Jack Rasmus

By
Jack Rasmus
copyright 2018

“Presidents’ State of the Union speeches used to report on accomplishments of the past year and proposals for new programs and policy changes for the next. Just as the country we once knew, those days are long gone.

In the 21st century the format is mostly theatrical: The president offers a short sentence about how wonderful America is, cuts his sentence short, and waits for applause. The Congress rises and claps longer than the spoken sentence that brought them to their feet. This goes on every 15 seconds. Sometimes less. Up and down, up and down. Turn off the volume, and it’s similar to canned laughter in a TV situation comedy—with the visual effect of bouncing butts replacing the canned laughter. Except it’s all more tragic than it is comedic.

A stranger viewing for the first time must conclude that something anatomically must be wrong with their backsides. Up-down, up-down. But when the incessant pattern of ‘short phrase, rise and clap too long, sit down’ threatens to become too repetitive, a new theatrical effect is introduced. Now it’s the president introducing staged character actors in the gallery above the floor, each introduction providing an appeal to the tv audience’s emotions. In the Trump speech tonight, there were no fewer than twelve such ‘gallery scenes’ to break up the mesmerizing stop-rise-clap-sit down nonsense.

First there was ‘Ashley the helicopter lady’, then ‘Dolberg the firefighter’, Congressman Scalise, whose only claim to fame was he got himself shot (definitely not on the level of the other ‘heroes’), followed. And how about the 12 year old ‘Preston the flag boy’, with whom Trump said he had a great conversation before the speech. (I’m sure it was of comparable intellect).
But clever by far was the next gallery event, the four parents whose kids were killed by MS13 gang members in Long Island, NY. All four were black, apparently to blunt the racist appeal by Trump injected into the scene, suggesting that all immigrants were gang members who came here as a result of ‘chained migration’ family policy. I guess MS13 gangsters never killed whites.
Not surprisingly, the next gallery scene was the ICE agent, a guy named Martinez who heroically smashed the MS13 gangsters. Of course, he too was Hispanic.

Both theatrical scenes dealing with ‘immigrant gangsters arriving by chained migration’ provided Trump a nice segway into describing his ‘4 pillars’ immigration bill, the only policy proposal he actually spelled out in his nearly hour and a half speech.

For a pathway to citizenship that would take 12 years for ‘Dreamer’ kids, Trump would have his $30 billion plus border wall, a new immigration policy based on ‘merit’ (welcome Norwegians), as well as an end to family ‘chained migration policy’ (which somehow would also protect the nuclear family, according to Trump). The message: white folks’ nuclear families good; immigrant folks’ (especially Latino) extended families bad, was the suggested logic. What it all added up to? If Democrats agreed to his pillars 2-4 right now, maybe there would be citizenship for Dreamers sometime by 2030! What a deal. But who knows, maybe the Democrats will take it, given that they retreated from their prior ‘line in the sand’ of pass DACA and dreamers or they’ll shut down the government.

The next theater event was no less interesting than the immigration scenes in the Trump play that was the presidential State of the Union address last night. In typical Trumpian worship of the police and military, Trump (the draft dodger) introduced an Albuquerque policeman in the gallery who had talked a pregnant woman on drugs from committing suicide. Seems the woman was desperate about bringing a kid into the world she’d be unable to afford to raise. The solution by the policeman was to offer to adopt her baby if she didn’t kill herself. It worked. The kid and mother were saved, and the policeman adopted the child. The policeman’s wife accompanied him in the gallery—with an infant in her arms of course. Not sure whose it was but no matter. Now that was double theater, a scene within a scene. Shakespeare would have been proud.

That impressive bit of theater, perhaps the high point of all the ‘gallery effects’ of the evening, was the intro to Trump’s solution to the Opioid crisis in America, where 60,000 a year now die from overdoses. In his speech, Trump’s solution to the opioid crisis was ‘let’s get tougher on drug dealers’. He failed to mention, of course, that the drug dealers in question most responsible for launching the opioid crisis were the prescription drug companies themselves who pushed their products like Fetanyl and Percoset on doctors a decade ago, telling them the drugs weren’t addictive.

As for the even larger prescription drug problem in American—i.e. the runaway cost of drugs that is killing unknown thousands of Americans who can’t afford them because of price gouging—Trump merely said “prices will come down substantially…just watch!” That solution echoed his press conference of several weeks ago when he publicly addressed the opioid crisis…but offered no solution specifics how. Watching Trump solve the opioid crisis will be slower than watching grass grow…in winter!

