The Economist and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have “dumb and dumber” competing notions as to what is the gravest threat to the global economy.
The WEF says “Social Media Feed” biggest threat to democracy.
The Economist says Populist Nationalism ‘Gravest Threat Since Communism‘
Priced Out of the ‘Open Society’
Saxo Bank editor Michael S. McKenna takes on the Economist in Priced Out of the ‘Open Society’.
On Saturday, The Economist published a rather panicked editorial stating that the US presidential contest between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton represents “the gravest risk to the free world since communism,” with “the future of the liberal world order” depending on Clinton’s success.
What is it that The Economist fears might disappear? All social orders orbit central values from which they derive their legitimacy. For globalism, or international liberal democracy, this takes the form of a strong belief in free markets, free trade, and openness towards the sorts of human migrations that such systems inevitably produce.
This final aspect is an interesting one, as the past 24 months have seen a dramatic ramping-up of hate-speech legislation, social media policing, and more broadly the taboo against speaking ill of this or that group – in Germany, for instance, multiple people have been arrested for posting messages critical of that country’s recent migration wave on social media. In Scotland, a 40-year-old man was arrested in February after condemning his country’s decision to welcome Syrian refugees to its shores on Facebook.
While The Economist decries protectionist measures in general and Trump’s opposition to certain nascent trade deals (such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership) specifically, it is relatively silent on other, more familiar forces warping free markets across the developed world.
“If The Economist believes so strongly in free markets, why does it accept central bank measures and [overall policies] that distort that very market?” asks Saxo Bank chief economist Steen Jakobsen.
Key Question
“If The Economist believes so strongly in free markets, why does it accept central bank measures and [overall policies] that distort that very market?” asks Saxo Bank chief economist Steen Jakobsen.
Democratic Strategist Calls for Assassination of Julian Assange
Meanwhile, back in the US, ZeroHedge reports Democratic Strategist Calls for Assassination of Julian Assange.
Assange is the founder of Wikileaks. His crime? He leaked Hillary Clinton emails.
In other words, he reported facts.
For that, Bob Beckel, Democratic strategist says “The way to deal with this is pretty simple. … A dead man can’t leak stuff. … I am not for the death penalty … we should illegally shoot the son of a bitch”.
In case you think that may be out of context, here is the video clip.
Just Imagine
Just imagine what would have happened if you said similar things about Hillary or Obama because you disagreed with them.
Where would you be now?
Idiocy WEF Style
The WEF says in its concluding remarks that “Intimated by the power of internet users, our current governance institutions are, however, incapable of handling the dynamism and diversity of digitally-mediated citizen opinions.”
The WEF never bothered to consider the fact that just internet users may have a complaint or may even be right.
The WEF was specifically bothered by Brexit.
“The Leave campaign’s main social media messages appealed to the agency of ordinary voters to reject the rule of the bureaucracy and ‘take control’ of their own country. Using very simple language, largely consisting of only a few syllables, these messages spread very fast across the internet and were often reinforced with amusing memes, instead of rigorous expert opinions or statistics.”
Yeah – please note the “rigorous” expert opinions who all said Brexit would crash the stock market. Amusingly, they said Brexit would never happen in the first place.
In the US, “rigorous” expert opinions said there was no housing bubble. Rigorous expert opinions at the Fed believed there would be four hikes this year!
“Rigorous” expert opinions on the global economy have been wrong for years.
The experts have been so wrong, for so long, that it’s a wonder people did not turn to social media sooner.
I will never be invited to give a speech at the WEF because the first thing I would do would be to call the WEF elites a bunch of arrogant jackasses.
That would actually be too polite. Yet, by Beckel’s standards, it could get me killed.
How much different is Beckel from ISIS leaders? What right does the WEF have to imply that public opinion should be suppressed?
Which Statement is More Idiotic?
The gravest threat to society are the arrogant fools at the WEF, the Fed, the Economist, people like Bob Beckel and warmongers like Hillary Clinton.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
For that, Bob Beckel, Democratic strategist says “The way to deal with this is pretty simple. … A dead man can’t leak stuff. … I am not for the death penalty … we should illegally shoot the son of a bitch”.
The way to shut up Bob Beckel is to hang him from the nearest lamp post… Also it will act as a warning to all others who think like him. May be it will also show the central bankers what is in store for them…
“In the US, “rigorous” expert opinions said there was no housing bubble.”
