Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Sistemi Politici, Unione Europea

Germania. Confindustria constata il coma dépassé di Frau Merkel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-22.

Aula Anatomia Reimbrandt

«Se non ci arrivi da solo, è perfettamente inutile che te lo spieghi.»


Da tempo constatiamo come la confindustria tedesca stia pigliando sempre più nette posizioni politiche: nessuna ideologia, solo buon senso pratico.

«Something big happened yesterday in Berlin just before midnight — big for Germany, for Europe, perhaps even for the world, but above all for the person who has of late been considered the leader of the free world: Chancellor Angela Merkel»

*

«But late on Sunday, November 19, this reputation took a hit from which she may never fully recover»

*

«So nobody wants to play with Ms. Merkel.»

*

«Germany will now remain in limbo for weeks, perhaps months… Mr. Putin must be doing cartwheels.»

Questa frase contiene un perfido doppio senso. ‘Cartwheel‘ è il nomignolo slang del dollaro di argento.

* * * * * * *

Questo articolo sembrerebbe essere stato scritto più da un industriale che da un giornalista.

Riporta molti dati di fatto ed inserisce pochissimi commenti.

L’autore non usa il classico stile giornalistico liberal, riportando interviste ad ignoti, spesso inesistenti, assunti quindi come portavoce di tutta la nazione. L’incipit è lapidario, quasi da lingua latina piuttosto che da lingua inglese.

«Reports of the end of the Merkel era, like those of Mark Twain’s death, have long been greatly exaggerated. Not anymore»

L’articolo ricorda quanto i partiti tedeschi si siano impegnati per anni a demonizzarsi vicendevolmente, inperfetto stile liberal.

*

«The Greens spent much of their 37-year existence vilifying the Christian Democratic Union …. They also disdain the Free Democrats, whom they consider heartless yuppies»

*

«The CSU folks from Bavaria, by turn, have, as is their wont, spent weeks denigrating the Greens as naive hippies bent on putting real-world, close-to-the-soil farmers out of a living.»

*

«The CSU is panicking about the rise of a populist party, The Alternative for Germany, on its right»

*

«Ms. Merkel bears much of the blame, for she has made every one of her coalition partners look bad»

*

La conseguenza di questa stigmate liberal è semplice:

«Germany will now remain in limbo for weeks, perhaps months… Mr. Putin must be doing cartwheels»

*

«Ms. Merkel, by contrast, has focused her prodigious skills on eliminating potential rivals. This omission will come back to haunt her»

*

«After the trauma of the failed Weimar Republic, the Federal Republic learned to prize stability, and a minority government is hardly stable.»

* * * * * * *

«Ms. Merkel no longer has the stature to explain that to Germany’s pusillanimous partisans»

*

Significativo il commento fatto dal giornale La Repubblica.

«Dopo il voto le è mancata l’autocritica. Negli anni ha svuotato di contenuti sia la Cdu sia la Spd, mischiando tutte le carte. Ora questo le si ritorce contro»

*

«sono i contenuti e l’identità, per esempio per quello che riguarda la crisi dei migranti. La Cdu merkeliana ha perso oltre l’8%: uno schiaffo colossale»

Già: “contenuti e l’identità”, proprio ciò che più è avversato dall’ideologia libera e socialista ideologica.

Il risultato finale dell’accanimento egotico di Frau Merkel sarà il disfacimento della Germania, la devoluzione di ciò che fu l’Unione Europea, una probabile rinascita francese ma, soprattutto, il trionfo di Mr. Putin.

Frau Angela Merkel sarà ricordata alla stregua di Philippe Pétain o di Vidkun Quisling.


Handelsblatt. 2017-11-21. The Beginning of the End of Angela Merkel as Chancellor

Reports of the end of the Merkel era, like those of Mark Twain’s death, have long been greatly exaggerated. Not anymore.

*

Something big happened yesterday in Berlin just before midnight — big for Germany, for Europe, perhaps even for the world, but above all for the person who has of late been considered the leader of the free world: Chancellor Angela Merkel. For 12 eventful years, mostly overshadowed by crises, Ms. Merkel has honed an impressive talent for political survival and for facilitating compromise among people — whether domestic politicians or foreign leaders — who are natural adversaries. But late on Sunday, November 19, this reputation took a hit from which she may never fully recover. When future historians look back at the Merkel era, they will choose this date as the beginning of its end.

