Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Biden on Friday called out and mocked conservative Republicans who slammed his infrastructure program as socialist and voted against it but have since asked his administration for grants from it.

I didnt know there were that many socialist Republicans, Biden deadpanned during a speech at a Volvo plant in Hagerstown, Maryland.

Biden, citing a CNN report, noted how Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were among numerous Republicans to have lambasted the program in public but were now asking for cash from it to fund projects in their districts.

Folks, look, you cant make this stuff up. You gotta say, and I gotta say, I was surprised to see so many socialists in the Republican caucus, Biden cracked.

He then warned: If Republicans take control of the Congress, these historic victories we just won for the American people will be taken away.

Republicans have previously attempted to take credit for funding theyve voted against, such as the COVID-19 relief legislation. Biden has in the past mocked them for having no shame.

See the rest here:
Joe Biden Ribs Republicans With Deadpan Response To 'Socialism' Slam - HuffPost

Illustration by Ben Konkol

Text size

About the author: Seong-Hyon Lee is a senior fellow at the George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations and a visiting scholar at Harvard Universitys Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.

Will Chinese leader Xi Jinping tone down his boldness once he clinches his third term? By now, those who were initially skeptical are accepting the force of reality in China: Xi will almost certainly be granted a renewal of his power. And during his third term, we are likely to see the same Xi, with more or less the same policy mandate that he has marshaled so far, only more self-confident.

The enduring features of Xis third term are likely to be as follows. In politics, the Communist Partys grip over all sectors of Chinese society will be strengthened in the name of comprehensive leadership. As Xi puts it, East, west, south, north and centerthe Communist Party leads everything. In economics, the dual circulation strategy to fortify Chinas domestic demand will be implemented with more vigor. Some misinterpret dual as meaning domestic and international, in the sense of expanding production for exports and for domestic consumption. In reality, it means the worlds second-largest economy is withdrawing to its domestic market and shying away from the world, in order to become a more self-sustaining economy, less dependent on foreign trade and foreign supply chains.

Semantics should be put aside when analyzing Chinas slogan politics. In society, the term common prosperity will be front and center again. This slogan refers broadly to economic inequality and was used to justify crackdowns on the technology sector, among other policies. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was briefly relegated to the back burner.

In Chinas foreign policy, a new type of great power relations will be the dominant theme, to place China on an equal footing with the U.S. Xi first raised the idea with President Barack Obama in 2013. The Pacific Ocean is big enough to hold both the United States and China, Xi explained at the moment. It took a while for Obamas aides to realize Xis actual meaning. He was asking America to make concessions by renouncing the Western Pacific. In his third term, Xi will not give up on his vision of establishing a new type of relationship with the U.S.

On Taiwan, realizing national reunification will remain an enduring focus of Chinas national mandate. Amid deepening U.S.-China tensions over the Taiwan Strait, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently reiterated the importance of Taiwan by describing it as core of core interests. Whenever China wants to identify the issues considered important enough to go to war over, it uses the term core interests. In the case of Taiwan, Wang used the word core twice.

If one looks closely, these platforms are all internal and external policies promoted by the Xi administration over the past decade. Xis policies are all long-term goals, and he will stick to them in his new term.

Those who study Xis disposition call him an ideological purist. That is, Xi is a person who truly believes in socialism. Xi is also a believer in Chinas historic sense of rejuvenation. As he put it in 2019, Our world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century. Xi senses a once-in-a-century historic opportunity and believes that the Communist Party is destined for victory.

Xi has shown, time and time again, that he differs from his recent predecessors in that he does not hesitate to enter into conflict with the U.S. In a September 2021 speech at the Central Party School, an institution comparable to the Harvard Kennedy School that grooms midcareer officials, Xi diagnosed that the great revival of the Chinese nation had entered a critical period and said, Not wanting to fight is unrealistic. You must abandon the illusion and fight bravely. Xi has also said, The East is rising, and the West is declining. In Chinas political discourse, the East refers to China, while the West is often a euphemism for the U.S.

Overall, in Xis third term, he will focus on laying the groundwork for the Communist Partys goal of socialist modernization. His goal is to prove the superiority of socialism and turn China into a global power that will awe the West. It also means that Xis foreign policy will pursue ideological competition with the U.S., in addition to economic, military, and technological competition.

