Who knows what effect on global economies will develop if Russia must sell its oil and gold exports for half of the cost of western produced material due to new Von Biden sanctions? One unintended consequence could be a new oil sales union composed of oil exporting nations with Von Biden/G-7 sanctions upon them. Russia, Venezuela, Iran etc would form a fairly powerful block able to undersell Saudi and U.S. producers and the ramifications are interesting to consider and beyond may present capacity to consider. China and India together comprise about three billion souls and would have a boost in economic competition against the west in a variety of production for export one using half-priced oil I would think. That is a topic I would like to see addressed by economic futurists. Is it possible that the west could experience inflation while the east has stable prices, or that China can increase the cost of its exports to increase proplits because the west cannot afford to produced domestically with higher costs and has no other suppliers for a while since its developed reliance on China including direct investment their (making policy reform politically difficult).
The Von Biden administration followed up on the Clinton administration’s abortion of post-Cold war full-term peace development with Russia and applied a broad variety of sanctions upon the Putin government trying to recover some of its lost land in the Ukraine (the borderland). Apparently President Clinton and his British mentors saw the transition from Soviet Communism to a free Russia as an opportunity for western ants to gnaw away at Russian wood and expand the realm of the nest eastward. European eastward expansion meant an eventual war with Russia when it was strong enough to challenge the Euros for control so now the war is on, with murder in the hearts of the Von Biden administration unconcerned about sending so many ordinary guys to their deaths on Russian and Ukrainian sides in a kind of post-birth adult abortion service to cap population growth.
It is notable that President Biden has invoked the N.A.T.O. name so many times in the Ukraine conflict because Ukraine is not a member of N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. is regarded as a big stick suitable for attacking any inconvenience beyond the scope of its charter.
The Ukraine war capped a long Democrat Party narrative of hating Russia that may have existed since the end of the Cold War 1.0. For some reason Democrats didn’t get the Reagan memo that things had changed and that an era of partnership with Russia and the west was intended to develop. President Von Biden has a 1950s Cold War 1.0 attitude toward Russia and his party leadership of Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer etc was a Joe McCarthy cluster-clone. Disrupting the global economy and putting global warming reduction on a slow burner were collateral damage of the fanaticism to force abortion and queer marriage upon the planet. President Von Obama didn’t like Russia either and threw accelerant on several wars across the Middle East. Presently Democrats are more concerned with electing politicians that will support abortions than any economic or environmental issue in the fall 2022 mid-term election; they seek to abort a possible Republican takeover of Congress.
President Biden is accomplishing reducing the potential markets for American made exports and disadvantaging domestic manufactures with higher costs of energy than those of China and India etc using half-priced Russian oil. Apparently the administration is so Eurocentric they view things two-dimensionally regarding sanctions and don’t comprehend unintended consequences that may to occur. The damn thing about the Ukraine war is that it could easily have been avoided by negotiating a Russian right to navigate the Dnepr and restoration of land to Russian sovereignty now under Russian military control. If Ukraine eventually drives back Russia with saturation of Russian forces with American and N.A.T.O. member weapons, the fate of Ukraine would be to lose control of its borders eventually to the EU that it seeks to join. Ukraine would lose a large part of its independence and sovereignty in joining the EU, and that is worth dying for apparently.
President Biden is working for a greatly expanded and militarized European Union and a N.A.T.O. in which the U.S.A. would be a minority and somewhat junior partner. The Eu would emerge as a new super-power and its ants would tirelessly wear away Russian resistance to hegemony with more eastward expansion and the Von Biden-Democrat-EU axis of power would be a glowing, prideful, statuesque gargoyle on a hill for the world to behold.
Commenting upon the U.S. administration and working to interpret its behavior is challenging. One might write a book named ‘Understanding Joe Biden” I suppose, with enough DC insider knowledge, for that is where the President has spent most of his life as the ultimate insider today surpassed by no one. I view the President as lacking entrepreneurial intellect, yet with a surfeit of egoism and self-promotion. He is a union guy and works Democrat union policies regardless of external circumstance. Without adaptability except concerning political electability issues Mr. Biden is entirely devoted to a sometimes ineffectual effort to advance the Democrat agenda that can be done with 60% of brain capacity. The Ukraine war is a simple to understand affair from his perspective with Russia trying to restore the lands of the former Soviet Union and the good union; the European Union, righteously resisting invasion by barbarians working under a dictator who hates homos, is probably against abortion and isn’t Catholic.