It was Christian Lindner, leader of the classically liberal and pro-business Free Democrats — usually closely aligned with Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democrats — who delivered the blow. Standing in a gloomily autumnal night outside the negotiation venue, Mr. Lindner unilaterally and abruptly pulled his party out of the complex exploratory talks between four parties who were, under Ms. Merkel’s aegis, to form Germany’s next governing coalition. The ultimate reason, he said, was a “lack of trust” across the table.

Week upon frustrating week, the four parties had been haggling, usually late into the night. It didn’t help that several of the negotiators have long histories of loathing one another. The Greens spent much of their 37-year existence vilifying the Christian Democratic Union, and especially the Christian Social Union (CSU), the conservative party that rules in Bavaria. They also disdain the Free Democrats, whom they consider heartless yuppies.

The CSU folks from Bavaria, by turn, have, as is their wont, spent weeks denigrating the Greens as naive hippies bent on putting real-world, close-to-the-soil farmers out of a living; on shutting Germany’s economy down with pie-in-the-sky dreams about ending coal power; and on allowing Germany to be overrun by the families of Muslim refugees. Most of this was Bavarian hyperbole. But their motivation was simple: The CSU is panicking about the rise of a populist party, The Alternative for Germany, on its right. The AfD, the CSU reasonably fears, could sabotage the CSU’s traditional claim to dominance in Bavaria, one year before that state holds its next election.

The Free Democrats and Mr. Lindner, meanwhile, are still suffering the post-traumatic stress disorder from the consequences of their last coalition with Ms. Merkel. In 2013, after four years of undistinguished governing as the chancellor’s junior partner, the Free Democrats were ejected from the Bundestag for the first time in postwar history. Mr. Lindner’s conclusion was that his party must never again sacrifice its principles in the name of compromise.

Unfortunately, that is everybody’s conclusion. And for that, too, Ms. Merkel bears much of the blame, for she has made every one of her coalition partners look bad. This is also why the only viable alternative to the four-way coalition that Mr. Lindner just killed is a no-go. It would be a continuation of the “grand coalition” between the Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats. But the Social Democrats have already twice served their patriotic duty as Ms. Merkel’s understudies — from 2005-2009 and from 2013 till now (their joint caretaker government is still minding the shop). Each time, they were punished at the ballot box. This time, their leader, Martin Schulz, visibly depleted after a joyless campaign to replace Ms Merkel, has decided to go into opposition against her, and to find some new theme that could energize the Social Democrats in the years to come. Probably wisely.

«Germany will now remain in limbo for weeks, perhaps months… Mr. Putin must be doing cartwheels.»

So nobody wants to play with Ms. Merkel. This will accelerate murmurs inside her Christian Democratic Union about finding an heir or heiress. Handelsblatt Global will soon profile some of the options. But the fact that there is no clear list must count as another minus against Ms. Merkel’s record. For the mission of any leader, in any field of life, explicitly includes thinking ahead to an orderly succession. Ms. Merkel, by contrast, has focused her prodigious skills on eliminating potential rivals. This omission will come back to haunt her.

What happens next in Germany is not yet clear. A last-minute compromise by either the Free Democrats or the Social Democrats remains possible, but is unlikely. Another option is a minority government, in which Ms. Merkel governs with less than a majority of the Bundestag, hoping in each vote of the chamber that the opposition parties “tolerate” her. This is common in other democracies. But Germany has never had such an arrangement at the federal level in its postwar history, and for good reason: After the trauma of the failed Weimar Republic, the Federal Republic learned to prize stability, and a minority government is hardly stable.

Nor are snap elections as easy as they are in some other European countries, and for the same reason. With Weimar in mind, postwar Germany’s founding fathers in 1949 made it deliberately hard for parliament to dissolve itself and to call for new polls. This is the one situation where the constitution gives Germany’s president — currently Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an avuncular Social Democrat — an actual role to play. But Mr. Steinmeier looks askance at new elections. In any event, polls suggest that a new vote would deliver almost exactly the same stalemate.

