Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/how-the-us-economy-might-spin-out  

https://theduran.com/how-the-u-s-economy-might-spin-out-of-control-in-the-next  

How the U.S. Economy Might Spin Out of Control in the Next Few Weeks

5 May 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

The highly respected economic analyst who goes by the pseudonym Yves Smith headlined on May 2nd at her “Naked Capitalism” blog, “Complacency, Denialism and the Risk of an Economic Trumpocalypse”, and explained that Trump’s tariffs will — unless he soon cancels or sharply reduces them by far more than he has been doing — destroy crucial supply chains so much that within a few weeks, corporate bankruptcies and layoffs will soar, and things will be falling apart, into chaos. I consider her analysis sound.

She mentions that “shortages are expected to start around May 10 and first on the West Coast,” and that, “Due to how goods from Asia are trucked across the US, the impact on the East Coast for the most part will show up weeks later. Despite the cutoff of new arrivals being abrupt, the impact will be attenuated a bit due to the stockpiling at the business and even the consumer level.”

If this is what will happen, then shortages will soar, which will drive prices way up, even beyond what the tariffs themselves will directly do.

As regards what the tariffs will directly do, she presents pictures of alleged invoices showing things such as “A $628 jacket now costs $1,797 — because the tariff alone added $1,067.” Whether this is mere alarmism, or instead is the now-looming future, will depend upon the factors her article discusses (which is why it’s well worth reading). Though Trump-advocates (such as Steve Bannon in Steve Inskeep’s PBS April 30th interview of him) have faith in his judgement, Trump-opponents (such as New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie’s piece on April 30th, “Donald Trump, You’re No Franklin Roosevelt”) don’t. Both of those sides differ from each other in that the people who have faith in Trump’s judgement are supplied their ‘news’ by (media controlled by) Republican Party billionaires, while the people who don’t are supplied their ‘news’ by Democratic Party billionaires; and, as a consequence of this difference, the things that are NOT being discussed are those which ALL of America’s billionaires don’t want the public to know. (Those matters are bipartisanly censored-out.) On BOTH sides, the presentation is partisan instead of trustworthy, but Bouie’s happens to be entirely true within its narrow scope, which excludes ANYTHING international, on which matters FDR was even greater than he was in merely domestic affairs. However, Bouie was dealing ONLY with FDR’s first 100 days; and, so, since those were entirely about domestic affairs, Bouie’s commentary is actually terrific. Bannon’s is only propaganda for Trump, and Bannon is very skilled at that. For example, Bannon pretends that the Republican Party represents not the interests of Republican Party billionaires but instead of “the working class.” Jamelle Bouie, in stark contrast, presented a masterful comparison of Trump’s first 100 days into his 2nd term, versus FDR’s first 100 days into his 1st term; and Bouie brilliantly documented why historians rank FDR as one of the two greatest Presidents and will probably rank Trump at or near the worst (which I have argued has, thus far, been Truman). But reading both of those, I come away having no favorable opinion of Trump. (But I loathe all U.S. Presidents during at least the past 25 years.)

The Democratic Party’s New York Times also did an entirely true editorial documenting on May 1st that if Trump will succeed at all, he will succeed at turning the U.S. Government into a dictatorship, but because the NYT represents Democratic Party billionaires, it hides the fact that the U.S. Government ALREADY IS a dictatorship (a dictatorship by America’s billionaires). If there is any validity to that editorial, it will be that Trump is heading to make of the U.S. Government an even tighter totalitarianism than it has already become.

The fundamental problem is that because billionaires of BOTH Parties benefit enormously by pumping the false idea that political Parties and political campaigns and elections by the public ARE democracy — that that is what the term “democracy”MEANS — the public is prevented from even being able to CONSIDER the only actual way that a democracy can actually be achieved.

So, if we are soon going to have an immense crash, then it will be merely another failure of the existing idea of what the word “democracy” means and ignoring how democracy actually MIGHT be able to be attained. The billionaires’ — the aristocracies’ — lies about this, have gotten the world into a hell of a pickle, but this has happened for thousands of years, and so let’s simply hope that it won’t result in a WW3, which would end everything.