Trump’s speech was not all theater. Much of it was factual—except the facts were mostly misrepresentations and outright lies.

Like unemployment is at a record low. But not when part time, temp, contract and gig work is added to full time. More than 13 million are still officially jobless. The rate is still close to 10%. And that doesn’t count the 5-10 million workers who have dropped out of the labor force altogether since 2008, leading to record lows in labor force participate rates and employment to population ratios. That rate and ratio hasn’t changed under Trump.

Another lie was that wages are finally starting to rise. Whose wages? If you want to count average wages and salaries of the 30 million managers, supervisors, and self-employed, maybe so. But according to US Labor department data, real average hourly earnings for all non-farm workers in the US in 2017 rose by a whopping 4 cents!

Trump cited again his Treasury Secretary, Mnuchin’s, ridiculous figure that the average family income household would realize $4,000 a year in tax cuts. But no economist I know believes that absurd claim.

Perhaps the biggest facts manipulation occurred with Trump’s references to his recent tax cuts. He cited a list of so-called middle class tax cuts, leaving out wealthy individual tax cuts measures. Typical was his claim of doubling the standard deduction, worth $800 billion in tax cuts for the working poor below $24k a year in income. But he failed to mention the additional $2.1 trillion hikes on the middle class. (Or the $2 trillion in corresponding cuts for wealthiest households.) Independent studies show the middle class may get some tax cuts initially, but those end by the seventh year, and then rise rapidly thereafter by year ten. In contrast, the corporate, business, and wealthy household cuts keep going—beyond the tenth year.

What Trump conveniently left out in his speech regarding taxes also qualifies as lie by omission. He noted the corporate tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21% and the non-corporate business income deductions were increased by 20%. That was $1.5 trillion and $310 billion, respectively. Or that the Obamacare mandate repeal saved businesses another $300 billion. And multinational corporations would reap the lion’s share of $1 trillion in tax cuts, at minimum. And all that still doesn’t account for accelerated depreciation under the Act. Or abolition of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. Or continuation of the infamous corporate loopholes, like carried interest, corporate offshore ‘inversions’, or gimmicks that corporate tax lawyers joke about—like the ‘dutch sandwich’ and ‘double Irish’.

Then there were the Trump jokes. I don’t mean anything actually funny. Nonsense statements like “beautiful clean coal” (the oxymoron statement of the year). Or that US companies offshore are “roaring coming back to where the action is”. And car companies are bringing jobs back (while laying off in thousands). “Americans (white) are dreamers too”. Or the phony infrastructure program that’s coming, where companies will be subsidized by the federal government in ‘public-private partnership’ deals. And his unexplained reference to ‘prison reform’ (really?). Perfunctory references to trade, job training, another non-starter.

Hidden between the lines were other serious references, however. Like his ominous threat to “remove government employees” who ‘fail the American people’ or ‘undermine American trust’, which sounded like a warning from Trump to the bureaucracy not to cross him or else. Or his slap at National Football League players for not saluting the flag. Or plans to expand Guantanamo and the US nuclear arsenal. Or reaffirmation of the definition of ‘enemy combatants’ (which may include US citizens). Trump re-established the fact of his threat to civil liberties.
On the foreign policy front it was mostly threats as well, new and old: To withhold UN funding. Renewed support for new sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela. But North Korea was left for last. Here the return to theater was among the most dramatic. The last ‘gallery scene’ involved a legless defector from North Korea, Seong Ho, brought all the way from So. Korea just for the speech. This was theater with props; applause was sustained as Mr. Ho raised and shook his crutches above his head after Trump’s introduction.

Trump then rode the emotional wave to conclusion with his closing theme that the American people themselves are what’s great about America. Too bad he doesn’t mean all Americans.

So far as Trump speeches go, it was a ‘safe speech’, a teleprompter speech. But typically Trump. Lots of false facts. Emphasis on dividing the country. Long on Theater and emotional appeals to ‘enemies within and without’. And short on policy specifics. But after all, apart from tax cuts and deregulation for corporations and the rich, and a failed Obamacare repeal, not much was achieved in 2017 for him to talk about. And so far as new ideas for 2018 are concerned, there’s ‘no there there’ as well. ”

Jack Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017

What’s sometime referred to as ‘shadow bankers’ have been running the economy and drafting US domestic economic policy since Trump took office. ‘Shadow’ banks include such financial institutions as investment banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, insurance companies, finance companies, asset management companies, etc. They are outside the traditional commercial banking system (e.g. Chase, Bank of America, Wells, etc.) and virtually unregulated. Shadow banks globally now also control more investible liquid assets than do the world’s commercial banks.