The upshot is that Germany, a country that Europe and the world have grown accustomed to considering tediously stable, will now remain in limbo for weeks, perhaps months. This is where the German crisis and Ms. Merkel’s fate enter the agenda in Brussels, Paris, London, Moscow Washington, and Beijing.

Not long ago, only this spring, right-thinking wonks in Berlin were worrying about a weak France and an excessively strong Berlin. Their concern was based on the — correct — premise that Europe tends only to advance when Paris and Berlin work together. And Paris was at risk of falling to an EU-bashing Marine Le Pen. When it didn’t, and a youthful hunk named Emmanuel Macron became president, he was seen as at risk of failing. The German establishment was planning on toning down its power as Europe’s economic engine. The plan was for Ms. Merkel, after a comfortable re-election, to allow Mr. Macron to celebrate some photogenic victories. Together, the thinking was, Germany and France would then fix the euro zone, where economic imbalances remain. Together, they would stave off a meddling Vladimir Putin to the east, contain an impulsive Donald Trump in the west, and manage a Machiavellian Xi Jinping to the Far East.

Instead, the situation is the reverse. If Europe has a leader at all, it is Mr. Macron. It is now his turn to worry about Germany being too weak to assist in the triumphs he needs to reform France and Europe. For his part, Mr. Trump is unlikely to grasp the situation, or to take much interest. But Mr. Putin must be doing cartwheels. Germany’s economy may run well enough to keep humming, perhaps even to thrive, in the absence of a German government. But Europe and the world cannot afford such a hiatus in the center of the continent. If Ms. Merkel no longer has the stature to explain that to Germany’s pusillanimous partisans, Mr. Steinmeier should. 

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Guerra Civile, Sistemi Politici

Giornali. Quanto conta la carta stampata liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-21.

Leccaculo-1-732450

Il controllo dell’informazione è sempre stato uno strumento di potere. Non a caso tutti i regimi politici si premurano sia di avere loro testate sia di disporre di giornalisti sicuramente schierati.

Come tutti i poteri, se usati in modo improprio, perdono il loro valore. Se troppo bugiardi, diventano inattendibili.

Un giornale vale in ragione di quanto valgono i propri giornalisti. Non solo: una cosa è la tiratura, ossia il numero di copie stampate e distribuite, ed una totalmente differente è il numero di copie acquistate e lette.

A ciò si aggiunga il vero valore discriminante del successo di una testata: la sua credibilità. Valore spesso impalpabile, che non è quantizzabile in numero di copie, bensì della sua influenza sugli ambienti che contano.

La Pravda comunista aveva raggiunto tirature strabilianti, decine di milioni di copie, si diceva, ed infatti ogni famiglia russa ne acquistava una. Tuttavia nessuno prestava fede a ciò che riportava, anzi, ne deduceva che fosse vero il perfetto contrario.

La Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) ha una tiratura modesta,

«The 2007 circulation of the daily was 382,499 copies. The 2016 (IVW II/2016) circulation of the daily was 256,188 copies.» [Fonte]

Eppure essa esercita una grande influenza perché riporta i fatti quali essi sono, riservando alla fine eventuali commenti, sempre molto pacati e logicamente sequenziali. I suoi articoli di fondo sono letti da chiunque desideri essere informato allo stato dell’arte. In buona sostanza, la Faz è ragionevolmente obiettiva.

Alcuni giornali sono letti non tanto per le notizie che riportano, quanto piuttosto perché esprimono il parere di una ben determinata parte politica. Parere da non confondersi con la realtà dei fatti. In questa ottica, per esempio, il The New York Times oppure Cnn sono corifei dell’ideologia liberal, mentre il Deutsche Welle oppure il Der Spiegel sono organi della socialdemocrazia tedesca. Sono la moderna edizione di cosa avrebbe detto la Pravda se esistesse ancora. Sono identici nel modo epressivo al Völkischer Beobachter: basta cambiare il termine “ebrei” con quello di “non liberal“.

* * * * * * *

Ciò premesso, sarebbe di interesse comandarsi quanto valga la carta stampata.

Per essere ancor più chiari ed espliciti:

– vale la pena di investire in pubblicità che compaia su queste testate?

– aiuta a far vincere le elezioni il controllo politico dei giornali?

