theduran--2020-01-14--ISIS Applauds Trump’s Killing Soleimani

ISIS Applauds Trump’s Killing Soleimani

According to BBC ’ s top expert on jihadist movements , official publications from ISIS are now calling the killing of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani an act of God , and are portraying Shiite Iran as Muslims ’ greatest enemy , more so even than powers that don ’ t claim to be Muslim .
In a series of tweets from the BBC ’ s jihadism-expert , Mina al-Lami , she explains why ISIS is ecstatic that Soleimani is dead — they say that it ’ s because the killing of Soleimani is a strong display from God that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of jihad .
Her tweets show photos of some of these ISIS publications , paraphrase from them , and place their statements into a broader context of Islamic history and of the ancient split between fundamentalist Sunni Islam , on the one hand , and all of Shiite Islam ( including especially Iran ’ s ) , on the other .
Here are highlights from this string of tweets , by Mina al-Lami , the BBC ’ s expert on jihadist movements .
She makes clear , “ Views are mine.
” These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but from herself , to explain why ISIS is so happy that Solomeini is dead : This is the typical position of jihadists in such situations : they gloat and pray that God weakens their enemies ’ at the hands of one another , for the benefit of jihadists [ : ] IS gloats at death of Soleimani in first comment on US-Iran crisis Islamic State group ( ISIS ) has welcomed the death of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani , portraying his demise in a US drone strike on 3 Janua… Thread : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # AlNaba , # ISIS welcomes the death of # Soleimani in a US drone strike , but is careful not to openly credit the US for his demise but portrays it as an act of God to support IS and Muslims more broadly .
It welcomes IS enemies being busy fighting each other , saying it distracts them away from “ Muslims ” and drains their energy which , it adds , benefits jihadists .
It says , thanking God , US and Iran are today busy targeting each other “ indifferent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual fight against the Islamic State ” .
Elsewhere in al-Naba , IS factually reports on US suspension of its operations against IS in Iraq , and notes “ European ” concern about the impact it may have on empowering IS This is the typical position of jihadists in such situations : they gloat and pray that God weakens their enemies ’ at the hands of one another , for the benefit of jihadists MY COMMENTARY ON THIS : Though , generally in the press , jihadism is treated as being just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common portrayal is a serious distortion of the reality , which goes back to 1744 , when the fundamentalist Islamic cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab signed a blood oath with the aspiring political leader and conqueror Muhammad ibn Saud , to form a new Islamic nation , starting in the desert of what now is Saudi Arabia .
It was to be a fusion in which the laws come from God as based upon the Quran , and the government applies those laws , so that , in effect , the Quran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries .
That ’ s Sharia Law — law derived from the Quran and from its expert interpreters as determined by the Wahhabist clergy .
Wahhab hated Shiites and considered them to be the worst and most hypocritical fake Muslims , followers of distorters of the will of God as it had been expressed by God ’ s Prophet Mohammed in the Quran .
Whereas in this new nation , the government would be ruled by descendants from Muhammad ibn Saud , the clergy would be followers of Muhammad ibn Wahhab .
Part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or kill all Shiites .
This is the most extreme exclusionist version of Islam .
In other countries than Saudi Arabia , it is known not as Wahhabism , but as Salafism , or ancestral Islam , because it is claimed to represent the purest interpretation of God ’ s laws .
The greatest threat to it , in that view , is Shia Islam , which must be wiped out in order to then become enabled to take over the world for God by going after all other infidels .
On 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis , Except Terrorism Against Israel ” and listed there the 54 most prominently reported instances of Islamic terrorism , from 11 September 2001 to then — a 16-year period — and all of them except for the ones that were directed against Israel , were by fundamentalist-Sunni groups .
( Israel also was hit by some Sunni groups , but all other countries only by Sunni groups . )
Not all of those terrorist groups were Wahhabist , but all were either Wahhabist or Salafist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentalist Sunni groups .
One of its main differences from Al Qaeda is that whereas Al Qaeda leadership try to restrain their members from attacking Shiites , and aim to achieve as wide support from the world ’ s Muslims as they possibly can while still advancing the jihadist cause , there are no such restraints placed upon the followers of ISIS regarding Shiites , all of whom are instead to be treated as infidels , and either killed or else converted .
Iranian General Soleimani was among the leading , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide , leading the fight against ISIS , not only in Iraq , but as far away as in India .
This is the reason why ISIS lauds what Trump did .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
According to BBC’s top expert on jihadist movements, official publications from ISIS are now calling the killing of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani an act of God, and are portraying Shiite Iran as Muslims’ greatest enemy, more so even than powers that don’t claim to be Muslim.
In a series of tweets from the BBC’s jihadism-expert, Mina al-Lami, she explains why ISIS is ecstatic that Soleimani is dead — they say that it’s because the killing of Soleimani is a strong display from God that God is wreaking revenge against the opponents of jihad. Her tweets show photos of some of these ISIS publications, paraphrase from them, and place their statements into a broader context of Islamic history and of the ancient split between fundamentalist Sunni Islam, on the one hand, and all of Shiite Islam (including especially Iran’s), on the other.
Here are highlights from this string of tweets, by Mina al-Lami, the BBC’s expert on jihadist movements. She makes clear, “Views are mine.” These statements do not come from BBC, but from herself, to explain why ISIS is so happy that Solomeini is dead:
BBC ISIS Specialist Mina al-Lami
Jihadism specialist; Editorial Lead/team manager @BBC Monitoring (http://monitoring.bbc.co.uk ) Views are mine.
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215640123234226176
@Minalami
Jan 10
More
This is the typical position of jihadists in such situations: they gloat and pray that God weakens their enemies’ at the hands of one another, for the benefit of jihadists[:]
IS gloats at death of Soleimani in first comment on US-Iran crisis
Islamic State group (ISIS) has welcomed the death of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, portraying his demise in a US drone strike on 3 Janua…
6:22 AM – 10 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215558265272197122
Thread: In the editorial of its weekly paper #AlNaba, #ISIS welcomes the death of #Soleimani in a US drone strike, but is careful not to openly credit the US for his demise but portrays it as an act of God to support IS and Muslims more broadly.
12:57 AM – 10 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215558269588201472
It welcomes IS enemies being busy fighting each other, saying it distracts them away from “Muslims” and drains their energy which, it adds, benefits jihadists.
12:57 AM – 10 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215558272272478210
It says, thanking God, US and Iran are today busy targeting each other “indifferent to the impact it has on their mutual fight against the Islamic State”.
12:57 AM – 10 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215558273581166598
Elsewhere in al-Naba, IS factually reports on US suspension of its operations against IS in Iraq, and notes “European” concern about the impact it may have on empowering IS
12:57 AM – 10 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/Minalami/status/1215558274952593408
This is the typical position of jihadists in such situations: they gloat and pray that God weakens their enemies’ at the hands of one another, for the benefit of jihadists
12:57 AM – 10 Jan 2020
—
MY COMMENTARY ON THIS:
Though, generally in the press, jihadism is treated as being just a movement of some crazed Muslims, that common portrayal is a serious distortion of the reality, which goes back to 1744, when the fundamentalist Islamic cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab signed a blood oath with the aspiring political leader and conqueror Muhammad ibn Saud, to form a new Islamic nation, starting in the desert of what now is Saudi Arabia. It was to be a fusion in which the laws come from God as based upon the Quran, and the government applies those laws, so that, in effect, the Quran is to become the constitution for Muslim countries. That’s Sharia Law — law derived from the Quran and from its expert interpreters as determined by the Wahhabist clergy. Wahhab hated Shiites and considered them to be the worst and most hypocritical fake Muslims, followers of distorters of the will of God as it had been expressed by God’s Prophet Mohammed in the Quran. Whereas in this new nation, the government would be ruled by descendants from Muhammad ibn Saud, the clergy would be followers of Muhammad ibn Wahhab. Part of their shared oath was to convert or kill all Shiites. This is the most extreme exclusionist version of Islam. In other countries than Saudi Arabia, it is known not as Wahhabism, but as Salafism, or ancestral Islam, because it is claimed to represent the purest interpretation of God’s laws. The greatest threat to it, in that view, is Shia Islam, which must be wiped out in order to then become enabled to take over the world for God by going after all other infidels.
On 9 June 2017, I headlined “All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel” and listed there the 54 most prominently reported instances of Islamic terrorism, from 11 September 2001 to then — a 16-year period — and all of them except for the ones that were directed against Israel, were by fundamentalist-Sunni groups. (Israel also was hit by some Sunni groups, but all other countries only by Sunni groups.) Not all of those terrorist groups were Wahhabist, but all were either Wahhabist or Salafist.
ISIS is the most extreme of all fundamentalist Sunni groups. One of its main differences from Al Qaeda is that whereas Al Qaeda leadership try to restrain their members from attacking Shiites, and aim to achieve as wide support from the world’s Muslims as they possibly can while still advancing the jihadist cause, there are no such restraints placed upon the followers of ISIS regarding Shiites, all of whom are instead to be treated as infidels, and either killed or else converted.