It was the shadow banks–investment banks like Lehman, Bear Stearns, insurance giant AIG, GE and GMAC credit and others that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis that then froze up the entire credit system and led to the 2008-09 collapse of the real, non-financial economy. None of the CEOs of the shadow bank system went to jail for their roles in the collapse. And now they are back–not only reaping record profits and asserting even greater influence over the US and global economy; but have penetrated the political institutions of control in the US and other advanced economies even more than they did pre-2008.

Shadow Bankers On the Inside

In the US, shadow bankers from Goldman Sachs, the giant investment bank, took over the drafting of US economic policy when Trump took office. (Trump himself, a commercial property speculator, is part of this shadow banker segment of the US capitalist elite). Running the US Treasury is ex-Goldman Sacher, Steve Mnuchin. On the ‘inside’ of the Trump administration is Gary Cohn, chair of Trump’s key advisory, Economic Council. Together the two, Mnuchin-Cohn, were the original drafters (which was done in secret) of the recent Trump Tax cuts that will yield a $5 trillion windfall for US businesses and wealthy investors, especially multinationals. (More on this in my forthcoming article, to be posted here subsequently).

Mnuchin is also leading the charge for the Trump deregulation offensive, especially financial deregulation. Mnuchin recently took the offensive as well with public statements indicating it was US policy that US dollar should remain at record low levels. Why? To ensure US multinational corporations’ offshore profits are maximized when they convert their profits in local currencies back to the dollar, before they repatriate those profits back to the US at the new lower Trump tax rates (12% instead of 35% repatriation tax rate) and, even more lucratively, when they pay no taxes on offshore profits virtually at all starting 2019. The Mnuchin announcement caused quite a stir among European and other capitalist central bank and Treasury heads in Europe, who were angered because the statement reflected a rejection of prior ‘understandings’.

Goldman Sachs and the shadow banker crowd’s economic influence extends beyond the US Treasury and Economic Council. The New York Federal Reserve’s district president, Dudley, is also a former Goldman Sachs employee. He announced he’ll be resigning this year. The New York Fed is the key district of the Fed responsible for US Treasury securities buying and selling and other trading with global central banks outside the US. Watch for another Goldman Sachser to replace him, or some other former high level senior exec from private equity or hedge fund industry.(For my analysis of the rising global shadow banking sector and its destabilizing role, check out my 2016 book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy‘, Clarity Press, and specifically chapter 12, ‘Structural Change in Global Financial Markets’).

Shadow Bankers Will Run the Fed

Trump and fellow shadow bankers are about to further solidify their control of US economic policy at the Fed as well. The Fed’s chair will soon be Jerome Powell, who comes from the private equity sector of the shadow banking industry.. But several additional Fed governor positions have been vacant for some time, as is the vice-chair of the Fed. Watch for appointees from the shadow banks here as well after Powell takes the helm.
Fed governors are officially supposed to serve 14 year terms. (They, along with Fed district presidents constitute the important FOMC, Federal Open Market Committee, that make day to day decisions at the Fed on matters of short term interest rate changes and such). But the Fed governors in recent decades never remain the 14 years. In fact, recently they remain around 3-4 years, if that. They leave early to take senior positions in the banking and shadow banking world. It’s a ‘revolving door’ problem.

Bankers get appointed to Fed governor and Fed district president positions, make decisions beneficial to their former banker buddies, and then leave early to return to their banker roots, with highly remunerative positions once again (often ‘do-nothing’ sinecures). As former governors they also go on the speech circuit, speaking at banker and business conferences, for which they’re paid handsomely, in the tens of thousands of dollars for a 20 minute speech. (Former Fed chairpersons, like Ben Bernanke and soon Janet Yellen get even more generous handouts, paid in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars a speech. They also get nice book contracts as they leave, with prepayments in the millions of dollars upfront, with guaranteed book purchases by corporations, and the best promotional efforts by publishers).

Trump’s appointment, and recent approval by the US House and Senate, of Jerome Powell to head the Fed is only the beginning. The vice-chair and several open Fed governor positions will enable Trump and Mnuchin to stack the deck at the Fed with their appointees. That will solidify Trump’s, and the shadow banker community’s, control of the Fed and ensure its policy direction will reflect Trump’s economic objectives of boosting business incomes, especially multinational corporations.

Central Bank Independence–But from Whom?