Sono domande di non poco conto, specie alla luce dei risultati elettorali di questo ultimo anno.

Pur avendo un controllo assoluto dei media, i liberal democratico hanno perso le elezioni presidenziali, e le hanno perse anche malo modo. Pur avendo un controllo assoluto dei media, i socialisti ideologici europei hanno subito una clamorosa serie di débâcle: in Francia sono crollati dal 62% all’8%, in Germania sono crollati al 20.5%, in Austria hanno tenuto percentualmente ma verosimilmente non entreranno nella coalizione governativa.

* * *

2017-10-18__Giornali__001

Riportiamo da Wikipedia la lista dei Top 50 paid newspapers.

Il primo giornale occidentale in graduatoria è il Bild con 2.658 milioni di copie, seguito dal The Wall Street Journal con 2.379, dal The Sun con 2.172, e dal The New York Times con 1.865 milioni di copie.

*

2017-10-18__Giornali__002

Riportiamo da Wikipedia la lista dei Top 25 newspapers by circulation negli Usa.

Tenendo conto che gli Stati Uniti hanno 325,127,000 abitanti, il The Wall Street Journal tira una copia ogni 136.7 abitanti, il The New York Times 174.3, ed Usa Today tira una copia ogni 194.2 abitanti,

Ma la gran massa dei giornali americani tira meno di 400,000 copia, ossia meno di una copia ogni 813 persone.

*

I dati di Wikipedia si riferiscono alla tiratura e sono alquanto datati.

Riportiamo da Statista – The Statistics Portal i dati che seguono. Si noti che i dati sono riportati spesso per trimestre.

*

«In spring 2017, the number of Wall Street Journal (daily edition) readers amounted to 8.47 million. In the same period, an average of 4.09 million people read each issue of the WSJ, a decrease from over five million in 2010»

*

«11 percent of respondents aged under 30 stated that The Wall Street Journal was very trustworthy»

*

«In 2017, the newspaper sold 2.52 million copies daily.»

* * *

«In spring 2017, the average number of Washington Post (daily edition) readers amounted to 1.05 million per issue.»

*

«Average daily circulation dropped 38 percent in the past 10 years»

*

«daily digital circulation of The Washington Post averaged at 42,313»

*

«25 percent of respondents stated that they mostly trust or somewhat trust the Washington Post as a source of reliable and accurate information on current events»

* * * *

«In 2016 the average paid and verified weekday circulation of the New York Times stood at 571.5 thousand copies, a decrease from over 1.92 million copies in 2013.»

*

«As it turned out, the answer is yes. Six and a half years after the introduction of its metered paywall, The Times has more than 2 million digital subscribers»

* * * * * * *

Questi dati dovrebbero dare da pensare.

In ultima analisi si dovrebbe essere grati ai liberal ed ai socialisti.

Con una campagna mediatica scotennata e priva di fondamenti, urlata alla esasperazione, che riporta più menzogne che fatti realmente accaduti, hanno agito come causa efficiente dell’abbandono degli Elettori, che di loro non ne possono proprio di più. E questo sia in America sia in Europa. Quindi, rileviamo i fatti e ben guardiamoci dal cercare di convertire liberal e socialisti: incitiamoli invece a proseguire così come stanno facendo. Solo loro sono in grado di distruggere alla radice le loro ideologie.

Era ben più credibile la Pravda dei tempi di Stalin che i loro giornali.

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Sistemi Politici, Stati Uniti

Burocrati. Vil razza dannata. Le democrazie occidentali sono ereditarie.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-30.

Bburocrate

Una delle grandi illusioni che la gente nutre senza nessun substrato oggettivo o logico è che nel sistema democratico occidentale le elezioni possano mutare il quadro politico: via i vecchi governanti e subentrino i nuovi.

È questa una visione decisamente miope quanto irreale.

Che le elezioni possano servire a qualcosa, d’accordo, ma mica poi più di tanto.

Vediamo subito il perché, pigliando spunto dagli Stati Uniti di America, anche se le considerazioni che si svilupperanno sono di ordine generale.

*

Le elezioni presidenziali polarizzano, correttamente, l’attenzione del mondo. Ci si domanda cosa e come farà il nuovo presidente. Ma allora, domandiamoci, quanto è libero di agire?