Iranian General Soleimani was among the leading, if not the very top, of all generals worldwide, leading the fight against ISIS, not only in Iraq, but as far away as in India. This is the reason why ISIS lauds what Trump did.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--Ceasefire Failure as Haftar Leaves Russia To Resume Military Operations in Libya

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a joint statement last week regarding the civil war raging in Libya to “ declare a sustainable ceasefire , supported by the necessary measures to be taken for stabilizing the situation on the ground and normalizing daily life in Tripoli and other cities.
” However , as I said in last week ’ s article , Russia has little influence over the Libyan National Army ( LNA ) and there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any terms made in any proposed ceasefire agreement .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to admit to reporters that talks last night in Moscow “ aimed at reaching an agreement on an unconditional and open ceasefire in Libya failed to make significant progress Monday , despite overall progress on the issue.
” The ceasefire talks were held separately as neither Haftar or Fayez al-Sarraj , the ethnic Turk leader of the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood and internationally recognized Government of National Accord ( GNA ) based in Tripoli , wanted to be at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with Haftar and the Turkish delegation held a similar meeting with Sarraj .
Haftar declined to discuss any possible withdrawal of his troops from the outskirts of Tripoli and asked for more time to consider the parameters of the ceasefire proposal .
Haftar made it clear that his army was at an advantage and did not have to make any concessions , but responded positively to the ceasefire that was in place at midnight on Sunday , despite isolated incidents of fire being exchanged .
He even criticized Turkey for its involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the GNA , which defends Tripoli with jihadists who also fought in Syria .
Despite initial positive signs at last night ’ s meeting held in Moscow for a ceasefire between the GNA , the LNA , it quickly became explosive .
The hope of signing a ceasefire utterly failed with Haftar leaving Russia and military operations in Tripoli intensifying .
This occurred because of the insistent unrealistic demands by the GNA , such as calling for Haftar ’ s forces to return to positions they held all the way back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tripoli began .
This of course was rejected by the LNA since they would lose major territorial gains made .
“ The document presented in front of me was a document of shame and betrayal , something the Government of National Accord were happy to sign , but our real Libyan hands never could , ” said Haftar when explaining why he did not sign the ceasefire .
It is a fact that the big players on the Libyan issue are Russia , despite having little influence over the LNA and Turkey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the Europeans are acting powerless to react vigorously and to get enough resolutions .
Despite the failure of the ceasefire agreement , Russia has proven once again to be a country that continually works towards peace initiatives , just as it consistently does in Syria through a variety of forums , such as the Astana Peace Process with Turkey and Iran .
Russia would have known the ceasefire would not be signed ; however , it provided an opportunity to strengthen relations with Turkey as Moscow proves it is willing to actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of importance with Ankara .
It appears that Russia is becoming the power to pacify Turkey after it creates crises .
Although Russia is working closely with Turkey to bring peace to Syria and Libya , it can not be forgotten that Turkey was one of the main players in sowing instability in both Syria and Libya .
The militancy against the legitimate government of Syria would not have been possible without Turkish funding , arming and equipment of jihadists , as well as being a base for anti-government forces to mobilize and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose stint in power has gone well beyond its two-year mandate , would not have survived for as long as it has without Turkish assistance .
While Turkey manufactures crises across the region , it is increasingly appearing that Russia is the one to clean up , or attempting to clean up the chaos created .
Although Moscow , at no fault of its own , failed to convince the LNA to sign a ceasefire agreement , its attempts demonstrate the importance Russia is placing in its relations with Turkey .
As Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bosporus Straits , strong relations with Ankara is critical for Moscow .
For the time being , such relations are crucial for finding peaceful solutions , but Moscow ’ s patience will surely be limited if Turkey continues to create crises .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a joint statement last week regarding the civil war raging in Libya to “declare a sustainable ceasefire, supported by the necessary measures to be taken for stabilizing the situation on the ground and normalizing daily life in Tripoli and other cities.” However, as I said in last week’s article, Russia has little influence over the Libyan National Army (LNA) and there is no incentive for General Khalifa Haftar to accept any terms made in any proposed ceasefire agreement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to admit to reporters that talks last night in Moscow “aimed at reaching an agreement on an unconditional and open ceasefire in Libya failed to make significant progress Monday, despite overall progress on the issue.”
The ceasefire talks were held separately as neither Haftar or Fayez al-Sarraj, the ethnic Turk leader of the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood and internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) based in Tripoli, wanted to be at the same table. The Russian delegation met with Haftar and the Turkish delegation held a similar meeting with Sarraj. Haftar declined to discuss any possible withdrawal of his troops from the outskirts of Tripoli and asked for more time to consider the parameters of the ceasefire proposal. Haftar made it clear that his army was at an advantage and did not have to make any concessions, but responded positively to the ceasefire that was in place at midnight on Sunday, despite isolated incidents of fire being exchanged. He even criticized Turkey for its involvement in the country and for the support to the GNA, which defends Tripoli with jihadists who also fought in Syria.
Despite initial positive signs at last night’s meeting held in Moscow for a ceasefire between the GNA, the LNA, it quickly became explosive. The hope of signing a ceasefire utterly failed with Haftar leaving Russia and military operations in Tripoli intensifying. This occurred because of the insistent unrealistic demands by the GNA, such as calling for Haftar’s forces to return to positions they held all the way back in April 2019 when the operation to liberate Tripoli began. This of course was rejected by the LNA since they would lose major territorial gains made.
“The document presented in front of me was a document of shame and betrayal, something the Government of National Accord were happy to sign, but our real Libyan hands never could,” said Haftar when explaining why he did not sign the ceasefire.
It is a fact that the big players on the Libyan issue are Russia, despite having little influence over the LNA and Turkey. The U.S. is watching discreetly and remotely while the Europeans are acting powerless to react vigorously and to get enough resolutions. Despite the failure of the ceasefire agreement, Russia has proven once again to be a country that continually works towards peace initiatives, just as it consistently does in Syria through a variety of forums, such as the Astana Peace Process with Turkey and Iran. Russia would have known the ceasefire would not be signed; however, it provided an opportunity to strengthen relations with Turkey as Moscow proves it is willing to actively acknowledge and attempt to deal on issues of importance with Ankara.
It appears that Russia is becoming the power to pacify Turkey after it creates crises. Although Russia is working closely with Turkey to bring peace to Syria and Libya, it cannot be forgotten that Turkey was one of the main players in sowing instability in both Syria and Libya. The militancy against the legitimate government of Syria would not have been possible without Turkish funding, arming and equipment of jihadists, as well as being a base for anti-government forces to mobilize and train. In Libya, the GNA whose stint in power has gone well beyond its two-year mandate, would not have survived for as long as it has without Turkish assistance. While Turkey manufactures crises across the region, it is increasingly appearing that Russia is the one to clean up, or attempting to clean up the chaos created.
Although Moscow, at no fault of its own, failed to convince the LNA to sign a ceasefire agreement, its attempts demonstrate the importance Russia is placing in its relations with Turkey. As Turkey occupies strategic space in Eurasia and controls the Bosporus Straits, strong relations with Ankara is critical for Moscow. For the time being, such relations are crucial for finding peaceful solutions, but Moscow’s patience will surely be limited if Turkey continues to create crises.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--Macron forced to back down over pension reform amidst raging protests

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johanna Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… Once again the French have shown the world now to protest , and that protesting works .
President Emmanuel Macron was forced to roll back his plans for pensions reform over the weekend as demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday in what was entering a second month of social unrest .
Paris had come to a standstill over the festive season ; trains , including the metro had ground to a halt , save a couple of main lines during peak times , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has been agreed to scrap for the time being , a plan to raise the full-benefits retirement age from 62 to 64 .
France currently has a pensions deficit of around $ 19 billion , and although Macron ’ s proposals would have gone some way to fixing it , the President is going to have to rethink his approach .
The idea is to wait until at least April , by which a report into the pensions deficit should be ready .
Macron has seen unprecedented protests during his tenure so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the longest in modern French history .
Although it has been given minimal coverage in the corporate media , Yellow Vest demonstrations for economic and social justice have been a weekly feature of the Macron presidency since as far back as October 2018 .
But this hasn ’ t stopped ‘ Manu ’ -as some call him – from trying to implement a range of reforms which workers feel undermine their rights .
Forced to abandon his fuel tax rise back in 2018 as a result of protests , he then embarked on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest of which has been to pensions .
And despite being reported in mainstream media as being merely a retirement age increase from 62 to 64 for certain professions , what Macron proposed was not quite as harmless as is being portrayed .
Referred to by France ’ s CGT union as a ‘ smokescreen ’ , the pension reforms were to replace France ’ s 42 separate pension regimes with a points system .
But opponents say by doing that , people would be required to work for longer or be left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would also abolish benefits like early retirement for certain groups of workers .
And far from women being ‘ big winners ’ from the reforms as the government maintains , it seems the opposite could be true , with widows , divorced women and mothers who take career breaks to raise their families , being particularly penalised .
As a result , the majority of French support the strikes – around 62 % according to an RTL poll .