Mainstream economists write incessantly about the need to ensure ‘central bank independence’ (for the Fed) from elected government representatives. But they miss the more fundamental fact that it is the bankers themselves (especially now shadow bankers) that ultimately control the Fed. While mainstream economists talk about independence from government representatives, they ignore the deeper control (often through those representatives) of the Fed, and all central banks, by the bankers themselves.

Are Mnuchin, Cohn, Dudley and others really government ‘representatives’? Or are they shadow bankers first and foremos, who have managed to capture key positions in the government apparatus? Do the ‘revolving door’ former Fed governors act independently? Or do they decide with a keen eye on a lucrative offer from the private banks after a few years in office during which they ‘prove’ their value to the bankers? Do the Fed chairs and vice-chairs make decisions solely in the public interest at all times? Or are they perhaps too aware of the opportunity to become quick multimillionaires themselves once they leave office, recompensed nicely in various ways once they leave? And why is it that at the 12 Fed districts, the district president selection committee of 9 district board directors are almost always ‘stacked’ by 5-6 former regional bankers or banker business friendly former CEOs?

In my just published book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, August 2017, I examine this ‘myth of central bank independence’ in detail, and show how central banks, including the Fed, from their very origins have always been dependent (not independent) on the private banks rather than from elected government representatives. Central banks emerged from the private banks and have always been an appendage of sorts of that private banking system. This fact is supported today more than ever by the fact that Fed and central banks’ policy since 2000, and especially since 2008, has been to ensure the subsidization of financial institutions’ profitability. It’s no longer just serving as ‘lender of last resort’ to bail out the private banks periodically when they get in trouble (which chronically occurs). Now it is permanent subsidization of the private banking system.

A Constitutional Amendment to Democratize the Fed

In the book I also propose in the addendum a constitutional amendment and enabling legislation that will sever the relationship of the central bank, the Fed, from the banking industry (and its government representatives) for good. (see the reviews and information re. the book,’Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes‘ on my blog, jackrasmus.com, on my website, kyklosproductions.com, and at Amazon books. See the book’s addendum for the amendment and enabling legislation).

The trend in banker control of the Fed–and thus US economic policy–is about to deepen as Trump fills the open governor, chair, and vice-chair positions at the Fed in coming months. This will begin immediately after Jerome Powell assumes the chair position from Janet Yellen in early February 2018.

Economic Consequences of a Trump Fed

The shadow bankers, who gave us the last financial crash in 2007-09, will then be in total control–at the Treasury, in the White House, at the New York Fed, and in a majority of the Fed governorships. They will support Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s policies–keep US rates at levels to ensure that the US dollar’s exchange rate is low versus other key world currencies. That will ensure that US multinational corporations’ profits offshore are not threatened, as they bring back those profits in 2018 at lower tax rates, and then can bring back profits thereafter paying little, if any, taxes on offshore profits at for the next nine years.

The next financial crisis and crash is coming. It is not more than two years away, and could come sooner. The Fed will be totally unprepared and unable to lower interest rates much in response. It will then re-introduce its massive free money injections into the banking system, as it did with ‘QE’ for seven years starting with 2009. The Fed and other central banks provided ‘free money’ in the amount of at least $25 trillion to bail out the private banks over the last 9 years. How much more will they give them next time? Will it be enough again to stabilize the US and world financial system? And will the Fed and US government then legitimize and legalize the private banks’ taking the savings of average depositors and converting those savings to worthless bank stocks? UK and US government preparations are already underway for that last draconian measure. For even today, when one deposits one’s money in a bank, that money legally becomes ‘owned’ by the bank.

Trump’s imminent appointments of Fed vice-chair and governors may prove historically to be the first step in the total capture of the US central bank by the shadow banker element in the US economy–by the Goldman Sachsers, the private equity firms, the hedge fund vulture capitalists, and the commercial real estate speculator that is Trump himself.

We now have government by the bankers unlike ever before in the US. And their policies will inevitably lead to another financial crisis. Only this next time, the rest of US will be even less prepared and able to endure–given the decade of stagnant wages, new record in household debt, collapsing savings rates, greater reliance on part time/temp/gig employment, decline of pensions, loss of social benefits and safety net, higher cost of healthcare, and all the rest of the economic decline that is afflicting more than 100 million households in the US today.