Yeah, led by the Depression expert Ben Bernanke.
Seriously I think the Deep State is now shitting bricks as they are openly talking about things like this. Let us hope Trump makes it to November…
The Bob Beckel video seems to be an old one, given the Dow and S&P figures… not that it condones what he said.
Right, that’s from December 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html
Beckel gives Trump plenty of political ammunition against Hillary and the Democrats. And Trump won’t hesitate to call out him or the DNC.
The reason those in power do not like social media is the truth can be published. The MSM does not like it either. People challenge their view of the news and yes we do have our nut cases, pundits and fans, but many challenge their views and this is dangerous to those in charge. Especially if you present them an alternate view or do some research and provide links.
Putting on my tin foil hat not LOL, those that actually run countries want sheeple they can herd. They use the education system and TV media to do this. They present their experts on some subject and close off the discussion. Hell I have been banned from The Economist forums for disagreeing with an author. I even presented links to the facts. Got warned and then banned.
The real threat to people is oppressive intervention by government.
Unfortunately, the Old Guy is on the money. Tony Blair was elected in the UK using such tactics and then wrecked the economy. ‘Experts’ like to agree with each other just like bankers and lemmings who hold hands and jump off the cliff together.
Suppression of facts leads to ‘the Warmists’ nonsense, ‘WMD’ and banking frauds.
I’m afraid ‘open government ‘ is as hard to achieve as ‘Free Trade’.
Call for selected assassinations but get outraged when one of their own is put in the same category. Hypocrites. On another note my daughter asked me why people are so stupid about raising the minimum wage. She said a $15 an hour minimum wage would just cause prices to rise and they would still be poor. I told her the government wants them stupid so they can control them.
Mish. Another great article. The elite are afraid.
One thing though:
“Free Trade” as it is defined by the globalists is still supported by Mish.
Yet the concept of Free Trade when it was developed did not encompass free movement of labor.
Nor has Free Trade ever quantified the damage done to a nation by mass immigration, the existing cultural destruction, and subsequent colonization by civilizationally hostile groups and compared it to the alleged benefits of Free Trade.
What good is having cheap stuff when the philosophy that allowed their creation destroys the nation around you?
Excerpt from WEF article at bottom
“We are thus not ungovernable in the long term, but need to govern ourselves in radically new ways. The only way to accomplish that is by re-imagining the institutions that would allow citizens to engage in enlightened debate in an active and inclusive public sphere.”
Translation: Feel free to debate anything you like, as long as it’s from the Official Topics list and only includes ideas from the Official Points of View. Your speech is permitted but the topics of which you can speak about are limited, but only for your own good.
Based on some things Juncker has said, the author appears to be describing the current direction of the EU. Not joking. They have a feudal view of population control.
For the US, I think free speech is a permitted distraction because it matters little. Control is already firmly established in the hands of others who we have no control over. Free speech is like a steam vent … it releases pressure and provides good barometric information about where to deal with little dust-ups. We have a more robber baron view of population control … do what you want but don’t mess with the boss or give him any crap if he needs you to do something or wants to control something. Everything else is free game … they don’t care.
I didn’t know that any news media would have on.Beckel. This is a poor sad man…
Mish —
Why does the editor (O’rourke?) on that Saxo Bank website say that a guy with no filter on his mouth is “unfit to be president”, yet Saxo (or O’rourke?) has no issue with a liar and traitor being president?
Other than the obvious (Saxo bank benefits from a crooked status quo) — why is a loudmouth candidate “unfit”, yet (according to Saxo) a criminal is OK?
oh, that is simple…A criminal is someone with whom you can go to bed with…
Your answer was unclear… you wish to sleep with a giant tupee with no verbal filter? Or you wish to sleep with a $12,000 giant potato sack wearing traitor?
I would think Saxo Bank would be a lot more careful announcing (on their own website no less) that Saxo favors criminal behavior. Seems like their compliance department is on vacation
The only way to be fit to be President is to be a criminal. All banks are usually criminal run enterprises. You can’t have an honest President and have our existing financial system.
Mish still hasn’t banned you?
Your belief that corruption is part of the US system might explain why you voted for a Keynan to be President, and why you now want a crime syndicate to destroy what is left.
Life long Republican. Never voted for Obama. Worst president in history. The world is not black and white.