One might think that Macron would have learnt some lessons from his predecessors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacques Chirac , tried to overhaul pensions in 1995 , leading to three weeks of strikes which equally resulted in a government U-turn .
But Macron has had a ruthless , defiant approach towards the protestors since the outset ; determined not to give in to their demands .
Even before he became President , he proclaimed in response to a question about pushing through economic reforms ‘ if we get a few protests , it won ’ t be a show-stopper ’ .
And this attitude is what is at the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For it is Macron ’ s lofty , high-handed approach which has irked people from the very beginning .
The idea that people ’ s feelings towards the reforms are somehow irrelevant – the very people who are powering the machine that is the city of Paris – is gravely wrong , and will only inspire more French to take to the streets .
These people are no different from those who led the revolution of the 18th century , and it would be a mistake to think that they will accept to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any more than their ancestors did .
The mood in the streets has been militant of late ; emotions are running high .
The French people have proved that they are a force to be reckoned with .
It is to Emmanuel Macron ’ s detriment if he underestimates them .
Currently he is presiding over one of the most socially turbulent periods in France ’ s modern history .
If he is to save his legacy at all , he must begin by respecting the citizens he presides over , and ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the republic : freedom , equality and fraternity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
Once again the French have shown the world now to protest, and that protesting works. President Emmanuel Macron was forced to roll back his plans for pensions reform over the weekend as demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday in what was entering a second month of social unrest. Paris had come to a standstill over the festive season; trains, including the metro had ground to a halt, save a couple of main lines during peak times, as commuters and shoppers stayed at home.
It has been agreed to scrap for the time being, a plan to raise the full-benefits retirement age from 62 to 64. France currently has a pensions deficit of around $19 billion, and although Macron’s proposals would have gone some way to fixing it, the President is going to have to rethink his approach. The idea is to wait until at least April, by which a report into the pensions deficit should be ready.
Macron has seen unprecedented protests during his tenure so far. Indeed this latest one is the longest in modern French history. Although it has been given minimal coverage in the corporate media, Yellow Vest demonstrations for economic and social justice have been a weekly feature of the Macron presidency since as far back as October 2018. But this hasn’t stopped ‘Manu’ -as some call him – from trying to implement a range of reforms which workers feel undermine their rights. Forced to abandon his fuel tax rise back in 2018 as a result of protests, he then embarked on a series of other reforms, the latest of which has been to pensions. And despite being reported in mainstream media as being merely a retirement age increase from 62 to 64 for certain professions, what Macron proposed was not quite as harmless as is being portrayed.
Referred to by France’s CGT union as a ‘smokescreen’, the pension reforms were to replace France’s 42 separate pension regimes with a points system. But opponents say by doing that, people would be required to work for longer or be left with less money when they retire. It would also abolish benefits like early retirement for certain groups of workers. And far from women being ‘big winners’ from the reforms as the government maintains, it seems the opposite could be true, with widows, divorced women and mothers who take career breaks to raise their families, being particularly penalised. As a result, the majority of French support the strikes – around 62% according to an RTL poll.
One might think that Macron would have learnt some lessons from his predecessors. Alain Juppe, Prime Minister under Jacques Chirac, tried to overhaul pensions in 1995, leading to three weeks of strikes which equally resulted in a government U-turn. But Macron has had a ruthless, defiant approach towards the protestors since the outset; determined not to give in to their demands. Even before he became President, he proclaimed in response to a question about pushing through economic reforms ‘if we get a few protests, it won’t be a show-stopper’. And this attitude is what is at the heart of the demonstrations against the government. For it is Macron’s lofty, high-handed approach which has irked people from the very beginning.
The idea that people’s feelings towards the reforms are somehow irrelevant – the very people who are powering the machine that is the city of Paris – is gravely wrong, and will only inspire more French to take to the streets. These people are no different from those who led the revolution of the 18th century, and it would be a mistake to think that they will accept to be dictated to by a powerful elite any more than their ancestors did. The mood in the streets has been militant of late; emotions are running high.
The French people have proved that they are a force to be reckoned with. It is to Emmanuel Macron’s detriment if he underestimates them. Currently he is presiding over one of the most socially turbulent periods in France’s modern history. If he is to save his legacy at all, he must begin by respecting the citizens he presides over, and ultimately, by respecting the key message of the republic: freedom, equality and fraternity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--If you believe in freedom, then you should support Open Borders.

History is a great laboratory because so many data are available .
Open Borders makes sense , both economically and socially .
Immigration .
The idea that more than a handful of immigrants come-for government handouts is simply inconsistent with the facts .
The reality ?
Immigrants labor lowers our “ real ” costs of living .
Immigrant labor , whether “ legal ” or “ Illegal ” reduces the costs of construction , food , maintenance , … and on and on .
An incredibly long list .
I studied the immigration issue even more seriously while in graduate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long time , barring people who primarily intend to come to work and improve their lives and the lives of their children has been , like our “ War on Foods ” , a waste of resources and taxpayer money .
Overpopulation ?
Urban areas all over the world seem overpopulated , but would it have been reasonable to ban movements of rural into big cities across the past 200 years ?
Or to have prevented urban sprawl by forbidding city dwellers from migrating into the suburbs after WWII ?
Either approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural to urban migration for more than five decades following WWII .
That policy proved as catastrophic as its ‘ one child ” dictum .
Further : “ Blending ” goes both ways .
Immigrants and their children are far more likely than “ born Americans ” to become entrepreneurs or doctors or inventors or engineers .
Another major benefit : We have many more good choices about food , music , and art because of waves of immigration .
Think about this : My parents considered bread “ foreign food.
” Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more varied for the vast majority of folks .
Dating back to biblical times , many early thinkers viewed commodity production as being the only ‘ true ’ production .
In the 18th century , French physiocrats argued that all value ultimately derives from natural resources — land .
More modern views of production and value originated in the late 19th Century with neoclassical marginalism , when calculus broadened insights into a lot of economic theory .
Prominent early theorists who used calculus extensively included the Austrian Carl Menger , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and William Stanley Jevons , an English mathematician and economic theorist .
An economic definition : PRODUCTION occurs when knowledge—or technology—is used to apply energy to transform materials in ways that make the materials more valuable in satisfying human wants .
Increased value is the key here .
Productive enhancements in value may occur in form , place , time , or ownership .
Examples : Place : A driver and truck and fuel are productive when hauling place to place where the product will be more highly valued .
Time : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer increases when the wheat is stored , so that it will be available in January , in the winter .
Ownership : A realtor is productive when conveying the ownership of a house from a homeowner who values the house less than does the subsequent buyer .
Successful speculators and arbitrageurs also tend to enhance the total value of world production — though frequently by less than the income they extract from these processes .
The rich Middle East despotisms are not more open to immigration than almost any place on earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They welcome laborers who are granted only limited rights and who can be deported at will .
Immigration tends to enhance value in the Middle East .
Misrepresentation of opportunities and then compulsion is an exception .
The cruel exploitation of workers from Indonesia and India and the Philippines is an institutional problem in the Middle East , or anywhere , and is separate from issues about flows of human resources across political boundaries .
People ’ s lives are usually enhanced by their ability to voluntarily relocate .
Apparently , voluntary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by force is never okay .
Petro-despotism is a cruel structure for most citizens , and even worse for almost all non-citizens .
Tends to perform well for the local ‘ royalty.
’ The only non-citizens who tend to do well are foreign military personnel or foreign diplomats or executives for international firms that operate within these countries… Food , clothing , and shelter seem to be basic human rights , from my perspective .
This is not a matter of voting .
Should some children , because of circumstances of their birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miserable lives without adequate food , clothing , and shelter ?
And without access to health care , and a reasonably good education ?
I don ’ t see this issue as appropriately dependent on a vote by tax payers .
These issues hinge on ‘ natural law ’ .
Human life is now far less imperiled by violence , either domestic or foreign , than it was in earlier times .
In 1900 , the average Human lifespan was less than 50 years .
Now , men live , on average to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longevity is , on average , 82+ .
My sense is that rates of honesty or dishonesty haven ’ t changed .
But dishonesty is far more publicized .
The 24-hour news cycle leaves the media starving for sensationalism .
But the statistics are still relatively straightforward .
Nothing is definitely safe .
Nowhere .
Still , the statistics are irrefutable .
We live longer , on average , than at any time in history .
Overall , average longevity has increased by about 60 % during the past century .
Harmed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more endangered by people born and raised .
Rates of violent crime by unauthorized immigrants are lower .
It is impossible to absolutely guarantee perfect safety .
Not many can be as defiantly flint-hearted as Ebeneezer Scrooge .
They would much prefer to be seen as benefactors , offering tough love .
If they had a megaphone they would speak to the poor , and cry : “ Arbeit macht frei !
” Meanwhile , as has been the case historically , the poor are poor not because they are lazy and immoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including but not limited to , a lack of well-paying jobs…

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by Mousumi Roy…
History is a great laboratory because so many data are available. Open Borders makes sense, both economically and socially. Immigration. The idea that more than a handful of immigrants come-for government handouts is simply inconsistent with the facts. The reality? Immigrants labor lowers our “real” costs of living. Immigrant labor, whether “legal” or “Illegal” reduces the costs of construction, food, maintenance, … and on and on. An incredibly long list.