Quando un presidente entra in carica si ritrova, per limitarsi ai poteri politici tradizionali, un Congresso ed un Senato eletto negli anni precedenti, che quasi invariabilmente non lo supporta. Il presidente uscente condiziona quello entrante lasciandogli in eredità la composizione delle due camere. Il presidente ha sicuramente molti poteri, ma senza il placet del Congresso e del Senato fa ben poca strada.

*

Se è vero che al rinnovo presidenziale fa riscontro lo spoils system, ossia le dimissioni d’ufficio delle maggiori figure burocratiche della federazione, è altrettanto vero che il corpo dei burocrati resta. E questo è stato assunto dalle Amministrazioni precedenti: di volta in volta possono essere un volano oppure un terribile freno all’operato del Presidente. Molti di essi sono inamovibili.

La resilienza del corpo burocratico è proverbiale nei secoli ed in ogni nazione. Mai un burocrate ammetterà che le mansioni che svolge sono inutili o dannose per il paese: anzi, per sua intima natura cercherà di sopravvivere alle alterne sorti irrobustendo l’organico e le mansioni: al caso, inventandosele di sana pianta.

La burocrazia sopravvive benissimo anche senza erogare servizi. La burocrazia serve sé stessa.

Poi, si consideri che ad ogni legge approvata corrisponde la messa in funzione di un organo burocratico che la attui e ne sorvegli l’attuazione. Ogni legge ipertrofizza l’apparato burocratico.

*

Poi, a metà mandato, ci sono le elezioni di mezzo termine.

«Le elezioni di metà mandato o medio termine (dall’inglese Midterm Elections) si tengono, ogni quattro anni, ovvero due anni dopo le elezioni presidenziali, negli Stati Uniti e riguardano il Congresso, le assemblee elettive dei singoli Stati, e alcuni dei governatori dei singoli Stati. Non riguardano l’elezione del presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Tale tornata elettorale si tiene il primo martedì dopo il primo lunedì del mese di novembre degli anni pari e riguarda i 435 membri della Camera dei rappresentanti e un terzo dei 100 membri del Senato (alternativamente 33 o 34). Le elezioni di metà mandato si tengono a metà del mandato presidenziale (4 anni), e da ciò deriva la loro denominazione.

Le elezioni di metà mandato riguardano anche i governatori di trentasei dei cinquanta Stati membri degli Stati Uniti.» [Fonte]

Se è vero che la Presidenza degli Stati Uniti può modulare le elezioni di mezzo termine, è altrettanto vero che nella storia bicentenaria degli Stati Uniti raramente un Presidente in carica sia riuscito a vincere le elezioni di mezzo termine.

*

Ma il problema è ancora più complicato.

Da sempre il Senato è stato una delle bestie nere dei Presidenti.

«La sua organizzazione e i suoi poteri sono delineati dall’articolo 1 della costituzione degli Stati Uniti. Il Senato è presieduto dal vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti d’America; condivide con la Camera il potere legislativo e le funzioni di controllo dell’operato dell’esecutivo, ma possiede anche alcuni poteri esclusivi, tra cui la ratifica dei trattati internazionali e l’approvazione delle nomine di molti funzionari e dei giudici federali. ….

Ogni Stato degli Stati Uniti è rappresentato da due membri; pertanto il Senato è attualmente composto da cento senatori. ….

Ciascun senatore è eletto per sei anni; le scadenze dei mandati sono distribuite nel tempo con un sistema di classi, in modo che un terzo dei senatori siano rinnovati ogni due anni» [Fonte]

Già. I senatori durano in carica due anni più del Presidente degli Stati Uniti. Il Presidente entrante si ritrova senatori eletti quattro o due anni prima di lui, in un clima politico spesso molto differente da quello attuale. In compenso, i senatori che riuscisse a far eleggere nelle elezioni di mezzo termine ovvero quelle in occasione del rinnovo presidenziale li lascerà in eredita non sempre gradita al suo successore.

*

Ma dove il concetto di ereditarietà appare evidente nella sua forma completa è il corpo dei giudici federali, ivi compresa la Suprema Corte di Giustizia.