Conventional wisdom holds that the task facing the Communist Party today is to maintain the one-party system by strengthening its legitimacy, especially through economic recovery. Xi has somewhat invalidated this old formula, as his larger and more important mission is to demonstrate the superiority of socialism over other considerations. The Western business community has overlooked this aspect of Xis vision in its puzzlement over his policies, including his crackdown on Big Tech entities and the brake he has put on Chinas real estate market, not to mention the rigid zero-Covid policy that severely undermined Chinas economy. They regard these acts as China shooting itself in the foot.

But Xi is simply on a different mission, a grandiose one to revitalize socialism in the 21st century. For that reason, Xi, the strongman, is likely to remain second only to Mao Zedong as the most closely watched and vigorously debated leader in modern Chinese history.

Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barrons and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback toideas@barrons.com.

Read more here:
Xis Third Term Will Double Down on a Mission of Revitalizing Chinese Socialism - Barron's

OPINION:

Standing in front of a room packed full of college students on an American university campus, I have an unpopular opinion to share: Despite what many young Americans believe, socialism is not the answer to the nations problems. I know it could be a tough crowd to convince the majority of Gen Z adults ages 18 to 24 have a negative view of capitalism.

But I have the best evidence anyone can have my testimony. My story includes escaping unimaginable conditions and persecution in Venezuela, just as 6 million other Venezuelans have done in the shadow of dictator Nicols Maduros socialist regime. The record of socialism in Venezuela is one of political upheaval, severe socioeconomic instability, and one of the worst humanitarian crises Latin America has ever seen. If we do not act, if we do not change the perception of what socialism truly is and how it destroys the countries it claims to help, America may also go into decline and see its freedom and prosperity wither.

Its an important reminder during National Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 in the U.S. This month recognizes the contributions made by the American Latino community through its diverse cultures and extensive histories. But history never ends; it is made every day, and as the adage goes, if we dont learn from the mistakes of our past, history is bound to repeat itself. In my home country of Venezuela, history is unfolding before our eyes with devastating effects. So, its crucial to acknowledge the struggles many endured in the face of socialism and to ensure their present realities dont emulate the horrors of their past.

In Venezuela I saw these horrors in person: Children dug through trash cans on the street, looking for their next meal. People died simply because they could not find insulin in the medical marketplace. Individual liberties were trampled in the name of state authority and oversight. But it wasnt always that way. As a child, I lived a comfortable middle-class life, but when Hugo Chavez began to impose socialist policies in the early 2000s, Venezuela went from the richest country in Latin America to the poorest.

In the face of these conditions, I knew I had to act. But in speaking out against Mr. Maduros tyrannical administration, I faced political persecution. I fled to the U.S., where I enjoyed the fruits of liberty, justice, individualism and autonomy.

But I also noticed an alarming trend. Unlike the young people of Venezuela, who took to the streets in protest of socialism and its appalling effects, American youth were congregating on college campuses and engaging in political action in favor of socialism.

The next generation of leaders simply must understand that socialist concepts are the very cause of radical regimes and the crises they produce. Thats why as an outreach fellow for The Fund for American Studies (TFAS), I began traveling the U.S., visiting universities to speak to young people as a witness to the real story of socialism, and how that story ends in a loss of free speech, state-policed oppression and economic collapse.

Many are receptive to my message; others are not. Some say that common problems plaguing the American people rampant inflation, runaway health care costs, increasing student loan debt, and lack of affordable housing, for example are a direct outcome of capitalism. My experience tells me otherwise: That it is excessive government intervention, not capitalism, that has caused these outcomes.

Surprise hospital bills and excruciating wait times to see a doctor are not the results of free enterprise. Rather, they are the byproduct of bureaucratic regulations and lack of transparency two practices that are the opposite of capitalist values. Sky-high student loan bills are also the consequence of government intervention; colleges have been free to drive up the cost of tuition, knowing that the federal government would eventually foot the bill (or simply cancel the student debt, which were now seeing).

Explaining the truth about socialism is how we will change hearts and minds, though it is often an uphill climb. However, just as I saw young people turn away from socialist ideology in Venezuela and throughout Latin America, I know that it can happen among Americas college students, too. This Hispanic Heritage Month, we must uplift the voices of American Latinos and migrants who have seen the true cost of socialism with their own eyes. By heeding these warnings, Americans can preserve the blessings of freedom and avoid Venezuelas fate.

Jorge Galicia is an outreach fellow for The Fund for American Studies (TFAS).

Continue reading here:
From Venezuela to America: Sharing the true cost of socialist ideals - Washington Times

These high prices are caused by high fuel costs it presently costs more to transport goods than to produce them and high fuel costs are the result of the Ukraine War. Present inflation is the result of the COVID crisis.