Meanwhile, Trump went to Davos, Switzerland, this week to party with the rest of the World Economic Forum’s multimillionaire-billionaire class. They will celebrate and pat themselves on the back about how well they’ve done for themselves in 2017: record profits, record stock markets’ price appreciation, record dividend payouts to wealthy shareholders, new tax laws that mean they can now keep even more of those profits and capital gains, continuing austerity for the rest of us, further destruction of unions (called ‘labor market reform’), decline and co-optation of remaining social democratic parties, etc. At Davos, Trump will bask his ego and give an ‘American First’ speech, largely for public consumption to his base in the US. But ‘America First’ means Trump, and his more aggressive wing of US capital, are signaling they plan to squeeze the rest of the world’s capitalists for a US larger share of the total pie (that is growing slower and slower). So they’ll have to take even more out of their workers with austerity, wage compression, social benefits reduction, and even more ‘labor market reform’, to keep up competitively with Trump’s USA.

The Davos crowd may think they are sitting on their mountain in Switzerland, but they are really sitting on a powder keg of accelerating inequality, growing economic populism and anti-globalism, and escalating global debt amidst slowing trade, investment, productivity and wages. The Trump answer is for the US elite to protect and expand its share of the global capitalist pie (which is growing more slowly) at the expense of its global capitalist competitors as well as its own middle class. Meanwhile, mainstream economists, asleep on the bridge of the Titanic, declare ‘steam on’, all is well and getting better.

Jack Rasmus
copyright 2018
Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression‘, August 2017, and ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy‘, 2016, both by Clarity Press.

.

Today the Republican and Democrats in Congress agreed to end the so-called ‘shutdown’ of the US government over the weekend. Not much really ‘shut down’. Government workers were not at work over the weekend. There were no plans to stop funding the military. Or halt social security checks. Or anything else that was economically meaningful. Using the word, ‘partial’, in relation to shutdown was probably also an overstatement. So what was involved? And what was agreed today?

Republicans wanted to eliminate left over taxes on the rich and business, that they were not able to achieve with their failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) last year. The ACA required $692 billion in taxes on businesses and investors. Republicans and Trump have been chipping away at the ACA ever since their failure to get a full repeal. The shutdown deal marks yet another milestone in the destruction of the health care act. In the agreement Republicans reportedly got to eliminate more of the tax funding base for the ACA, another cut of the $692 billion. (The ACA destruction will result in even more accelerating insurance premiums and even more enrolled dropping from the program).

To make sure they got their business tax cuts, Ryan and McConnell held the SCHIP program hostage. SCHIP is the insurance program for 9 million children whose parents otherwise can’t afford to buy them health coverage. The Democrats got the continuation of SCHIP for another six years. In other words, they ‘got’ what they ‘already had’, while the Republicans got something new–i.e. more tax cuts.

So what about DACA–the 800,000 ‘dreamer’ kids? Wasn’t the Democrats’ refusal to pass the spending bill to fund the government based upon getting the DACA issued resolved? Yes. But the Democratic party leadership dropped that demand in today’s agreement, and instead agreed to refund SCHIP in exchange for three more weeks of government funding, and the further ACA tax cuts. In other words, they got what they had and gave up on DACA. They say DACA is not dead, that they’ll return to it three weeks from now.

But in three weeks from now the Republicans will find another program they will hold hostage, and demand the Democrats fund the government further in exchange for keeping another program going–while the DACA demand will be left hanging once again.

What this all points to is the Democratic Party is continually being outmaneuvered by the Republicans. It’s a sad story that has been the case ever since 2008. Democrat party leaders are proving themselves not only strategically myopic since the 2016 election, but tactically inept as well.

What the recent ‘negotiations’ around the DACA-for-funding the border Wall trade off also reveal is the Republicans keep adding demands to the negotiations, keeping Democrats off balance and unable to hold firm to their initial principled demands.

Also revealing is that Trump was a non-entity in the entire negotiations process. He holds PR press conferences for the TV audience, making it look as if he’s in charge, and will play a positive role in getting the two parties to agree on DACA in exchange for his Wall funding. But he’s not in charge. Whoever gets to him last, he agrees with. Shumer goes down to the White House and thinks he has a deal. But the right wing and corporations walk in the swinging door and Trump changes his position before Shumer can even get back to his office on the hill.

Democrat party second in command in the Senate, Dick Durbin, went on TV to try to pick up the pieces. He asked the DACA kids ‘don’t give up hope’. We’ll deliver next time. But now that the Democrats caved in on their DACA demand, who will believe they’ll prove tougher the next time around three weeks from now? The Republicans will hold out even more confidently, knowing the Democrats will cave again. By giving up on DACA the Democratic party leadership ensures it will be even more difficult next time.

