theory or belief by discrediting the person(s) who advocate that theory or belief.

Did your irony meter just break?

The point was that corporate profits have done virtually nothing but rise at an increasingly large margin above nominal GDP. Inflation, no inflation, crash, no crash, crisis, no crisis... none of it's had the slightest impact on the overall trend.

First, that's not true. They love asset price inflation. In fact have been running the economy off it. Second, yes, they will generally kill to keep other kinds of inflation down, except their monetary lever is now completely broken - unlike it was in the 70s - and the US is a dying Empire so will do what it takes to prioritize its global reach over what is still seen as short term pain. The fact is, if it comes down to either creating more dead Ukrainians, or keeping inflation down, the US right now will choose - and is choosing - the creation of more dead Ukrainians.

Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that? — frank

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich

Why would they be pushing it then?

I cannot imagine how stupid one has to be to argue that the US does not have the 'appetite' for more war. They don't not just have an 'appetite'. They have a god damn hunger for it.

May I commend to you both the power of silence. This is too tedious to even try to understand. — unenlightened

All right, I see some good points in there, so I welcome your input. Yet I'm not here to entertain other people, besides this is a philosophical forum where certain peculiar intellectual exercises (like switching focus from ideological principles to meta-conversational principles) shouldn't appear as exotic or inappropriate as they could appear in more mainstream political debates. That's why I don't mind giving my contribution accordingly.

The point was that corporate profits have done virtually nothing but rise at an increasingly large margin above nominal GDP. Inflation, no inflation, crash, no crash, crisis, no crisis... none of it's had the slightest impact on the overall trend. — Isaac

The overall trend has been that nominal GDP has risen too: the World economy is far larger than in 1989, when lot's of Chinese where still bicycling the streets of Beijing and living in the countryside. But having said that, it's also true what you are saying about corporate profits. They have been on a far higher level than before.



The basic problem is that monetary policy has started to be about assisting the market, make it so that corporation reap good profits and the stock market goes up. It hasn't been about inflation as the stock market (or more generally a financial) bubble that burst during 2009 crisis was desperately tried to reinflated, which cause inflation to stay low as the obvious correction would have deflationary.

But then I guess came all that covid stimulus and finally the floodgates of inflation. And now the nominal profits can be up, but substract inflation and those winning aren't so big. We finally have the inflation problem and likely it won't go away easily.

Yeah, don't they just hate it...



...only a few countries left to go, then they'll have the full set.

I cannot imagine how stupid one has to be to argue that the US does not have the 'appetite' for more war. — Streetlight

They have an appetite for war that doesn't show, doesn't affect them and what they can finance by simply printing more money. People likely don't even know that the US is still in Iraq still fighting the "War on Terror". Among other places.

What this has to do with the utterly stupid statement that

Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding. — ssu

Is beyond me. Again, still the stupidest statement in this entire 228 page thread. Maybe second only to "NATO is a defensive alliance".

You have a knack for picking the worst foils for your contributions (I mean, Apollodorus? Really?)

...only a few countries left to go, then they'll have the full set. — Isaac

An interesting table. I don't know how they have made it. If we put UK and England to be the same country, then it's number is 241, so 3rd place. Others put the UK to be the country that has had wars with the largest number of other countries. Of course this is a historical perspective, not confined to the 20th and 21st Centuries.

The Countries That Have Had The Most Wars

1. Spain: 300+
2. France: 250+
3. Hungary: 190
4. United Kingdom: 180
5. India: 148
6. Austria: 115
7. Poland: 115
8. The Philippines: 110
9. Iran: 104
10. United States: 101
11. Argentina: 90
12. Brazil: 78
13. Russia: 75
14. Nigeria: 67
15. Denmark: 66
16. Sweden: 64
17. Afghanistan: 61
18. England: 61
19. Germany: 57

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again.
— Olivier5

Was there some hidden text in there? Some cipher maybe? Because it looks (to those of us so attentionally challenged) as if it contained absolutely nothing but an insult to those critical of the west. — Isaac

"NATO caca" is not really an insult. Rather it's an apt summary for many posts here.

now completely broken - unlike it was in the 70s - and the US is a dying Empire so will do what it takes to prioritize its global reach over what is still seen as short term pain. — Streetlight

Their global reach is intact at the moment. The oil shock is expected to worsen, especially if the Chinese stop acting like they just discovered Covid19.