I studied the immigration issue even more seriously while in graduate school. Having considered this issue for a long time, barring people who primarily intend to come to work and improve their lives and the lives of their children has been, like our “War on Foods”, a waste of resources and taxpayer money.
Overpopulation? Urban areas all over the world seem overpopulated, but would it have been reasonable to ban movements of rural into big cities across the past 200 years? Or to have prevented urban sprawl by forbidding city dwellers from migrating into the suburbs after WWII? Either approach would have been silly.
China criminalized rural to urban migration for more than five decades following WWII. That policy proved as catastrophic as its ‘one child” dictum. Further: “Blending” goes both ways. Immigrants and their children are far more likely than “born Americans” to become entrepreneurs or doctors or inventors or engineers.
Another major benefit: We have many more good choices about food, music, and art because of waves of immigration. Think about this: My parents considered bread “foreign food.” Life is now far better, and richer, and more varied for the vast majority of folks.
Dating back to biblical times, many early thinkers viewed commodity production as being the only ‘true’ production. In the 18th century, French physiocrats argued that all value ultimately derives from natural resources — land. More modern views of production and value originated in the late 19th Century with neoclassical marginalism, when calculus broadened insights into a lot of economic theory. Prominent early theorists who used calculus extensively included the Austrian Carl Menger, the Lausanne general equilibrium theorist Léon Walras, and William Stanley Jevons, an English mathematician and economic theorist.
An economic definition: PRODUCTION occurs when knowledge—or technology—is used to apply energy to transform materials in ways that make the materials more valuable in satisfying human wants. Increased value is the key here. Productive enhancements in value may occur in form, place, time, or ownership.
Examples: Place: A driver and truck and fuel are productive when hauling place to place where the product will be more highly valued. Time: The time value of wheat harvested in late summer increases when the wheat is stored, so that it will be available in January, in the winter. Ownership: A realtor is productive when conveying the ownership of a house from a homeowner who values the house less than does the subsequent buyer. Successful speculators and arbitrageurs also tend to enhance the total value of world production — though frequently by less than the income they extract from these processes.
The rich Middle East despotisms are not more open to immigration than almost any place on earth. Those countries do not welcome immigrants. They welcome laborers who are granted only limited rights and who can be deported at will.
Immigration tends to enhance value in the Middle East. Misrepresentation of opportunities and then compulsion is an exception. The cruel exploitation of workers from Indonesia and India and the Philippines is an institutional problem in the Middle East, or anywhere, and is separate from issues about flows of human resources across political boundaries. People’s lives are usually enhanced by their ability to voluntarily relocate. Apparently, voluntary can sometimes be okay. Being pimped by force is never okay. Petro-despotism is a cruel structure for most citizens, and even worse for almost all non-citizens. Tends to perform well for the local ‘royalty.’ The only non-citizens who tend to do well are foreign military personnel or foreign diplomats or executives for international firms that operate within these countries…
Food, clothing, and shelter seem to be basic human rights, from my perspective. This is not a matter of voting. Should some children, because of circumstances of their birth, be doomed to very short and miserable lives without adequate food, clothing, and shelter? And without access to health care, and a reasonably good education? I don’t see this issue as appropriately dependent on a vote by tax payers. These issues hinge on ‘natural law’.
Human life is now far less imperiled by violence, either domestic or foreign, than it was in earlier times. In 1900, the average Human lifespan was less than 50 years. Now, men live, on average to about 75, and women’s longevity is, on average, 82+. My sense is that rates of honesty or dishonesty haven’t changed. But dishonesty is far more publicized. The 24-hour news cycle leaves the media starving for sensationalism. But the statistics are still relatively straightforward. Nothing is definitely safe. Nowhere. Still, the statistics are irrefutable. We live longer, on average, than at any time in history. Overall, average longevity has increased by about 60% during the past century. Harmed by foreigners? Statistically, we are much more endangered by people born and raised. Rates of violent crime by unauthorized immigrants are lower. It is impossible to absolutely guarantee perfect safety.
Not many can be as defiantly flint-hearted as Ebeneezer Scrooge. They would much prefer to be seen as benefactors, offering tough love. If they had a megaphone they would speak to the poor, and cry: “Arbeit macht frei!” Meanwhile, as has been the case historically, the poor are poor not because they are lazy and immoral, but because of systemic flaws, including but not limited to, a lack of well-paying jobs…
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--Impeachment, Soleimani and the Pull of the Swamp

The day Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would open up impeachment proceedings against President Trump I called it a coup .
It was obvious to me then and more obvious to me today that we are headed to a dangerous place ( a dangerous place ) .
Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week and it ’ s clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President .
Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C .
Swamp .
This is what I said back in September : The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they didn ’ t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done .
Ignore the conventional wisdom on this .
They were wrong in the UK .
[ about the courts upholding Johnson proroguing Parliament ] They will be wrong here , unless Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy .
They want their holy war against the apostate Shi ’ ites and they will get it .
Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020 .
If this wasn ’ t the case they wouldn ’ t be risking what ’ s left of their political future defending a senile old man , Joe Biden , who they don ’ t actually want to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step farther .
You don ’ t start this process if you aren ’ t going to use what it gives you .
Thinking only in terms of the Democrats ’ horrific slate of challengers to Trump betrays the myopia of most political analysts .
They see things , wrongly , in terms of partisanship .
This isn ’ t primarily about Democrat v. Republican .
This isn ’ t even just about Clinton v. Trump and a temper tantrum .
And you have to ask yourself the question why would Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real trial unless the fix was in ?
Because , as Trump rightly points out , he ’ s got the approval rating nationally and within his own party .
He ’ s a lock for re-election .
So , given the clear unconstitutionality of these impeachment articles ( which I discussed previously ) why is this even still a thing ?
Because Trump is going to be taken out .
The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt .
Impeachment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran .
Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime , folks .
She gets what she wants : Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump .
She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly .
The neocons in the Senate get what they want — further escalation of pressure on Iran with the hope of destroying them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Israel , the MIC and the world that they are still fully in charge of U.S. foreign policy .
The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation .
The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof .
It ’ s not like Trump hasn ’ t let missiles fly to appease the Neocons in the past .
He did it with the bombing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April of 2017 .
Remember , that was the night the MSM and Congress declared Trump suitably “ Presidential.
” Then he did it again four months later , doubling our presence in Afghanistan in the hopes of getting Obamacare repealed .
Oh , by the way , Lindsey Graham reneged on that deal .
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper doing the Sunday talk show circuit to throw the President under the bus about his intelligence seals the deal .
Now Pelosi wants to add more charges to the docket and McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he should just outright dismiss these charges .
I told you that this all comes down to McConnell and how he handles the terms of the trial .
He sets the table for this .
And if he ’ s not tilting it in Trump ’ s favor , Donald is right to be worried .
Trump ’ s killing Soleimani gives them plenty of cover to do so .
His lack of consistency in defending the act will be used against him .
That ’ s why Esper told the world Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent threat .
So , Trump , often his own worst enemy , then defends himself by saying Soleimani just needed killin ’ .
It ’ s all being stage-managed by a nearly rogue Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and facilitated through Lindsey Graham .
The events that led up to Iran ’ s missile attack on our bases in Iraq should not be taken at face value .
Killing one U.S. oil contractor does not justify attacks on five PMU bases ringing the Iraqi/Syrian border crossing between Al Qaim and Al Bukamai @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking the conflict all the way to the point of Iran firing missiles at our airbases in Iraq .
Don ’ t think for a second that if Graham feels Trump isn ’ t sufficiently controlled at this point that he won ’ t , in the end , wring his hands and vote for his removal from office because the President ’ s decision-making skills are questionable .
If the Swamp truly wants Trump removed from office then this impeachment trial is their best chance of getting that done .
At this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican turncoats .
Swelling that number to twenty in the Senate is not that hard .
Remember , twenty is a helluva lot smaller than the millions of voters that would have to turn against Trump to elect Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings to emerge from a brokered Democratic convention this summer .
And even then , Pence v. Clinton would be a close affair because of the deep divisions within the electorate and Hillary ’ s fundamental evil .
Either way , the Swamp wins .
Nothing happens in D.C. that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people ’ s hands .
To think Pelosi wouldn ’ t use this to its fullest is terminally naive .
To think Trump is savvy enough to see the game board in all its complexity having not one truly loyal staff ( or family ) member is also naive .
To think McConnell is anything more than an order-taker from those above him is the height of naivete .
I give Trump credit for navigating things to this point and keeping the violence to a minimum , but if he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prepared to go scorched earth in the process .
It ’ s his only chance at survival and fulfilling even one of his many campaign promises .
Either way , the U.S. electorate will not stand for removing Trump over this .
And they shouldn ’ t .
I may be angry with Trump for his recent actions , but this impeachment is the height of lunacy .
And when something this ludicrous goes this far , it means the fix is in .