To use a metaphor, it’s like a union declaring its intent to go on strike for a non-negotiable demand, and when the deadline comes telling its union members they’ve changed their mind,they’ve given up the demand, and no one should go on strike…for now. The union leaders then declare publicly they’ll strike ‘next time’ three weeks later. Who among their rank and file are going to believe them? Nor will the Republicans (i.e. the management negotiators per our metaphor). And certainly not the workers (DACA kids). Drawing a line in the sand and then backing up and drawing another accomplishes nothing but demoralization.

For my commentary on yesterday’s OXFAM annual report on the continuing growth of wealth inequality globally, benefiting the wealthiest 1% investor class, listen to my 1 minute YOuTube interview. GO TO:

For a further discussion of the causes of the Bitcoin/Crypto 2017 Bubble and 2018 Bust, listen to my Alternative Visions radio show:

Go to:

http://prn.fm/alternative-visions-behind-bitcoin-bubble-bust-apples-105-billion-trump-tax-cut-1192018/

Or go to:

https://alternativevisions.podbean.com

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT:

Dr. Rasmus explains the forces behind the 2017 escalating Bitcoin bubble and their reversal in 2018 in recent weeks, leading to the collapse of Bitcoin prices. Both demand and supply forces driving, then collapsing, bitcoin are explained, and projections for 2018 offered where Bitcoin and other Altcoins may be headed. Crypto currencies as classic financial asset speculative plays are explained, in context of 21st century Capitalism’s continuing securing shift to financial asset investing. Rasmus then estimates the true tax cuts for US businesses from the Trump tax act ($4 trillion not $1.5 trillion), and estimates that US multinational corporations will reap at least half of that $4T. The case example of Apple Corp’s tax cuts are estimated—from the repatriation one time tax savings in 2018 and thereafter for the next five years, after Apple’s announcement of bringing back $38 billion (over the next five years) of its $270 billion offshore untaxed thus far profits hoard. Rasmus explains only part of the $38 billion will result in wage and real investment, with most going to stock buybacks, dividends, and mergers and acquisitions. (Next week: ‘What’s Happening in China?’)

I recently was asked for my view of why Bitcoin prices have collapsed nearly by half this past week. From a high of near $20,000, it fell below $10,000. Other ‘altcoins’ (Ethereum, Ripple, etc.) have collapsed in price as much or more. Why after rising from $900 this time in 2017, and peaking at nearly $20,000 by late last year, has the price collapsed? Will it recover to prior peaks? Is this the beginning of the crypto currency bubble implosion?

Here are the two questions the news agency asked me to answer:

1) Why did Bitcoin fell 45% comparing to December 2017? (if you look closely at graphics there’s a definite connection between Chinese New Year in January and bitcoin’s fall for at least last four years.)
2) Is bitcoin a bubble? Please give a short argument on your answer.

Here’s my explanation for the bubble, the current correction, and what’s driving bitcoin and crypto currencies. It’s an economic analysis, in contrast to the many simplistic historical correlations that purport to pass as explanations.

To address your specific questions 1 and 2:

This may not be as short an answer as you like, but the truth is seldom ‘short’.

Listen to my Alternative Visions radio show of January 12, 2018 for my analysis of the Trump Tax Cuts’ true dimensions. How they amount to more than $5 trillion in cuts over the decade to corporations, businesses, investors and the wealthiest 1% households. How the budget deficit hit will be twice the official government $1.45 trillion.

To listen GO To:

http://prn.fm/alternative-visions-trumps-tax-cuts-5-trillion-not-1-5t-01-12-18/

Or Go to:

http://alternativevisions.podbean.com

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT:

Dr. Rasmus starts the show with comments on last week’s announcement by WalMart raising its minimum wage and the Bloomberg News story about China considering cutting back buying US Treasury bonds. The rest of the show addresses the Trump Tax Cuts true extent of tax reduction on corporations, businesses, investors and the wealthiest 1% households. Jack debunks the notion that the US budget deficit hit from the tax cuts will equal only $1.46 trillion, the official government estimate, showing it is based on the absurd assumption of a 10 year annual average GDP growth rate of 3% and no recession occurring for another decade (or 19 years from the last). The deficit hit will be at least twice, or $3 trillion. Tax hikes on the middle class are about $2 trillion. So the tax cuts for corporate America et. al. therefore exceed $5 trillion. Rasmus then estimates the $5 trillion from the major provisions of the Act: $1.5t from corporate rate reduction, $1t from accelerated depreciation write-offs, $.5t from elimination of corporate AMT, and between $2-$2.5t for US multinational corporations from repatriation of $2.8t to $4.0t profits in offshore subsidiaries and tax havens and a future offshore tax rate reduction from 35% formerly, to 8%. Rasmus explains the cornerstones of the US global economic empire: the twin deficits (trade-budget), free trade (benefits share with local capitalist elites offshore), the dominance of the US dollar as global trading currency, and US domestic tax policy that ensure trillions of profits keep flowing to investors via dividends, stock buybacks, and capital gains.