Their global reach is intact at the moment. — frank

Yeah so long as they keep pumping money and weapons in to produce dead Ukrainians.

:lol:

And now the nominal profits can be up, but substract inflation and those winning aren't so big. We finally have the inflation problem and likely it won't go away easily. — ssu

You're right, we should look at real-term profits as well as real-term stock price...



Anyone notice any kind of trend?

"NATO caca" is not really an insult. Rather it's an apt summary for many posts here. — Olivier5

I see, well in that case you can fuck off you fatuous twat - just an apt summary of the situation, mind. Not an insult.

Anyone notice any kind of trend? — Isaac

That's quite a truthful graph. Calling it an "Central Bank bubble" is quite apt.

Again, still the stupidest statement in this entire 228 page thread. — Streetlight

Say's the guy who glaringly posted how absurd it was to think that Russia would invade Ukraine...



And later, just few days (hours) that the war started:

Yes - I mistook American excitement at another war for just another extention of the Russuophobic propaganda they had been peddling for years. I should have known better.

I got that wrong and still at least I didn't say something so fucking stupid like The West doesn't like war.

That's quite a truthful graph. — ssu

Uh huh. So where in that graph is any kind of support at all for the ludicrous claim that America gives a shit about long drawn out wars? Where's the gradual decline caused by the fact that America has been almost permanently at war somewhere for the last 200 years?

That's quite a truthful graph. Calling it an "Central Bank bubble" is quite apt. — ssu

Why do they position the "bubbles" after the bust, instead of putting them in the proper place, before the bust? I wouldn't call that truthful.

That really depends on what you're counting. If you consider each Indian tribe a separate nation then the US is build on around 300 wars with a like number of treaties broken. And since the US treated with them separately we should impute some sovereignty there.

Yes, it's more like...

See this dog will bite me any minute
* poke, poke*
...any minute now, you'll see how viscous it is
* kick, poke, slap*
...any minute...
* kick, prod, take bone*
...There! See! It bit me! I told you it was a viscous dog

NATO doctrine: Russia is wrong even if right, enemy even if not. — SpaceDweller

:100: :up:

None of that has anything to do with NATO's mission. — Olivier5

It has to do with NATO's ACTIONS though, which is what matters!

BTW that painting is a bit of a joke, really.

England, France, and Belgium with crowned and laurelled heads, but in bare feet? What are they, royal fishwives? Or are they getting ready for a stroll on a beach on the Cote D’Azur? Or perhaps Knokke-Heist in Belgium?

I think Seignac got Belgium right, but is he trying to say that France is the heiress of Rome? And why is England a redhead? Is that supposed to be an insult to Churchill's "Anglo-Saxons", or is it a sneaky allusion to Britain’s Celtic and, therefore, “Gallic” heritage?

Come to think of it, was the painting approved by Churchill’s propaganda bureau?

As Churchill might have said (in a heavy British accent): Qu'est-ce que vous dites, monsieur le olivier? :smile:

To a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things, I guess. — neomac

Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl:

As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego.

In any case, you obviously haven’t followed the discussion because your fabricated straw arguments are totally irrelevant and have not an ounce of merit to them.

It ought to be obvious that saying that Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine, does NOT make me pro-Russian. Territorial concessions have been suggested as a solution by Western analysts and even Zelensky has indicated that he is "willing to negotiate". So, I don't think it is that "deranged" at all.

Even in the best case, if Zelensky wants a negotiated settlement, he will likely have to make significant concessions to Russia—as he has acknowledged. Any such concessions will probably be bitterly opposed by many in the United States and Europe. Ultimately, though, it is not their call. The democratically elected government of Ukraine should get to decide what price it is willing to pay for an end to the slaughter of its citizens and the preservation of Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign state.

To Support Zelensky, the United States Needs to Negotiate With Putin - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

CEIP is a respected international affairs think tank, not a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

Theoretically, at least, we could go even further and consider that Crimea was controlled for nearly two thousand years by the Greeks who built many cities in the region. Greece, therefore, should have some say on it. After all, from the Minoans and Mycenaeans to Plato and Aristotle, Greece gave civilization to the Western world. So, it shouldn't be erased from history or from the map.

Once Crimea has been taken from Ukraine and given to Russia, the Russians could either give it to Greece or share use of it with Greece. The same applies to formerly Greek islands and other territories along Russia's Black Sea coast.