Oh and I told Mish years ago that he ought to ban people like me. Most right-wingers these days inexplicably only like to hear their thoughts repeated over and over by others in the grand conservative echo chamber and get very upset when someone exposes them to different thoughts that they can’t argue against. Cognitive Dissonance can be painful.
I told him that he would almost certainly get more banter and hits if he only let that type post here.
So far, he’s proven to be a bigger man. But let’s see how it plays out.
The quotes taken from The Economist article are taken a little out of context
“News that strengthens the anti-globalisers’ appeal comes almost daily. On July 26th two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State slit the throat of an 85-year-old Catholic priest in a church near Rouen. It was the latest in a string of terrorist atrocities in France and Germany. The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to more electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest risk to the free world since communism. Nothing matters more than countering it.”
“And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.”
And The Economist doesn’t think very highly of Hilary, see this week’s issue
“She is an amazingly poor orator, considering her long record and her easy charm in private, with a default shouting mode that would grate less if she would at least shout in the right places. “It’s so exciting to have this chance to talk to all of YOOOO!”she thundered in Kissimmee. Having little flair for the big narrative, she can be similarly poor at convincing voters she understands and will act on their worries. Her response to almost any problem is to spout policy, which is admirably pragmatic, but, as in the economic plan of action she delivered in Kissimmee, can sound aloof. There is no quick fix to the stagnant wages, wrought by technological and other change, she referred to, and most voters know it. By describing the problem thoughtfully, including the brighter future that technology may well bring, she might nonetheless have provided reassurance. Instead, she harped back to the different world of her father’s working life, half a century ago, then rattled off policies—infrastructure investment, vocational training and the like—that would not begin to go far enough to achieve the transformation she implausibly promises”
Years ago the Economist was ‘ body snatched’ into the destroy western civilization movement.
Formerly insightful analysis became vapid propaganda. Same thing happened at Scientific American.
There are no fools. There are only instruments aligned around a larger effort.
Something is going on. Only the willfully blind can’t see it.
When challenged they ask things like….
“Who would do that?”
“Who could benefit from that?”
…totally skipping over “Is it happening? Can it harm us?”
Imagine not fighting a fire or even pulling the alarm until the cause is fully investigated.
Can watching the activity of one transistor reveal an entire software code?
The inability to do so does not mean there is no larger program at work.
Same goes for individuals and social groups.
Very well put! I canceled my subscription to both in disgust when they jumped on the global warming bandwagon, but refused to publish letters from scientists pointing out the scientific problems with the scam….Now they are fully globalist/SJW converged.
What happened to freedom of speech? Arrested for opinions? Really. Maybe these stories are fictitious.
They are not, as you can rapidly discover with a little research…..
Whatever Freedom of Speech there ever was, died once and for all, with the idiotic “Fire in a crowded theater” nonsense. Ever since, the corpse have simply gotten more and more rotten.
Freedom of speech is an American construct. Europeans for the most part don’t have it in their constitutions.
It’s a universal, natural right. The American Founders were just the first to recognize this on a large scale. No Creator worthy of being referred to as such, would ever consider creating men whose vocal chords can only form sounds after consultation by a gaggle of self appointed “more equal” other men.
Heh. Watch this.
http://youtu.be/K2k1iRD2f-c
The American Constitution basically incorporates the Common Law rights which apply in the UK. Sent from my BlackBerry â the most secure mobile device â via the O2 Network From:comment-reply@wordpress.comSent:13 August 2016 11:00 amTo:davidtwood25@gmail.comReply to:comment+eg5qp8pt4q60889ylaywpirtghv_r25221u1c_5zwck83qavl@comment.wordpress.comSubject:[New comment] Dumb and Dumber: Economist vs. WEF on Biggest Threats to Economy
a:hover { color: red; } a { text-decoration: none; color: #0088cc; }
a.primaryactionlink:link, a.primaryactionlink:visited { background-color: #2585B2; color: #fff; } a.primaryactionlink:hover, a.primaryactionlink:active { background-color: #11729E !important; color: #fff !important; }
/* @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { .post { min-width: 700px !important; } } */ WordPress.com peterblogdanovich commented: “Heh. Watch this.
http://youtu.be/K2k1iRD2f-c“
David are you selling blackberries? Looks pretty bad!
“Which Statement is More Idiotic?
WEF:Social Media biggest threat to democracy
Economist: Populist Nationalism Gravest Threat Since Communism”
It’s a tie. They are both, more idiotic.