The Flying Monkeys have taken over the asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself an inflection point in history .
The rest is just a chase scene .
Join my Patreon if you support honest analysis of world events and their effect on capital markets Install the Brave Browser to begin clawing back our right to speak freely about them

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog:
The day Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would open up impeachment proceedings against President Trump I called it a coup. It was obvious to me then and more obvious to me today that we are headed to a dangerous place (a dangerous place).
Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week and it’s clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place.
It is the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C. Swamp.
This is what I said back in September:
The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they didn’t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done. Ignore the conventional wisdom on this. They were wrong in the UK.[about the courts upholding Johnson proroguing Parliament] They will be wrong here, unless Trump has something else up his sleeve. His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy. They want their holy war against the apostate Shi’ites and they will get it. Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020. If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be risking what’s left of their political future defending a senile old man, Joe Biden, who they don’t actually want to be the candidate anyway. It’s a coup folks.
Take this one step farther. You don’t start this process if you aren’t going to use what it gives you. Thinking only in terms of the Democrats’ horrific slate of challengers to Trump betrays the myopia of most political analysts.
They see things, wrongly, in terms of partisanship. This isn’t primarily about Democrat v. Republican. This isn’t even just about Clinton v. Trump and a temper tantrum.
Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
And you have to ask yourself the question why would Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell go along with a real trial unless the fix was in?
Because, as Trump rightly points out, he’s got the approval rating nationally and within his own party. He’s a lock for re-election. So, given the clear unconstitutionality of these impeachment articles (which I discussed previously) why is this even still a thing?
Because Trump is going to be taken out.
The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt. Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran.
Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime, folks. She gets what she wants: Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump.
She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly.
The neocons in the Senate get what they want — further escalation of pressure on Iran with the hope of destroying them. Moreover, they prove to Trump, Israel, the MIC and the world that they are still fully in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation.
The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof.
“Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said,” the newspaper reported.
It’s not like Trump hasn’t let missiles fly to appease the Neocons in the past. He did it with the bombing of the Al Shairat airbase in Syria back in April of 2017. Remember, that was the night the MSM and Congress declared Trump suitably “Presidential.”
Then he did it again four months later, doubling our presence in Afghanistan in the hopes of getting Obamacare repealed. Oh, by the way, Lindsey Graham reneged on that deal.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper doing the Sunday talk show circuit to throw the President under the bus about his intelligence seals the deal.
What an astoundingly embarrassing “defense” of President Trump’s claim of bomb threats to four embassies. “What the President said was he believed it probably could have been. He didn’t cite intelligence.” – Defense Secretary Mark Esper pic.twitter.com/b5LwrlbC4K — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) January 12, 2020
Now Pelosi wants to add more charges to the docket and McConnell is going for a trial, when he should just outright dismiss these charges. I told you that this all comes down to McConnell and how he handles the terms of the trial.
He sets the table for this. And if he’s not tilting it in Trump’s favor, Donald is right to be worried.
Trump’s killing Soleimani gives them plenty of cover to do so. His lack of consistency in defending the act will be used against him. That’s why Esper told the world Trump didn’t have proof of an imminent threat.
So, Trump, often his own worst enemy, then defends himself by saying Soleimani just needed killin’.
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020
It’s all being stage-managed by a nearly rogue Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and facilitated through Lindsey Graham. The events that led up to Iran’s missile attack on our bases in Iraq should not be taken at face value.
Killing one U.S. oil contractor does not justify attacks on five PMU bases ringing the Iraqi/Syrian border crossing between Al Qaim and Al Bukamai.
It certainly doesn’t necessitate taking the conflict all the way to the point of Iran firing missiles at our airbases in Iraq.
Don’t think for a second that if Graham feels Trump isn’t sufficiently controlled at this point that he won’t, in the end, wring his hands and vote for his removal from office because the President’s decision-making skills are questionable.
If the Swamp truly wants Trump removed from office then this impeachment trial is their best chance of getting that done. At this point we have a handful of open Republican turncoats. Swelling that number to twenty in the Senate is not that hard.
Remember, twenty is a helluva lot smaller than the millions of voters that would have to turn against Trump to elect Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings to emerge from a brokered Democratic convention this summer.
That’s what’s fundamentally wrong with representative forms of government.
And even then, Pence v. Clinton would be a close affair because of the deep divisions within the electorate and Hillary’s fundamental evil. Either way, the Swamp wins.
Nothing happens in D.C. that doesn’t become a weapon in these people’s hands.
To think Pelosi wouldn’t use this to its fullest is terminally naive. To think Trump is savvy enough to see the game board in all its complexity having not one truly loyal staff (or family) member is also naive.
To think McConnell is anything more than an order-taker from those above him is the height of naivete.
I give Trump credit for navigating things to this point and keeping the violence to a minimum, but if he’s going to go down, he better be prepared to go scorched earth in the process.
It’s his only chance at survival and fulfilling even one of his many campaign promises.
Either way, the U.S. electorate will not stand for removing Trump over this. And they shouldn’t. I may be angry with Trump for his recent actions, but this impeachment is the height of lunacy. And when something this ludicrous goes this far, it means the fix is in.
The Flying Monkeys have taken over the asylum. The existence of this trial is itself an inflection point in history.
The rest is just a chase scene.
Join my Patreon if you support honest analysis of world events and their effect on capital markets
Install the Brave Browser to begin clawing back our right to speak freely about them
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--Martin Luther King’s 91st Birthday: A Reminder of an Existential Choice Still Undecided

The world marches forward into the new year with a mix of hope and trepidation .
The words of Martin Luther King who warned in his final days the universal truth that either we commit to “ nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation ” ring as true today as they did when they were spoken in 1968 .
In that speech , King stated prophetically that “ this may well be mankind ’ s last chance to choose between chaos and community ” .
Had Martin Luther King not been gunned down on the balcony of the Loraine Motel just at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a transformation of the civil rights movement into a global movement for economic justice and also resisting the Vietnam War ( which today ’ s Middle East wars are but an extension ) , the world might have become a very different place .
Unfortunately , a government conspiracy run by the same forces that had already killed Malcolm X and JFK earlier ( and soon would also murder Bobby Kennedy ) did snuff out the life of King .
His spirit , however , has proven to be more resilient than his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spite of decades of effort to destroy the better soul of America that Martin died to defend , the structures of the deep state which overtook America after 1968 stand increasingly weak , insecure and exposed as ever… but not less dangerous , as witnessed by the current efforts to impose a new regime change in Iran and nuclear war with both Russia and China .
With this danger of violent coannihilation in our minds , it is worth revisiting the passionate words of MLK who ended his last speech “ From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the day before his death ) with the words : “ Like anybody , I would like to live a long life .
Longevity has its place .
But I ’ m not concerned about that now .
I just want to do God ’ s will .
And He ’ s allowed me to go up to the mountain .
And I ’ ve looked over .
And I ’ ve seen the Promised Land .
I may not get there with you .
But I want you to know tonight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will get to the promised land !
” King ’ s murderers did not realize in 1968 that a future world could ever come into being that would usher in a paradigm of economic justice , cooperation and harmony which today ’ s New Silk Road Eurasian Alliance is accomplishing .
Out of fear of the re-awakening something asleep in the collective American psyche ( which may yet occur if President Trump is capable of tying America ’ s destiny to this new paradigm ) , a vast slander campaign has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ official ” biographer ) to attempt to run King ’ s memory through the mud of slander .
This occasion of King ’ s birthday gives us a wonderfully opportunity to expose that fraud now .
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , BRI expert correspondent on Tactical Talk and has authored 3 volumes of ‘ Untold History of Canada ’ book series .
His works appear regularly on The Duran , Strategic Culture , Sott , Fort Russ , Zero Hedge , L.A. Review of Books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Front .
In 2019 Matthew co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .
He can be reached at [ email protected ]

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The world marches forward into the new year with a mix of hope and trepidation. The words of Martin Luther King who warned in his final days the universal truth that either we commit to “nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation” ring as true today as they did when they were spoken in 1968. In that speech, King stated prophetically that “this may well be mankind’s last chance to choose between chaos and community”.
Had Martin Luther King not been gunned down on the balcony of the Loraine Motel just at the very moment when he was leading a transformation of the civil rights movement into a global movement for economic justice and also resisting the Vietnam War (which today’s Middle East wars are but an extension), the world might have become a very different place.
Unfortunately, a government conspiracy run by the same forces that had already killed Malcolm X and JFK earlier (and soon would also murder Bobby Kennedy) did snuff out the life of King. His spirit, however, has proven to be more resilient than his enemies ever could have dreamed. In spite of decades of effort to destroy the better soul of America that Martin died to defend, the structures of the deep state which overtook America after 1968 stand increasingly weak, insecure and exposed as ever… but not less dangerous, as witnessed by the current efforts to impose a new regime change in Iran and nuclear war with both Russia and China.