Public demonstrations and opposition arising once again in Greece, as the Troika (European Commission, European Central Bank, IMF) demand still more austerity measures (pension cuts, privatizations, tax hikes) as part of the latest maneuvering by the Troika and its Syriza Greek government ally in anticipation of a renewal of yet another ‘debt deal’ later this year in 2018. The old deal–the third established in 2015–is scheduled to end this summer. The Troika-Syriza intend to ‘roll it over’. Thus the new demands for continuing and more austerity raised well before the expiration of the 2015 debt agreement.

Elections for Greece’s parliament, where Syriza has a narrow majority, would have to follow later in 2018, so the Troika-Syriza government seek to wrap up a new agreement on debt before the expiration and new elections.

This sad scenario has been going on since 2010, with no end in sight since there’s no way Greece’s economy can repay the interest and principal on hundreds of billions of dollars of debt imposed on it by pro-Eurozone Greek governments. It is perpetual interest payments for decades to come. 95% of the debt interest payments end up in German and other northern European banks, according to German university institute studies.

As I indicated in my September 2016 book, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, it amounts to a new kind of imperialism based on financial payments for debt imposed by pan-European political institutions (Troika) on the smaller economies of the Eurozone periphery. (see book reviews and select chapters from the book on this blog’s book roll on the right side of this page. Orders at discount are available by clicking on the book icon–or on Amazon and elsewhere).

Unlike classic imperialism–e.g. 19th century British version–where factories and production were set up in the colonial country to produce goods sold at cost with low wages to British capitalist owners, who then shipped the goods back to the UK, and from there resold them at a higher price in the UK or Europe–the new 21st century financial imperialism exploits the entire economy by requiring debt interest payments to be paid by the colonial government to the banks and investors in the ‘host’ country. The payments are made by imposing fiscal austerity measures on the society being exploited. It’s a new form of ‘colonialism’ where the exploitation is ‘socialised’ and generalized, most of which is ‘paid for’ by pensioners retirement cuts, government workers’ layoffs and wage and benefit cuts, by colonial governments’ privatizing social services and public goods (sold to foreign investors to raise cash to pay the interest), and by tax hikes on households and small businesses to gain revenues with which to pay the interest on the debt.

Watch my most recent interview with Press TV on the latest demonstrations in Greece and popular resistance, which will intensify once again as the current Troika-Syriza government debt agreement expires in 2018.

To watch, go to Youtube at:

See my prior 2016 Youtube interviews on the 2015 prior Troika-Syriza debt deal at:

As I predicted two days ago, Bannon, was sacked today by the Mercers and others running the Breitbart News board of directors. Read my analysis of January 7 below as to what it means

Contemporary Anglo-American economists who consider themselves ‘Marxist Economists’ (M. Roberts, Kliman, Brennan, Freeman, Mosely, et. al.) have long held that the rate of corporate profits determine the shifts in business cycles (i.e. recessions, great recessions, depressions). It’s a single determinant view, derived from a dissecting of unpublished paragraphs by Marx in vol. II of Capital on the topic of a falling rate of profit tendency in a capitalist economy and its effect. While alleging causation, what Roberts and others really present is a tabular correlation showing how corporate profit rates from real investment (ignoring non-corporate business income or financial asset profits) slowdown may be correlated with real investment and GDP slowing, and then declining, as well. But correlations aren’t causations. And no number of line graphs of corporate profits plotted on paper against real investment (i.e. net private domestic capital spending) show any causation. (It’s a big problem in economics in general, not just Marxist, today where too much correlation examples are simply claimed to be causative–ie. business tax cuts create jobs, free trade benefits everyone, wages drive inflation, money supply determines economic growth, etc.)

The UK marxist economist, Michael Roberts, who attended the recent economics section of the American Social Science Association’s annual gathering, recently summarized the debates on-going (as they have for decades) between Anglo American Marxist economists and Keynesians-Kaleckians(the latter a variation on Keynesianism) on whether the rate of profit is the singular key variable that determines real investment and therefore growth and the business cycle.