The WEF was specifically bothered by Brexit.
“The Leave campaign’s main social media messages appealed to the agency of ordinary voters to reject the rule of the bureaucracy…”
Since when is the rule of the bureaucracy, democracy? The WEF is contradicting its own claim that social media is a threat to democracy.
Social media is a threat to the bureaucracy.
The WEF is anti democracy.
WEF is the same gang of crime lords that puts on the Davos conference (where YOU the riff-raff are not invited). None of the oligarchs authorized the people of England to think for themselves, much less vote for themselves
Nice critique Mish. Only problem is nobody on the right has any real answers either. There’s actually nothing but reactionary orthodoxy on both sides presently.
The only way to keep the Progressive Delusion afloat, is via pervasive indoctrination. Which is why Progressivism only became a force with the advent of technology that enabled one-to-many, centrally disseminated media. This enabled propaganda to reach far and wide unchecked, unquestioned and unopposed.
Previously, having to rely on multiple intermediaries to spread central dictates, the “message” would be subject to too much critical examination and reinterpretation by intermediaries on it’s way to end users. Hence couldn’t be relied on to carry unopposed, regime friendly lies, the way a TV signal could. Which rendered Progressivism impossible, as noone with any simultaneous ability and opportunity to look into it’s slogans, will ever find anything there fit for more than ridicule.
Cheap, high volume, packet switched networks have again enabled people to bypass the centrally controlled information flow. Which will kill off lie and propaganda based and dependent artifices like Progressivism. Which, of course, worries Progressivism’s beneficiaries to no end. Hence their increasingly erratic behavior.
You’re quite right. But only an economics based on freedom and the actual solution to an inherently cost inflationary system, namely the free gift, is up to the task of saving profit making systems. This leaves out any economic theory that adheres to general equilibrium. That is false orthodoxy just as much as re-distributive taxation and heavy handed intrusion into pricing policy are non-solutions on the left-progressive side.
Stuki,
I’m not sure you know what “progressivism” really is. I haven’t heard anything “progressive” coming out of U.S. television in my life. I think you might be confusing it with American liberalism.
The very essence, core, root, footing of progressivism, is the belief that Government, of all ridiculous things, CAN be a force for good. Not IS, or has been, but CAN. Once one gets that confused, anywhere one can go from there, is straight downhill.
As evidenced by the history of the US in the Porgressive Era: Antitrust meddling, Federal Reserve, Prohibition and it’s ugly stepchild War on Drugs, endless wars, women’s suffrage (It’s sad enough men have to go through silly rituals involving voting booths, but that one just may be some sort of least of evils. But women…..? Recruited solely for their greater pliability and greater propensity to follow dear leader down ever more retarded, yes dear, Progressive, paths.), social science “studies”, “scientifically” “proving” such classics as eugenics, lobotomy, sterilization; and in “economics” simply too many atrocities to even bother attempting to enumerate… And on and on and on and on….
Pretty much a 100.00000% track record of being dead wrong, and even deader evil, about anything and everything they ever touched. Thank goodness for the Sharia guys who retained enough of a footing in earlier eras to not fall for that gibberish, and seem to finally be coming around to help ridding the world of that particular brand of rabble.
America was founded on the realization that government CAN NOT be a force for good. Ever. Under any circumstance. All it can ever be, is various degrees of destructive to freedom. Hence should be kept as minimal as at all possible. Never, ever, trying to “change society”, “shape society”, “help someone”, “encourage something”, or whatever other nonsense the progressive hacks used and uses to increase meddling in other lives and bullying others around.
I have have not figured out how to score a “like”, so this is my LIKE to the Stuki post.
To see what progressive economics used to mean read Michael Hudson. Not that crazy. Neoliberal/neoclassical mangled Keynesianism has replaced all that.
When Paul Krugman dissed Steve Keen by terminating further debate by saying: Thats like no economics I understand. I knew we were screwed. Krugman meant it. He couldn’t understand what Keen was saying or the new fangled differential equations Keen was using so debate was over.