With this danger of violent coannihilation in our minds, it is worth revisiting the passionate words of MLK who ended his last speech “From the Mountaintop” on April 3, 1968 (the day before his death) with the words: “Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”
King’s murderers did not realize in 1968 that a future world could ever come into being that would usher in a paradigm of economic justice, cooperation and harmony which today’s New Silk Road Eurasian Alliance is accomplishing. Out of fear of the re-awakening something asleep in the collective American psyche (which may yet occur if President Trump is capable of tying America’s destiny to this new paradigm), a vast slander campaign has been undertaken by David Garrow (Obama’s “official” biographer) to attempt to run King’s memory through the mud of slander. This occasion of King’s birthday gives us a wonderfully opportunity to expose that fraud now.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, BRI expert correspondent on Tactical Talk and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. His works appear regularly on The Duran, Strategic Culture, Sott, Fort Russ, Zero Hedge, L.A. Review of Books, LeSaker.fr, Vigile Quebec, and South Front. In 2019 Matthew co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-15--Why Only Fools and Crooks Don’t Support Bernie Sanders

An important study was reported on January 7th in the scientific journal Annals of Internal Medicine , published by the American College of Physicians .
It ’ s titled “ Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada , 2017 ” .
Canada doesn ’ t have the best healthcare system in the world , nor the least expensive ; but , amongst industrialized nations , it scores as being about average on quality of healthcare , and also as average on per-capita healthcare costs .
By contrast , the United States scores as below average on quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s costliest , with the world ’ s highest per-capita healthcare costs and also with the highest percentage of the nation ’ s GDP that goes to pay for healthcare .
The World Health Organization rates quality of care in the various nations , and whereas Canada rates low among industrialized nations , U.S. rates at the bottom amongst them .
An analysis as to why these two adjoining countries have such drastically different healthcare-results is long overdue , but finally it has come in this new study ; and what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blind by the investors in America ’ s healthcare corporations and by the U.S. politicians who have been doing their bidding such as all Republicans and ‘ moderate ’ Democrats , who have been defending the U.S. system of paying for healthcare and arguing for only yet more tinkering with that system in order to get it up to international standards ( i.e.
, for it to no longer be at the bottom of the OECD countries ) .
Here is the “ Abstract ” or summary that opens this historic article : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its payment system , health costs , and number of health administrative personnel per capita resembled those of the United States .
By 1999 , administration accounted for 31 % of U.S. health expenditures versus 16.7 % in Canada .
No recent comprehensive analyses of those costs are available .
To quantify 2017 spending for administration by insurers and providers .
Analyses of government reports , accounting data that providers file with regulators , surveys of physicians , and census-collected data on employment in health care .
U.S. insurers and providers spent $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2497 per capita ( 34.2 % of national health expenditures ) versus $ 551 per capita ( 17.0 % ) in Canada : $ 844 versus $ 146 on insurers ’ overhead ; $ 933 versus $ 196 for hospital administration ; $ 255 versus $ 123 for nursing home , home care , and hospice administration ; and $ 465 versus $ 87 for physicians ’ insurance-related costs .
Of the 3.2–percentage point increase in administration ’ s share of U.S. health expenditures since 1999 , 2.4 percentage points was due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mostly because of high overhead in their Medicare and Medicaid managed-care plans .
Estimates exclude dentists , pharmacies , and some other providers ; accounting categories for the 2 countries differ somewhat ; and methodological changes probably resulted in an underestimate of administrative cost growth since 1999 .
The gap in health administrative spending between the United States and Canada is large and widening , and it apparently reflects the inefficiencies of the U.S. private insurance–based , multipayer system .
The prices that U.S. medical providers charge incorporate a hidden surcharge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are typical numbers in the study ’ s findings : In U.S. hospitals , 26.6 % “ of total expenditures ” are “ devoted to administration.
” In Canadian hospitals , 13.1 % are — less than half as much .
In U.S. insurers , 9.6 % goes to “ overhead.
” In Canadian insurers , 3.8 % does — again less than half .
In U.S. nursing homes , 26.7 % goes to “ administration.
” In Canadian ones , the estimated figure is 16.375 % .
In U.S. home health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ administration.
” In Canadian ones , 13.0 % does — less than a third as much .
In U.S. , 21.8 % of “ gross receipts ” in physicians ’ offices pay for “ administration.
” In Canada , that figure is 10.78 % — again less than half .
“ Health care administrative costs in the United States in 2017 totaled … $ 2497 per capita , … or 34.2 % of total spending in the categories for which data are available .
The comparable estimates for Canada are $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of expenditures.
” The explanations as to why socializing the healthcare function produces enormously more cost-efficient and higher quality health care are too complex for a short article such as this , and therefore won ’ t be discussed here .
Suffice it to say that Republican-Party economics ( 100 % capitalism ) is maximally designed to benefit the nation ’ s stockholders , and Democratic Party economics compromises that exclusive concern for investors by providing the rhetoric of concern about other people than stockholders , while still adhering mainly to protecting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 90 % capitalism — which still is among the world ’ s most-capitalist ) .
As Warren Buffett has said , “ There ’ s class warfare , all right , but it ’ s my class , the rich class , that ’ s making war , and we ’ re winning.
” In order to achieve that ongoing victory , lots of money has to be spent on ‘ educating ’ the public to believe that in capitalism there is only the democratic variety , no dictatorial variety ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fascism ” ) and that in socialism there is only the dictatorial variety ( commonly called “ communism ” ) , no democratic variety ( such as in Scandinavia ) .
The aristocrats spend however much it takes , in order to achieve a majority of the public believing their lie — to achieve a majority of the voters becoming and remaining their fools — to believe that 100 % capitalism and 0 % socialism will be optimal for the public and not just for the aristocrats .
For example : even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders — he ’ s the only Democratic candidate who has no billionaires donating to his campaign .
The United States is the only industrialized nation — and one of the minority among all nations — that doesn ’ t treat healthcare as being a right ( “ universal health care ” ) but instead as a privilege ( available only to those who are lucky enough to afford it ) .
In other words : most Americans are obsessively afraid of “ socialism ” — even of the democratic variety that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most Americans have been fooled by the investors in healthcare corporations and by those investors ’ agents in Congress and in the White House for so many decades — the unceasing propaganda against “ socialism ” — the propaganda against human necessities ( such as basic healthcare ) being handled as a right instead of as a privilege that ’ s available only to the people who can afford it .
This is how America became a fascist country — a country ruled by its richest .
( Prior to 1919 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was called “ feudalism.
” Mussolini created fascism , to replace that .
He also instituted the world ’ s first privatizations of Government-owned assets .
In America , privatizations are equated with democracy , though that ’ s actually only ‘ democracy ’ — it ’ s part of the aristocratic con . )
This failure on the part of the U.S. doesn ’ t happen because the profitability of healthcare firms is exceptionally high in the United States .
It happens because of the astoundingly high inefficiencies which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( health , education , and welfare ) — instead of only their wants ( regular consumer products and services ) — on the basis of market-forces ( i.e.
, in a capitalist way ) .
Consider these data : Healthcare profit-margins in the United States , as of 2019 , were : According to an NYU calculation as of 2019 , the “ After-tax Unadjusted Operating Margin ” globally ( not just in the U.S. ) is : Clearly , except for the most-highly-regulated field of pharmaceuticals , where the regulation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in the UK ( so that even a relatively efficient socialized system can improve its efficiency by outlawing and enforcing laws against corruption ) , healthcare profitability in the U.S. is in line with the profitability of other firms , and in line with healthcare profitability globally .
America stands out for its way overpriced , low quality , healthcare , but not for the profitability of its healthcare firms .
The problem with the American healthcare system is instead the incentives .
Without having a healthcare system that ’ s based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a privilege , the inefficiencies will inevitably abound .
A greed-based healthcare system fails for everyone except investors in healthcare companies .
The incentives in the healthcare system should not be to make a profit but to provide terrific care at the lowest possible cost .
It should be based on the producers ’ pride in the quality of their work , according to objective governmentally-established , scientifically validated , measures of their work-outcomes , not on how high their incomes from that work are .
For everyone except investors , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal headlined , on 22 June 2006 , “ How a Hospital Stumbled Across An Rx for Medicaid : Mt .
Sinai Helps Patients Avoid The ER , Paring State Costs And Aiding Its Bottom Line.
” John Carryrou reported that , “ The hospital provides free preventive care to poor East Harlem residents in exchange for higher Medicaid reimbursement rates at its outpatient clinic.
” The aristocrats ’ newspaper , hostile toward “ socialized medicine , ” was nonetheless in the lead reporting on the inefficiencies of America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks later , on July 17th , BusinessWeek headlined “ The Best Medical Care In the U.S. : How Veterans Affairs transformed itself , ” and reporter Catherine Arnst explained how the VA hospital system had transformed itself from bad to excellent by increasing its focus on prevention programs .
Moreover , “ According to a Rand Corp. study , the VA system provides two-thirds of the care recommended by ” standards-setting bodies , “ but the nation ’ s private-sector hospitals provide only 50 % .
” And , whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 8 % of prescriptions erroneously , which means with wrong medications , the comparable error-rate at VA hospitals was only 003 % — virtually nil .