Similarly, Kaliningrad was part of the German province of East Prussia for many centuries, therefore Russia should evacuate the illegal Russian settlers who were put there by Stalin and return the territory to Germany.

And, yes, as I said, China should give Tibet back to the Tibetans, Turkey should give North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, etc.

I think even the ignorant and the uneducated can see that I’m simply applying the general principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. Nothing to do with Putin whatsoever except in the deluded imagination of NATO’s useful idiots and professional trolls.

Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be allies and friends. Unfortunately, this is impossible because Anglo-American imperialism is driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. That, after all, is the stated raison d’etre of NATO!!!

The fact is that NATO was created by America and its British vassal-state as an anti-German and anti-Russian organization with the express aim of keeping “Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

It requires a good deal of careful reflection to fully grasp the enormity of this statement. Germany and Russia were continental Europe’s most populous and most powerful nations and bearers of European culture and civilization. To suppress Germany and Russia amounted to suppressing Europe itself!

And what exactly was “keeping the Germans down” supposed to mean? It meant half or more of Germany given to Russia and Poland, and ethnic Germans marched at gunpoint all the way to the west, and beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered on the way, and the survivors put in open-air concentration camps where many died of maltreatment, starvation, disease, and weather exposure.

The status of German prisoners was changed from Prisoners of War (PoWs) to “Disarmed Enemy Forces” which meant that they had no rights under the Geneva Convention and the Allies could literally do with them anything they wanted. Millions of Germans were shipped over to Russia, England, and France as slave laborers and to “re-education” camps in England and America.

As if this wasn’t punishment (or revenge) enough, Germany was to be dismembered into separate Allied-controlled states, its industrial plants dismantled, its forests cut down, and the population forced to live as shepherds and farmers. In a draft memorandum, Churchill wrote with unconcealed satisfaction:

Looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character ....

Morgenthau Plan – Wikipedia

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) - Wikipedia

As for Russia, it was to be “kept out of Europe” because it was Communist. But, first, where did Communism come from? Certainly not from Russia, but from the West. More precisely, from Marx who had spent most of his life in London, England, and who was the hero of England’s and Western Europe’s intellectual elites! Second, Russia was kept out of Western Europe but was allowed to take Eastern Europe, so that not only Germany but the whole of Europe was now divided between America and Russia!

Moreover, the Soviet Union no longer exists. But Russia is still to be kept out of Europe all the same. Up to the 1917 revolution Russia was the enemy because it was “Czarist”, after that it was the enemy because it was “Communist”, and now it is the enemy because it is “Putinist”.

In other words, NATO is desperately trying to justify its parasitic and criminal existence by claiming that Putin wants to “rebuild the Soviet Union” or “the Russian Empire”! I think it is time to dismantle this obviously fabricated narrative and expose it for what it is.

Yes, I’m against US involvement in Ukraine (1) because American governments have zero knowledge or understanding of European history (their ignorance is proverbial in Europe and even in England), and (2) because the US is a foreign power that is hostile to Europe and was brought into Europe by England who is the arch-enemy of continental Europe.

Let’s not forget that the phrase perfidious Albion was coined with England in mind!

"Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to acts of diplomatic slights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the United Kingdom (or England prior to 1707) in their pursuit of self-interest.
Perfidious signifies one who does not keep his faith or word (from the Latin word perfidia), while Albion is an ancient name for Great Britain - Wikipedia

The reality that must be remembered is that it all started with England aiming to eliminate Germany and Russia in order to achieve total world hegemony for itself, after which it dragged America into two world wars that it couldn’t win without American cash and hired guns.

This is why I’m against US and UK meddling in Ukraine. But I’m not against European countries like Germany, for example, getting involved if that helps to end the conflict.

I’ve said many times before that the destruction of Germany has created a dangerous power vacuum in Europe that both Russia and America seek to fill, and THIS is what lies at the root of the conflict.

The real and lasting solution is for Germany to be restored as a Central European power that can balance other powers to the east and west. Without Germany, the region is controlled by weak countries like Poland and Ukraine that are easily bullied and dominated by America and Britain, which makes the whole of Europe an Anglo-American colony.

If Americans don't like being a European colony, they shouldn't insist on Europe being an American colony. Very simple and easy to understand, IMHO.