If President Joe Biden is at the top of the ladder of the American left, the question arises as to what the American left is. Historically for many including myself, the left got its name from Europe and the history of socialist and communist revolutionaries. The left was an economic term rather a moral one although the left also tended to have what is regarded as liberal moral beliefs. That may be the main differentiation within the left. That is, the term left refers to economic issues and the term liberal refers to moral issues.
President Biden is far more liberal than he is leftist. The Democrat Party is primarily liberal rather than leftist today. They are so blinded by liberalism and liberal issues like abortion and homosexual marriage that they cannot understand economic issues well at all. Democracy can defend itself against economic subjugation by powers of concentrated wealth, through taxation and progressive taxation on the rich, without being leftist. Creating a practical safety social safety net with basic minimum annual income for all, and free walk-in medical service for the poor, is an adaptation to the modern world and its empirical challenges of population density and the end of surplus wilderness land. Eliminating poverty and problems that arise from poverty probably would advance the entire society’s well being, prosperity and security.
Many political leaders have sophomoric, old, ideas about political philosophy and economics. Ayn Rand’s influential ideas developed when CEO’s generally earned no more than 300 times the salary of shop workers and corporations produced material things. In the post Monte Carlo algorithm era CEOs may own thousands of times the salary of shop workers and there may be no shop, material production may be in China and the main product of the top guy is buying and selling other businesses or skimming a bit from quantitative electronic trading. The relationship of U.S. citizens to employers may be international and even sovereign wealth funds like that of Norway or Saudi Arabia may be investors in domestic American housing. A minority of Democrats are socialists and the majority forsook socialism after the end of the Soviet Union- if there ever was an actual majority when legislation like Humphrey-Hawkins bill could occur. With the turn to the economic right of Democrat leadership in Joe Biden who tricked the constituency underselling the price tag on a global warming reduction package and then mostly ditched that, the majority were compliant with the 1950s paradigm that social welfare programs are largely socialist. Virtually any social spending packages that greatly improve the economic security of all American citizens and are affordable, and that increase national prosperity can be democratic priorities- priorities for democracy.
Democracy isn’t required to be stupid or associate common sense for the poor and middle class economic exclusively with with socialism. Government spending on anything besides its own direct costs could be regarded by extremists as socialist, yet it is common practice to bail out ‘too big to fail’ banks and businesses because all money directed to corporations is for some reason considered to be free enterprise rather than socialist. The very naive point of view is that the rich with money are never socialist so they cannot benefit from corporatist socialism. Clique socialism for the rich is anti-democracy in nature, and is the way of the nation now. For example, N.P.R. is supported by the U.S. Government, deepest pocket corporations, individual heirs and, supposedly,individual rank and file Democrat Party lackeys. It is a kind of primitive communism propaganda organ supplanted by plutocracy and corporatism; that isn’t democracy. N.P.R. has universal, whore of Babylon funding.
President Biden would find that platform too leftist though. He is a kind of conservative liberal rather than a leftist liberal. If the Democrat party today has a fundamental ensemble and reputation of queer, abortionist and atheist, it also has a reputation for being more ecologically concerned than Republicans. Unfortunately environmentalism and global warming reduction take back burner places when the impassioned and unreasoned emotionalism of liberal issues arise to the fore. Reason actual is useful in finding solutions to political challenges that are tolerable for the vast number of people in a society including opposition. Working in a form of union inertia to advance proprietary platform planks can dispense with the kind of reason that existed in the Nixon administration before Watergate. In that time President Nixon began strategic arms limitation talks with the Soviets, ended the Vietnam War “with honor”, controlled inflation with wage and price controls and started the diplomacy to normalize relations with China. None of those were union platforms, any more than President Reagan’s decision to eliminate nuclear weapons working with the Soviets was. They were executive, entrepreneurial insights supported by creative thinkers well informed on history like Sect. Of State Henry Kissinger. Inn that era it was regarded as better to find creative solutions and adaptations rather than to try to force everything one’s way through head on crashes using bigger and stronger mass and momentum.