Millions of Americans were suddenly and unexpectedly without income, and drastic measures were taken to stave off collapse and deprivation.

Two trillion-plus dollars were released into the economy to save lives, and everyone knew this would cause inflation in the intermediate run, and so it has. This largesse unfortunately fell equally upon the worthy and unworthy, which was the cost of taking responsive measures to meet a devastating crisis. Many who didnt need it and many who didnt deserve it received payments, but millions of families and businesses were saved from disruption and ruin by this release of money, and nobody had a better idea. So all this talk of socialism is, again, just so much political hooey. Whos to blame for the worldwide pandemic? Whos to blame for the war in Ukraine? Pick a culprit.

I saw old Biden on C-span last night at some event. He was able to deliver a coherent commentary, integrating an understanding of domestic, foreign and economic policy extemporaneously, without lying, without teleprompter, without blaming anyone, and without once mentioning himself; something that would have been impossible for Putins ex-boyfriend. Incidentally, I saw where Q-anon has proclaimed 45 The Son of Man. Ill bet he lapped that up like liquid Big Mac.

See original here:
Socialist policies not the cause of inflation | Letters to the Editor | thebrunswicknews.com - Brunswick News

Last Thursday, the International Monetary Fund spooked the markets and surprised the commentariat by chiding the U.K. Conservative government for fiscal irresponsibility. The shock was palpable. For the IMF to criticize the government of a major Western economy was a little like the janitor scolding the landlord for putting the buildings assessed value at risk. That sense of a reversal of the usual order of things was all the sharper because, lest we forget, it was Britains Tories, under Margaret Thatchers steely leadership, who wrote the book on fiscal probity as the bedrock of neoliberalism. The IMF spent more than four decades inflicting that orthodoxy upon hapless governments the world over.

As if in a bid to amplify the stir it knew it would make, the IMFs communiqu went so far as to censure the British government for introducing large tax cuts (now partially canceled after the IMF intervention), because they would mainly benefit high-income earners and likely increase inequality. Tories loyal to Britains beleaguered new prime minister, Liz Truss; Americas feistier Republicans; international economic pundits; and even some of my comrades on the left were briefly united by a common puzzlement: Since when did the IMF oppose greater inequality? One would be hard-pressed to identify a single IMF structural adjustment programask Argentina, South Korea, Ireland, or Greece (where I was once a finance minister who had to negotiate with the IMF) about the strings attached to its loansthat had not increased inequality. Had the funds hard-nosed bureaucrats enjoyed a road-to-Damascus moment?

Yoni Appelbaum: A plea for a rapid resolution of the Brexit

Three theories have surfaced about the IMFs motives for opposing the U.K.s tax cuts for the wealthy. One is that the IMF board feared that the fund would struggle to raise sufficient money were London subsequently to request a bailout. Another theory, voiced by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, is that the IMF now understood it ought to show evenhandedness in its dealings with countries rich and poor. When theres a crisis situation or policies that are manifestly irresponsible, its kind of natural for the IMF to take some kind of note, Summers told the Financial Times, adding, I dont think the IMF should distinguish between its rich country shareholders and its emerging market shareholders.

A third theory followed the Pauline-conversion rationale, suggesting that the IMFs statement damning the Truss governments giveaways to the ultra-rich could mark a sea change in the Washington-based institution. According to this view, the IMF was realizing that to save the international liberal order from the various authoritarian populists ascendant in the worldsuch as Donald Trump, Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbn, Narendra Modi, and Jair Bolsonaroit must shift its mission in a more social-democratic direction.

Though interesting hypotheses, none of these explanations engages with the reality to which the IMF was responding with last weeks surprising statement. The notion that London will go cap in hand for a bailout too big for the IMF to deliver is absurd. Britain is a wealthy country that borrows exclusively in a currency printed by the Bank of England. If worse came to worst, the Bank of England could raise interest rates to as much as 6 percent to stabilize sterling and the money markets. An interest rate at that level would certainly demolish the U.K.s economic model of the past 40 years, but it would be the choice over an IMF bailout every time.

And I have firsthand experience that contradicts the theory that the IMF has only now, for the first time, decided to confront a G7 country whose policies it deems to be threatening global financial stability. In my negotiations as Greeces finance minister with the IMF in 2015, the funds top officials were openly scathing about the German governments rejection of a full restructure plan for Greeces public debt; they accused Berlin of undermining Europes, and by extension the worlds, financial stability.

Janet Yellen: Economic growth is essential. So is resilience.