Agli inizi, due secoli or sono, la Suprema Corte di Giustizia era solo la suprema istanza d’appello cui poter ricorrere. Mentre le corti federali dei Circuiti sono tenute ad esaminare qualsiasi istanza sia loro sottoposta, la Suprema Corte decide se ammettere o meno l’appello alla valutazione. Sull’intorno del 1820 – 1830 i membri della Suprema Corte fecero un quasi colpo di stato, anche se allora non fu percepito come tale. La costituzione americana non prevedeva, e continua a non prevedere, una qualche forma giuridica equivalente a ciò che noi europei denominiamo Corte Costituzionale, ossia una corte che esamini se i provvedimenti legislativi siano o meno conformi alla costituzione.

Orbene, l’allora Suprema Corte di Giustizia si autoproclamò competente in materia costituzionale, e nessuno disse nulla: continuò quindi così per tradizione e consuetudine. Negli ultimi decenni poi, la Suprema Corte di Giustizia avocò a sé persino la definizione dei principi metagiuricidi alla base della Costituzione. La contraddizione dei termini è evidente. La Suprema Corte di Giustizia applica una Costituzione i contenuti della quale decide lei stessa quali debbano essere: è un potere assoluto mai visto dai tempi di faraoni e di Ivan il Terribile. Nemmeno Stalin era arrivato a tanto.

Ciò premesso, quando si renda vacante un posto di giudice federale, quasi sempre per decesso del titolare, il Presidente nomina il subentrante, ma sotto la condizione che il Senato approvi la proposta.

Inutile dire che se il Senato fosse contrario per un qualsiasi motivo al Presidente in carica le nomine dovrebbero essere tutte contrattate.

Ma quando un Presidente riuscisse a far passare un giudice federale della sua parte, quello occuperebbe il posto per lunghi decenni. E, dato l’immenso potere politico dei giudici federali, ciò costituisce un fatto ereditario di potere assoluto mai visto nella storia.

* * * * * * *

Non desta quindi meraviglia che spesso una situazione così contro frenata trovi epilogo nel modo più umanamente semplice ed efficace.

Abramo Lincoln nel 1865, James Garfield nel 1881, William McKinley nel 1901 e John Kennedy nel 1963 furono semplicemente assassinati. I successori mangiarono la foglia, e morirono così nel proprio letto. Ma Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt e Gerald Ford sfuggirono per un pelo a degli attentati, mentre Donald Regan se la cavò con tre mesi di ospedale.

Ma anche candidati alla presidenza quali Robert Kennedy nel 1968 furono uccisi senza tanti complimenti.

Si pensi anche come nel 1859 il «Chief Justice» della California, David Terry, uccidesse il senatore dello Stato, David Broderick.

Come si vede, ogni lavoro ha i suoi rischi professionali.

* * * * * * *

Adesso non rimane altro che porsi due tra le tante possibili domande.

La prima domanda è per quale strano motivo gli Stati Uniti si siano dotati di una costituzione così farraginosa.

La risposta solita è che ai padri fondatori era parso opportuno bilanciare i poteri, nell’ottica illuministica e massonica della divisione dei poteri.

Questa risposta soddisfa le intelligenze scarne e superficiali. Questo sistema in effetti è sostanzialmente ingestibile, o, quanto meno, con tempi di risposta geologici e con la concreta impossibilità di delineare una linea strategica duratura.

Il problema è semplicissimo. Solo per fare un nome, consideriamo George Washington, padre della patria.

«George Washington fu anche uno dei principali esponenti della massoneria in America durante il suo periodo. Fu iniziato il 4 novembre 1752 nella Loggia “Fredericksburg” in Virginia, e divenne Maestro il 4 agosto 1753. Nel 1779 gli fu proposto il titolo di “Primo Worshipful Master” (Gran Maestro) della neonata Gran Loggia per tutti i Paesi del Commonwealth, proposta in un’assemblea delle logge della Virginia, ma egli rifiutò la carica perché preferì occuparsi dei problemi militari.