Michael Roberts is an indefatigable defender of the Marxist rate of profit thesis, while I am not. He sees profits solely determining investment, and criticizes Keynesians for arguing the opposite–i.e. that investment determines profits vice-versa. It’s a silly ‘what comes first, chicken or the egg’, argument, for both profits and investment are obviously mutually determining. My reading of both Keynes and Marx is that both realized this ‘mutual feedback effect’ between profits and investment–even if contemporary so-called Marxists and Keynesians have forgotten. What both should be doing is trying to estimate the mutual feedback effects quantitatively, instead of arguing it is one or the other variable that is totally determining the other.

In his recent blog post, Roberts restated the profits-investment, chicken-egg, debate. What follows is my commentary on his post. The problem with business cycle analysis among both Marxist and Keynesians today is that neither understands, or even addresses, in their analyses the new radically changed structure of 21st century global capitalism, which is increasingly dominating by financial asset investing–an argument I’ve been making from 2010 to the present in my three theoretical books (Epic Recession, Systemic Fragility, & my latest, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’).

Marx only began to consider the role of finance capital in his unpublished notes in Vol.III of Capital. (Which raises the question how much credence, one might add, should one give to an author who does not feel his exploration is developed sufficiently yet to publish?) And Keynes only briefly touched upon it in chapter 12 of his ‘General Theory’ book of 1935, moving on in remaining chapters to consider the effects of non-financial variables on real investment. Yet both Marxists and Keynesian followers today generally fail to address the changes in 21st century capitalism, content merely to quote from Marx and Keynes texts that are now 80 years (Keynes) and 150 years old (Marx). Their theorizing is more a case of ‘economic philology’ than economic science observing the new conditions, variables, and changed weights of the old variables. But it is so much easier to simply quote passages from the texts of the masters (and then deliver one’s opinion on such) than to dig into the complex, messy present of 21st century global capitalism. (Which, by the way, I’m convinced the data of which cannot be made sense of by mere text quoting + opinion, but must employ the best of advanced statistical and mathematical methods.)

So here’s my commentary on the profits-investment debate in response to Roberts’ blog entry:

“I find it strange that marxists should be debating keynesians (or ersatz Keynesian Kaleckians) over what determines which–i.e. profits determine investment (Marxists) or investment determines profits (keynesians). Data is clear that both determine each other: profits drive investment (although studies show conclusively real asset investment is financed less than 35% by profits), but investment also determine profits. This poses a problem for Marxist falling rate of profit enthusiasts. What volume of profits is driven by investment? If investment in part determines profits, then it is investment that is determining investment to some extent. The real question is what are the relative magnitudes–of profits determining investment, of investment determining profits and then investment, or of other third variables determining both profits and investment? How does one sort this out? And over time in the lead up to, during, and following the business cycle, during which the relationships and weights between the variables–profits, investment, or other–clearly will change? Certainly not by text analysis. Marxist economists attempt to solve this mutual determination by literary analysis–i.e. by trying to find some secret gem of causation somewhere in Marx or other contemporary Marxists’ works. What we get are constant line-graphs showing correlations (not causation) between profits (however defined) and real asset investment (usually net private domestic investment data). That tells you nothing about causation. If you want to solve the mutual feedback determination effects between profits-investment, it can only be done mathematically. A time series for each variable (profits and investment) via what’s called vector autoregression, combined with an analysis of lagged covariance analysis, will give you a quantitative value of how much profits determines investment, and vice versa, over a given period of time (let’s say 1995-2017 in the US so that two major recessions, and the coming next soon, are included). But that still leaves a dilemma for the falling rate of profit (or volume of profits) arguments for business cycle determination. Profit rates or levels do not determine solely business cycle dynamics. But then in my reading of Marx that never was his intent to explain short term business cycles via falling rate of profit theses (which he never felt was complete enough to pubish as well). Marx wrote of mid-19th century capitalist dynamics. Keynes of mid-20th century. This is the 21st century. Time that Marxists (and Keynesians) came up to speed on the changed structure and dynamics of 21st century capitalism. Neither of whom (Marx or Keynes) understood the new role of financial asset investment (fictitious capital or speculative investment) in disrupting the reproduction of capital cycle(Marx) or GDP contraction. Those interested may read my forthcoming contribution to the ICT journal in Beijing for clarifying all this.”