Plus, I’ve asked the NATO jihadis many times what they would do if they were in Russia’s shoes. I never got even one single answer. So, in the absence of any reasonable alternative, my suggestion seems the most logically consistent here.

Incidentally, Europe has a population of 450+ million and an active-duty military personnel of 1+ million. The US has a population 330 million and an active military personnel of nearly 500,000:

EU-US-NATO Empire: population 780 million, active military 1,5 million.
Russian Federation: population 145 million, active military 800,000.

I for one don’t see how Russia is a “threat” to NATO or even to Europe in general, unless you mean that Russia is a threat to US interests in Europe, which of course is a totally different matter, given that the US has no business being in Europe in the first place.

As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” () after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl:

Anyway, do carry on believing your own propaganda if it makes you happy. It’s all the same to me ….

Come to think of it, was the painting approved by Churchill’s propaganda bureau? — Apollodorus

The Seignac painting dates back to 1914. It's an allegory about WW1 and the rape of Belgium.

I find it interesting because it depicts fear, unlike many propaganda pieces that tend to glorify such representation of the motherland, as powerful and martial. Here we have something different: an original work of art showing three Western European nations afraid of a peril coming from the East, and bounding together in renewed solidarity.

IOW, this is still a political piece saying that France, the UK etc have just cause at the onset of WW1, although more subtle than most similar pieces.

In actual fact, we know that Poincaré lobbied for the war all the way to Moscow.

I posted it partly because it seemed to resonate, and partly to troll people who have a negative image of either Belgium, the UK or France... :-) Because representing them as three beautiful ladies is still a way of glorifying / beautifying these three nations of course, though not a traditional one.

I think Seignac got Belgium right, but is he trying to say that France is the heiress of Rome? And why is England a redhead? Is that supposed to be an insult to Churchill's "Anglo-Saxons", or is it a sneaky allusion to Britain’s Celtic and, therefore, “Gallic” heritage? — Apollodorus

Two ladies have crowns on their heads as they represent the kingdoms of Belgium and UK. The French girl wears a laurel wreath instead, probably in reference to the Roman republic.

Yes, the red hair may be an allusion to the Celts, who were however not all 'Gallic'. There were and still are many different Celtic nations.

Cait J with the goods, as usual:

It's just a simple fact that the Biden administration is actually hindering diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to this war, and that it has refused to provide Ukraine with any kind of diplomatic negotiating power regarding the possible rollback of sanctions and other US measures to help secure peace. Washington's top diplomats have consistently been conspicuously absent from any kind of dialogue with their counterparts in Moscow. 

Statements from the administration in fact indicate that they expect this war to drag on for a long time, making it abundantly clear that a swift end to minimize the death and destruction is not just uninteresting but undesirable for the US empire. Ukrainian media report that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Zelensky on behalf of NATO powers that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not."

---

...The imperial political/media class are not even denying that this is a US proxy war anymore. In an alarmingly rapid pivot from the mass media's earlier position that calling this a proxy war is merely an "accusation" promoted solely by Russia, we're now seeing the use of that term becoming more and more common in authorized news outlets. The New Yorker came right out and declared that the US is in "a full proxy war with Russia" the other day, and US congressman Seth Moulton recently told Fox News that the US is at war with Russia through a proxy.

"At the end of the day, we've got to realize we're at war, and we're not just at war to support the Ukrainians," Moulton said. "We're fundamentally at war, although it's somewhat through proxy, with Russia. And it's important that we win."

---

...And it's not just a proxy war, it's a proxy war the US knowingly provoked. We know now that the US intelligence cartel had clear vision into Russia's plans to launch this invasion, which means they also knew how to prevent it. A few low-cost maneuvers like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO as well as promising Zelensky that the US would protect him and his government from the violent fascist factions who were threatening to kill him if he honored the Minsk agreements and made peace with Russia as Ukrainians elected him to do. That's all it would have taken.

Many, many western experts warned for many years that the actions of the US and NATO would lead to the confrontation we're now being menaced with. There was every opportunity to turn away from this war, and instead the US-centralized empire hit the accelerator and drove right into it. Knowingly.

The whole thing was premeditated. All with the goal of weakening Russia and effecting regime change in Moscow in order to secure US unipolar hegemony.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/ukraine-alone-makes-biden-the-worst?s=w