I don’t mind when politicians don’t play fair. Public policy debate is always nutty and politicians always use every trick in the book to push their cause forward. But it’s Paul Krugman’s friggin job to engage in honest debate with Steve Keen. Our system has worked for centuries because our politicians reliably took a break from mouthing off for the cameras and held hearings to listen to experts for serious rational advice. Experts who had actually proven their competence by performing in the real world took center stage. In the Great Depression Mariner Eccles played that role. Read about Eccles life. He was quite a guy. And Eccles listened to many expert voices, reached his own conclusions, and told the politicians to clean house in banking and finance. Today we get Janet Yellen, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers and no debate, no hearings, nothing. So yes, we are well and truly screwed.
“For globalism, or international liberal democracy, a strong belief in free markets, free trade, and openness towards the sorts of human migrations that such systems inevitably produce.”
How did “liberal democracy” become just another word for being pro-big business?
It became that way because the paradigms of Debt and Loan ONLY were never questioned and balanced by a concept that was economically valid and powerful enough to do actually do that job. And that is why the business model of Finance is so overweeningly powerful….and arrogantly entrenched.
“Just imagine what would have happened if you said similar things about Hillary or Obama because you disagreed with them.” Mish, why spend blog space complaining about a talking head? Better use it to expose Trump, who did say similar (but not identical) things about HRC, in his recent snide aside to the 2A people. Trump seeks immense power. Beckel is just a talking head seeking ratings.
When Trump talks wistfully wishes protesters could be “carried out on a stretcher,” we should care because Trump actually seeks the power to do so. Beckel, by contrast, is merely offensive entertainment, only dangerous to the extent that people fail to change the channel, or to shout him down.
The Economist (with hardly a single writer as keen an economist as Mish) is right for once. Populist nationalism IS the greatest threat to liberal democracy since international communism. Communism or Leninism was mortally dangerous to the west because it appealed to many westerners. Many – from elites to factory workers — liked communism, wanted communism. Many. So, the danger was not just of forcible imposition from without, but that the ideology would prevail internally, by choice. Likewise, populist nationalism has proved appealing to westerners. Empire, and the two world wars were two of its pan-national features. Yes, westerners have chosen to relinquish power to populist nationalistic ruler before, and could do so again.
By contrast, fundamentalist Islam is not a threat to western liberal democracy, Unlike communism or populist nationalism, it poses no risk of prevailing by choice. It’s inconceivable that masses of westerners would choose to kneel in prayer many times a day, let alone to give up drinking. Millennials might like socialism, but they love microbrew. Externally, no military force of fundamentalist Islam compares to the force that supported international communism, the U.S.S.R.
Classical liberals, libertarians and those who value freedom should see Trump and his populist nationalism, as well as equivalent appeals in Europe (“Austria First!”) as the greatest danger to these values since the Cold War. Don’t just look to the left for threats to individual liberty. The opponents of liberty are coming at us from the right now.
I always like to take the next step down the rabbit hole.
What are the forces causing the increase in populist nationalism? That’s where the problem lies. But newspapers of record can’t discuss that because the owners of those media outlets are also the purveyors of the problems that cause populist nationalism: neo-liberal economics and neo-conservative warmongering.
Why do you keep leaving out the career politicians, which are our biggest threat?
Agree and that is one reason I like The Donald, he is certainly not a career politician. Actually I wonder why he even bothers with it. Maybe he really does care about America?
“The Economist says Populist Nationalism ‘Gravest Threat Since Communism‘”
Just %#*&!* hilarious.
So when the People get screwed and say “ouch!” in the process we have to stifle their cries!
So wonder people are beginning to hate economists as much as politicians.
Of course the gravest threat since Communism is the following:
THE CORRUPTED AND COMPLICIT ALLIANCE BETWEEN A CROOKED GOVERNMENT AND A FASCIST CORPORATE COMMUNITY.
Like Gerald Celente has taught us: Fascism is defined as the merger of State and corporate powers.
Now that should scare the hell out of you!
Economists were created to make weathermen look good.
Our society is Tribal and always has been; little has changed from our hunter-gather past. Religion and security services will be used to control us.
Regrettably, we now have corrupted institutions like the UN, IMF etc endorsing nonsense and scams, such as carbon credits and recycled debt.
Individuals will be condemned by those using the tribal instincts of the masses.
Acceptance is the first step in finding ways to change. A good start is to get government out of all of the areas it should not be involved in; such as education, health etc.
At one time in my life I wanted to pursue an economics major.
Thank God dad had enough sense to talk me out of it.
I would have ended up just another Wall Streetwalker.
Economists were created to make weathermen look good.