A year later, in a telephone conversation among senior IMF staff published by WikiLeaks, its European chief told a colleague that the IMF should confront the German chancellor and say, Mrs. Merkel, you face a question. You have to think about what is more costly: to go ahead without the IMF or to pick the debt relief that we think Greece needs in order to keep us on board. So much for the second theory, that the IMF now ought to start acting toward Western governments the way it does to developing countries.

This brings us to the third, and most interesting, of the three explanations: that to save the global liberal order from right-wing populism, the IMF is turning social-democratic, woke evenas some British Tories accuse it of doing. The truth, I fear, is less heroic. What happened last week is simply that the IMF panicked. Along with other smart people in the U.S. government and at the Federal Reserve, its officials feared that the U.K. was about to do to the United States and the rest of the G7 what Greece had done to the euro zone in 2010: trigger an uncontrollable financial domino effect.

In the days preceding the Truss governments minibudget statement, the $24 trillion U.S. Treasuries market, whose health decides whether global capitalism breathes or chokes, had already entered what one financial analyst called a vortex of volatility not seen since the crash of 2008 or the first days of the pandemic. The yield on the U.S. governments benchmark 10-year bond has risen sharply from 3.2 percent to more than 4 percent. Worse, a large number of investors had recently stayed away from an auction of new U.S. debt. Nothing scares those in authority more than the specter of a buyers strike in the U.S. bond markets.

To steady the investors nerves, officials came out in strength with reassuring messages. Neel Kashkari, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve president, summed up the spirit thus: We are all united in our job to get inflation back down to 2 percent, and we are committed to doing what we need to do in order to make that happen. This was the moment when the U.K. government chose to announce Britains most expansionary fiscal policy since 1972.

American officials were not the only ones to fret. Days before the London governments so-called fiscal event, the European Systemic Risk Boarda body established by the European Union after the 200809 crisishad issued its first-ever general warning, in effect confirming that Europes financial markets had fallen into the volatility vortex that originated in the United States. Europes electricity providers were being bankrupted by commitments to future orders at exorbitant prices, Germanys mighty manufacturing industry was shutting down because of natural-gas shortages, and public and private debt was climbing fast.

An extra financial shock from the U.K. had the potential to cause huge spillover effects across Europe and beyond. If the U.S. subprime market could push French and German banks over a cliff in 200809, this latest shock wave from the Anglosphere could do similar damage, especially if it rocked the U.S. Treasuries market.

In the face of this mounting transatlantic storm, the IMFs decision to step in was unsurprising. The only remaining puzzle is why the IMF pointed to the inequality-causing effects of the Truss governments tax cuts for the ultra-rich. Although force of circumstance has changed something significant, I doubt this spells the demise of the IMFs neoliberal instincts. Much more likely is this: The IMF realized that the post-2008 inequality-generating policies it helped enforce have plunged North Atlantic capitalism into a state of gilded stagnation that is now unstable, and it feared that the volatility vortex would worsen on news of measures that would create even greater inequality. If the IMF has begun to dislike inequality, it is only because the IMF sees inequality as a proxy for systemic instability.

Read: Giving Germany the middle finger

After the 2008 financial collapse, the U.S. and the EU adopted a policy of socialism for bankers and austerity for the working and middle classes. This ended up sabotaging the dynamism of North Atlantic capitalism. Austerity shrank public expenditure precisely when private expenditure was collapsing; this sped up the decline of both private and public spendingin other words, aggregate demand in the economy. At the same time, quantitative easing by the central banks channeled rivers of money to Big Finance, which passed it on to Big Business, which, faced with that low aggregate demand, used it to buy back their own shares and other unproductive assets.

The personal wealth of a few skyrocketed, the wages of the majority stagnated, investment crumbled, interest rates tanked, and states and corporations became addicted to free money. Then, as the pandemic lockdowns stifled supply and furlough schemes boosted demand, inflation returned. This forced central banks to choose between acquiescing to rising prices and blowing up the corporate and state zombies they had nurtured for more than a decade. They chose the former.

All of a sudden, though, the IMF saw the liberal establishments lost capacity to stabilize capitalism reflected in rising economic inequality. So the last thing the markets needed, the funds technocrats realized, was more socialism for the wealthy. But it would take a feat of wishful thinking to interpret the IMFs panic-driven reaction as a sincere conversion to economic redistribution and social democracy. A warning against an act of elite self-harm was the extent of it.

Link:
Since When Does the IMF Care About Inequality? - The Atlantic