You see, on that supremely existential matter (avoiding there ever being a WW3), America’s Congress, our lawmakers, are even more bloodthirsty, more neoconservative, than is Trump. Right now in Congress is a bill being prepared that already has veto-proof majorities in BOTH houses demanding Trump to intensify yet further the 80-year-long U.S. war against Russia intensify yet further the 80-year-long U.S. war against Russia. The extreme neoconservatism of both Parties in both houses of Congress is ignored by the public, because the billionaires (who profit enormously from wars) basically hired them into Congress — deceived their Party’s voters to nominate those rabid neocons. The public don’t fear neocons — the most dangerous type of person to be in any federal office. The public lack the intellectual ability that’s needed in order for an electoral democracy to work. But this is true only because every democracy corruptly degenerates into control by the richest who then hire the specialized political consultants to deceive the public to vote for their candidates (all of whom are neocons, with very few exceptions). It’s a cycle of deceit and corruption that history has proven cannot be broken in a Government by publicly elected (instead of randomly selected) people.

In addition, Judge Napolitano interviewed John Mearsheimer headlining on May 1st, the extremely important question, which challenges virtually all of the U.S. empire’s foreign policies, and ESPECIALLY all of the foreign policies which drive the elected leaders of the EU and virtually all of its nations — their rabid assertions that Putin intends to invade their countries — “Prof. John Mearsheimer : Are Russia and China a Threat to the US?” — and what was stunning to me (because I didn’t know that he was gutsy enough to do this) was that Mearsheimer said without any hesitation or modifiers at all “No,” and that he went even further to say (which is importantly ALSO true) that neither Putin nor anyone else in Russia’s leadership has ever indicated that Russia should invade ANY country unless that country CLEARLY AND IMMINENTLY is endangering Russia’s national security, and that China has never indicated any aggressive intent toward ANY nation outside its immediate neighborhood — no imperialist intent at ALL, ever — and that the numerous neocon assertions by U.S.-and-allied leaders to the contrary have ZERO evidence behind those sheerly war-mongering lies. Though the U.S. and European powers have been imperialistic ever since about the year 1,000. So, Mearsheimer — whom no one, to my knowledge, ever called a “Putin stooge” or advocate for any sort of communism, Chinese or otherwise — was thereby damning as liars and incompetents almost all of the political and media leaders throughout the U.S. empire, and was doing this on what is really the most important WW3 question of all: he was openly trashing the leadership throughout The West.

Some people have told me that only “superior” people should be included in the lottery I advocate to become the only method for determining legislators. But that’s foolish, because when corruption reigns in an electoral system (as it by now has CLEARLY done), the ‘representatives’ end up being inferior — NOT superior. (Furthermore, in a lottery-based system, just like in our present electoral based one, each legislator selects and hires experts such as on Constitutional law etc., and there’s no reason to expect that the elected legislator will be more competent than a lottery-selected one would be at selecting those experts, except at deceiving voters — which should be avoided instead of, as currently is the case, sought for.) And if the current, electoral, system of ‘democracy’ produces legislators who are superior to those that would result from a sheer lottery, then why are 66 out of the 100 U.S. Senators co-sponsoring (and therefore more than two-thirds of the Senate would vote to override a Presidential veto on) the insanely neocon Lindsey Graham’s “S.1241 - Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025”? The billionaires who fund BOTH Parties back it. The big problem in our ‘democracies’ is their corruption — NOT their incompetence.

Some have objected that randomly selected legislators will be corrupted just like elected ones are, but that is false because the process by which our representatives become elected is controlled by the billionaires, who are the only few people who have enough money to spend whatever is required in order for them to win.

Some say that a lottery should instead be added to an electoral system. But adding a lottery to an electoral system is to start with corruption (the electoral system, political campaigns — contests in deceiving the public) and then to add a lottery to it.

The ONLY way to eliminate corruption (i.e., to eliminate rule by an aristocracy of sheer wealth) is to go 100% with a lottery, as I described it. The lottery must be 100% the foundation of the Government; there must be NO political campaigns — no contests in deceiving the public.

Otherwise, we can only end up with the rot that we’ve already got. And that is becoming more dangerous by the year. The time to replace it is now.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.