“ This keeps happening despite the fact that the VA spends an average of $ 5,000 per patient , vs. the national average of $ 6,300.
” So , socialized medicine is already higher in quality and lower in cost in the U.S. than is America ’ s typical “ free market ” medicine .
The latter , which Republicans insist upon keeping in place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international and intranational comparisons .
On 5 December 2006 , the Wall Street Journal personalized America ’ s idiotic ( not to say evil ) policy about health care , in a front-page story , with photos , about a beautiful and exceptionally intelligent young woman , Monique White , who , after decades of struggle , was finally brought down by the American healthcare system .
Reporter Jane Zhang headlined “ Amid Fight for Life , A Victim of Lupus Fights for Insurance : Lost in U.S .
Health-Care Maze , Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ms. Zhang noted : “ Many Americans have health insurance , and 47 million don ’ t .
But lots of people are in a messy middle — sometimes insured by employers , sometimes by government , sometimes not at all .
Ms. White was left without health insurance just as her disease took a turn for the worse .
While battling to stay alive and going from doctor to doctor , she had to navigate among government programs , private insurance rules and hospital charity , ” until the compromises to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad , and drove the costs to treat it so high , that she died from this treatable condition , which , in countries that have socialized medicine , isn ’ t even life-threatening ( though it does require constant monitoring , tests , and medication ) .
“ Her case illustrates how arduous the American health-care system can be , even for an educated person in a middle-class family .
Unique among developed countries , the U.S. delivers medical care through a patchwork of public and private entities , paid for by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coverage is tied to the workplace or to intricately crafted government programs.
” Yet , oddly , the same newspaper whose reporter did such an outstanding job of reporting this , was passionately opposed to the solution already long-proven-successful in other countries , which was providing their citizens far better medical care , at half of America ’ s medical cost .
The Wall Street Journal , and other Republicans , had , for decades , lobbied and propagandized the American public against “ socialized health care , ” and so prevented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt , from doing in the United States , what other advanced countries did .
In the millions , Americans like Monique White have been destroyed , simply by barbaric Republican dogma : 100 % capitalism , no socialism even when needs instead of wants are involved .
That ’ s 100 % greed .
Furthermore , as Malcolm Gladwell explained in “ The Risk Pool , ” in the 28 August 2006 New Yorker , “ a system in which companies shoulder their own benefits is ultimately a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits at all.
” A main reason for this is that , “ If the risks of providing for health care and old age pensions are shared by all of us [ via taxes ] , then companies can succeed or fail based on what they do and not on the number of their retirees.
” The American system prejudices in favor of new industries , which have no or few retirees receiving benefits , and against old industries , which are paying out benefits to many retirees .
Gladwell documented that America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GM were sinking because of their extraordinarily high ratios of retirees receiving benefits versus their numbers of current workers ( producing automobiles , etc . )
, which thus drove the costs in these old-line firms through the roof and made them internationally uncompetitive , while America ’ s new industries were avoiding this burden by their temporary good fortune of simply not having many retirees .
Wilbur Ross , who purchased the bankrupt old-line Bethlehem Steel , thus said , “ Every country against which we compete has universal health care .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fifteen-per-cent cost disadvantage versus foreigners for no other reason than historical accident .
… The randomness of our system is just not going to work.
” Ross is now Trump ’ s Secretary of Commerce , and under his friend and fellow Republican , Trump , he ’ s no public proponent of socializing the healthcare industries .
on 25 January 2007 , the New York Times headlined “ Bonus Pay By Medicare Lifts Quality , ” and Reed Abelson reported that , “ The 266 hospitals participating in a Medicare experiment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have steadily improved the quality of patient care.
” The U.S. was beginning to experiment with the type of cost-control , efficiency-enhancement , systems that socialized health insurance in other industrialized nations already had long in place and operating .
Moreover , without a specific governmental program to create incentives to rationalize medical costs , it would be impossible to make quality correlate with price .
Just months later , on June 14th , Mr. Abelson headlined “ In Health Care , Cost Isn ’ t Proof Of High Quality , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania government survey of the state ’ s 60 hospitals that perform heart bypass surgery , the best-paid hospital received nearly $ 100,000 on average , for the operation , while the least-paid got less than $ 20,000 .
At both , patients had comparable lengths of stay and death rates.
” Likewise on other measures of quality and cost , there was no correlation between the two variables .
The “ free market ” model of financing health care is a hugely expensive disaster and mess .
In fact , the consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized knowledge to be able to evaluate whether or not they ’ re getting a true bargain on their own care , and they are thus left to make such purchasing decisions upon the basis of mere faith .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
An important study was reported on January 7th in the scientific journal Annals of Internal Medicine, published by the American College of Physicians. It’s titled “Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017”.
Canada doesn’t have the best healthcare system in the world, nor the least expensive; but, amongst industrialized nations, it scores as being about average on quality of healthcare, and also as average on per-capita healthcare costs. By contrast, the United States scores as below average on quality, and as by far the world’s costliest, with the world’s highest per-capita healthcare costs and also with the highest percentage of the nation’s GDP that goes to pay for healthcare. The World Health Organization rates quality of care in the various nations, and whereas Canada rates low among industrialized nations, U.S. rates at the bottom amongst them. An analysis as to why these two adjoining countries have such drastically different healthcare-results is long overdue, but finally it has come in this new study; and what it shows is that Americans are being robbed blind by the investors in America’s healthcare corporations and by the U.S. politicians who have been doing their bidding such as all Republicans and ‘moderate’ Democrats, who have been defending the U.S. system of paying for healthcare and arguing for only yet more tinkering with that system in order to get it up to international standards (i.e., for it to no longer be at the bottom of the OECD countries).
Here is the “Abstract” or summary that opens this historic article:
—
https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2758511/health-care-administrative-costs-united-states-canada-2017
ABSTRACT
Background:
Before Canada’s single-payer reform, its payment system, health costs, and number of health administrative personnel per capita resembled those of the United States. By 1999, administration accounted for 31% of U.S. health expenditures versus 16.7% in Canada. No recent comprehensive analyses of those costs are available.
Objective:
To quantify 2017 spending for administration by insurers and providers.
Design:
Analyses of government reports, accounting data that providers file with regulators, surveys of physicians, and census-collected data on employment in health care.
Setting:
United States and Canada.
Measurements:
Insurance overhead; administrative expenditures of hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices.
Results:
U.S. insurers and providers spent $812 billion on administration, amounting to $2497 per capita (34.2% of national health expenditures) versus $551 per capita (17.0%) in Canada: $844 versus $146 on insurers’ overhead; $933 versus $196 for hospital administration; $255 versus $123 for nursing home, home care, and hospice administration; and $465 versus $87 for physicians’ insurance-related costs. Of the 3.2–percentage point increase in administration’s share of U.S. health expenditures since 1999, 2.4 percentage points was due to growth in private insurers’ overhead, mostly because of high overhead in their Medicare and Medicaid managed-care plans.
Limitations:
Estimates exclude dentists, pharmacies, and some other providers; accounting categories for the 2 countries differ somewhat; and methodological changes probably resulted in an underestimate of administrative cost growth since 1999.
Conclusion:
The gap in health administrative spending between the United States and Canada is large and widening, and it apparently reflects the inefficiencies of the U.S. private insurance–based, multipayer system. The prices that U.S. medical providers charge incorporate a hidden surcharge to cover their costly administrative burden.
Primary Funding Source:
None.
—
Here are typical numbers in the study’s findings:
——
In U.S. hospitals, 26.6% “of total expenditures” are “devoted to administration.”
In Canadian hospitals, 13.1% are — less than half as much.
—
In U.S. insurers, 9.6% goes to “overhead.”
In Canadian insurers, 3.8% does — again less than half.
—
In U.S. nursing homes, 26.7% goes to “administration.”
In Canadian ones, the estimated figure is 16.375%.
—
In U.S. home health care agencies and hospices, 39.8% goes to “administration.”
In Canadian ones, 13.0% does — less than a third as much.
—
In U.S., 21.8% of “gross receipts” in physicians’ offices pay for “administration.”
In Canada, that figure is 10.78% — again less than half.
—
“Health care administrative costs in the United States in 2017 totaled … $2497 per capita, … or 34.2% of total spending in the categories for which data are available. The comparable estimates for Canada are $551 per capita … or 17.0% of expenditures.”
——
The explanations as to why socializing the healthcare function produces enormously more cost-efficient and higher quality health care are too complex for a short article such as this, and therefore won’t be discussed here. Suffice it to say that Republican-Party economics (100% capitalism) is maximally designed to benefit the nation’s stockholders, and Democratic Party economics compromises that exclusive concern for investors by providing the rhetoric of concern about other people than stockholders, while still adhering mainly to protecting and improving corporate profits (so being only around 90% capitalism — which still is among the world’s most-capitalist).
As Warren Buffett has said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” In order to achieve that ongoing victory, lots of money has to be spent on ‘educating’ the public to believe that in capitalism there is only the democratic variety, no dictatorial variety (which is what’s elsewhere commonly called “fascism”) and that in socialism there is only the dictatorial variety (commonly called “communism”), no democratic variety (such as in Scandinavia). The aristocrats spend however much it takes, in order to achieve a majority of the public believing their lie — to achieve a majority of the voters becoming and remaining their fools — to believe that 100% capitalism and 0% socialism will be optimal for the public and not just for the aristocrats. For example: even Democraic Party billionaires refuse to support Bernie Sanders — he’s the only Democratic candidate who has no billionaires donating to his campaign.
The United States is the only industrialized nation — and one of the minority among all nations — that doesn’t treat healthcare as being a right (“universal health care”) but instead as a privilege (available only to those who are lucky enough to afford it). In other words: most Americans are obsessively afraid of “socialism” — even of the democratic variety that’s practiced in so many countries. Most Americans have been fooled by the investors in healthcare corporations and by those investors’ agents in Congress and in the White House for so many decades — the unceasing propaganda against “socialism” — the propaganda against human necessities (such as basic healthcare) being handled as a right instead of as a privilege that’s available only to the people who can afford it.
This is how America became a fascist country — a country ruled by its richest. (Prior to 1919, there had been instead the forerunner of fascism, which was called “feudalism.” Mussolini created fascism, to replace that. He also instituted the world’s first privatizations of Government-owned assets. In America, privatizations are equated with democracy, though that’s actually only ‘democracy’ — it’s part of the aristocratic con.)
This failure on the part of the U.S. doesn’t happen because the profitability of healthcare firms is exceptionally high in the United States. It happens because of the astoundingly high inefficiencies which are produced by handling people’s needs (health, education, and welfare) — instead of only their wants (regular consumer products and services) — on the basis of market-forces (i.e., in a capitalist way). Consider these data:
Healthcare profit-margins in the United States, as of 2019, were:
26% for Pharmaceutical manufacturers
12% for Medical-device manufacturers
8% for Hospitals,
6% for Pharmacies
3% for Health insurers
2% for Pharmacy benefit managers
According to an NYU calculation as of 2019, the “After-tax Unadjusted Operating Margin” globally (not just in the U.S.) is:
Drugs (Pharmaceutical) 22.78%
Healthcare Products 14.46%
Healthcare Support Services 4.15%
Heathcare Information and Technology 12.37%
Hospitals/Healthcare Facilities 9.43%
Insurance (General) 9.46%
TOTAL MARKET (EXCLUDING FINANCIALS) 11.11%
Clearly, except for the most-highly-regulated field of pharmaceuticals, where the regulation is very corrupt not only in the U.S. but in the UK (so that even a relatively efficient socialized system can improve its efficiency by outlawing and enforcing laws against corruption), healthcare profitability in the U.S. is in line with the profitability of other firms, and in line with healthcare profitability globally. America stands out for its way overpriced, low quality, healthcare, but not for the profitability of its healthcare firms. The problem with the American healthcare system is instead the incentives. Without having a healthcare system that’s based on healthcare as being a right instead of a privilege, the inefficiencies will inevitably abound. A greed-based healthcare system fails for everyone except investors in healthcare companies. The incentives in the healthcare system should not be to make a profit but to provide terrific care at the lowest possible cost. It should be based on the producers’ pride in the quality of their work, according to objective governmentally-established, scientifically validated, measures of their work-outcomes, not on how high their incomes from that work are. For everyone except investors, the free market fails in healthcare.
The Wall Street Journal headlined, on 22 June 2006, “How a Hospital Stumbled Across An Rx for Medicaid: Mt. Sinai Helps Patients Avoid The ER, Paring State Costs And Aiding Its Bottom Line.” John Carryrou reported that, “The hospital provides free preventive care to poor East Harlem residents in exchange for higher Medicaid reimbursement rates at its outpatient clinic.” The aristocrats’ newspaper, hostile toward “socialized medicine,” was nonetheless in the lead reporting on the inefficiencies of America’s “free market” medicine. Just a few weeks later, on July 17th, BusinessWeek headlined “The Best Medical Care In the U.S.: How Veterans Affairs transformed itself,” and reporter Catherine Arnst explained how the VA hospital system had transformed itself from bad to excellent by increasing its focus on prevention programs. Moreover, “According to a Rand Corp. study, the VA system provides two-thirds of the care recommended by” standards-setting bodies, “but the nation’s private-sector hospitals provide only 50%.” And, whereas private-sector hospitals were filling from 3% to 8% of prescriptions erroneously, which means with wrong medications, the comparable error-rate at VA hospitals was only 003% — virtually nil. “This keeps happening despite the fact that the VA spends an average of $5,000 per patient, vs. the national average of $6,300.” So, socialized medicine is already higher in quality and lower in cost in the U.S. than is America’s typical “free market” medicine. The latter, which Republicans insist upon keeping in place, is a proven disastrous failure in both international and intranational comparisons.
On 5 December 2006, the Wall Street Journal personalized America’s idiotic (not to say evil) policy about health care, in a front-page story, with photos, about a beautiful and exceptionally intelligent young woman, Monique White, who, after decades of struggle, was finally brought down by the American healthcare system. Reporter Jane Zhang headlined “Amid Fight for Life, A Victim of Lupus Fights for Insurance: Lost in U.S. Health-Care Maze, Her Coverage Was Ended As Her Illness Worsened.” Ms. Zhang noted: “Many Americans have health insurance, and 47 million don’t. But lots of people are in a messy middle — sometimes insured by employers, sometimes by government, sometimes not at all. Ms. White was left without health insurance just as her disease took a turn for the worse. While battling to stay alive and going from doctor to doctor, she had to navigate among government programs, private insurance rules and hospital charity,” until the compromises to her care ultimately made her condition so bad, and drove the costs to treat it so high, that she died from this treatable condition, which, in countries that have socialized medicine, isn’t even life-threatening (though it does require constant monitoring, tests, and medication). “Her case illustrates how arduous the American health-care system can be, even for an educated person in a middle-class family. Unique among developed countries, the U.S. delivers medical care through a patchwork of public and private entities, paid for by another patchwork of public and private insurers. Coverage is tied to the workplace or to intricately crafted government programs.” Yet, oddly, the same newspaper whose reporter did such an outstanding job of reporting this, was passionately opposed to the solution already long-proven-successful in other countries, which was providing their citizens far better medical care, at half of America’s medical cost. The Wall Street Journal, and other Republicans, had, for decades, lobbied and propagandized the American public against “socialized health care,” and so prevented the Democratic Party, ever since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from doing in the United States, what other advanced countries did. In the millions, Americans like Monique White have been destroyed, simply by barbaric Republican dogma: 100% capitalism, no socialism even when needs instead of wants are involved. That’s 100% greed.
Furthermore, as Malcolm Gladwell explained in “The Risk Pool,” in the 28 August 2006 New Yorker, “a system in which companies shoulder their own benefits is ultimately a system that penalizes companies for offering any benefits at all.” A main reason for this is that, “If the risks of providing for health care and old age pensions are shared by all of us [via taxes], then companies can succeed or fail based on what they do and not on the number of their retirees.” The American system prejudices in favor of new industries, which have no or few retirees receiving benefits, and against old industries, which are paying out benefits to many retirees. Gladwell documented that America’s old-line manufacturing firms such as GM were sinking because of their extraordinarily high ratios of retirees receiving benefits versus their numbers of current workers (producing automobiles, etc.), which thus drove the costs in these old-line firms through the roof and made them internationally uncompetitive, while America’s new industries were avoiding this burden by their temporary good fortune of simply not having many retirees. Wilbur Ross, who purchased the bankrupt old-line Bethlehem Steel, thus said, “Every country against which we compete has universal health care. … That means we probably face a fifteen-per-cent cost disadvantage versus foreigners for no other reason than historical accident. … The randomness of our system is just not going to work.” Ross is now Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, and under his friend and fellow Republican, Trump, he’s no public proponent of socializing the healthcare industries.
on 25 January 2007, the New York Times headlined “Bonus Pay By Medicare Lifts Quality,” and Reed Abelson reported that, “The 266 hospitals participating in a Medicare experiment that pays them more to follow medical recommendations have steadily improved the quality of patient care.” The U.S. was beginning to experiment with the type of cost-control, efficiency-enhancement, systems that socialized health insurance in other industrialized nations already had long in place and operating.
Moreover, without a specific governmental program to create incentives to rationalize medical costs, it would be impossible to make quality correlate with price. Just months later, on June 14th, Mr. Abelson headlined “In Health Care, Cost Isn’t Proof Of High Quality,” and he reported that, “In a Pennsylvania government survey of the state’s 60 hospitals that perform heart bypass surgery, the best-paid hospital received nearly $100,000 on average, for the operation, while the least-paid got less than $20,000. At both, patients had comparable lengths of stay and death rates.” Likewise on other measures of quality and cost, there was no correlation between the two variables. The “free market” model of financing health care is a hugely expensive disaster and mess. In fact, the consumers of health care typically lack the highly specialized knowledge to be able to evaluate whether or not they’re getting a true bargain on their own care, and they are thus left to make such purchasing decisions upon the basis of mere faith.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report