Nell’aprile del 1788 fu eletto Maestro Venerabile della Loggia di Alexandria, in Virginia, nei pressi di Washington DC, e il 30 aprile 1789 gli fu conferito il titolo di Gran Maestro, carica che mantenne ed esercitò fino alla sua morte.» [Fonte]

Al sodo: tutte le decisioni importanti erano prese in loggia, quindi erano applicate con la collaborazione dei massoni di ogni ordine e grado, indipendentemente dal partito di militanza. La massoneria formava il vero centro di potere trasversale a quello formale politico e burocratico. Qualsiasi azione deliberata in loggia trovava immediato riscontro, mentre iniziative non sue non avevano quasi possibilità di concretizzarsi.

Qualcuno non gradiva il sistema? Nessun problema. Si sarebbe scatenata una terrificante campagna mediatica, una persecuzione giudiziaria e burocratica. Se poi questo non fosse stato sufficiente, ebbene, allora un killer avrebbe provveduto.

*

Compreso questo marchingegno, resta perfettamente comprensibile tutto quello che sta accadendo a Mr Trump, che è un outsider. Il sistema non lo riconosce e quindi lo rigetta.

*

La seconda domanda è perché mai Mr Xi, Mr Putin e tanti altri governanti a livello mondiale non sappiano cosa farsene della democrazia occidentale. La risposta dovrebbe essere implicita in tutto ciò che prima è stato detto. Osservando accuratamente cosa sia e dove abbia portato la democrazia occidentale ne fanno volentieri a meno.

*

Resta da fare un’ultima considerazione di vasta portata.

Cerchiamo per almeno un momento di scordare che è la politica a gestire la cosa pubblica.

Sotto questa condizione, resta la struttura organizzativa dello stato.

Per quanto riguarda l’Occidente, questa era stata pensata dagli illuministi in un’epoca prettamente contadina, con comunicazioni molte lente e difficoltose, e senza tutto sommato una grande pressione esterna ad avere un’organizzazione strutturalmente efficiente.

Ad oggi le cose sono mutate.

Le costituzioni dei paesi occidentali, viste assieme al copro legislativo di competenza quali le leggi elettorali, prevedono un costante steady-state. Sono difficilmente gestibili nei periodi di crisi e non prevedono di norma la gestione di eventi straordinari.

Due esempi per tutti.

Solo la costituzione francese permette sostanzialmente che prenda il potere la maggioranza relativa. Ci sono dei pro e dei contro: è vero. Però così facendo lo stato ha sempre un governo legalmente costituito.

Nelle altre nazioni ad una frammentazione politica corrisponde una sostanziale ingovernabilità. Spagna e Germania stanno ora cercando di affrontare alla al meglio un simile frangente.

La tecnologia innanzitutto rende accessibili le informazioni in tempo reale, e sempre in tempo reale è possibile smistare gli ordini ai destinatari. Il mondo finanziario, economico e sociale si muove a questa velocità.

I governi occidentali sono farraginosamente lenti.

Questo non sarebbe drammatico che esistesse solo l’Occidente: ma così non è.

La Russia ha tempi di reazione tra evento e decreto in gazzetta ufficiale di poche ore, così come la Cina.

Si voglia o meno, la competizione è con queste due realtà: al momento il confronto ricorderebbe quello di un esercito appiedato che combattesse contro un esercito meccanizzato.

Senza profonde riforme dell’assetto burocratico degli stati con relativi snellimenti procedurali, l’Occidente si condannerebbe a morire di inedia mentre tutti gli altri corrono. Esattamente come la quantità di potere che debba essere concessa al capo dello stato (primo ministro nel caso) dovrebbe essere rivista.

Nota.

L’autore è conscio che un tema di questa portata è stato riportato in modo frammentario ed incompleto. Lo si prenda come spunto di riflessione.


New American. 2017-10-20. “Deep State” Bureaucracy vs. Trump, America, Constitution

Burrowed deep within the bowels of the U.S. government are legions of Big Government bureaucrats with views that are radically at odds with those of everyday, mainstream Americans — and the implications for freedom are enormous. Elections may be useful in removing politicians, but the career bureaucrats who toil away in obscurity, often in blatant defiance of the Constitution, never go anywhere. Instead, they protect their turf as they dump an unfathomable amount of regulations and decrees on the very taxpaying Americans who pay their salaries — tens of thousands of pages worth every year. And when there is a perceived threat to their power and agenda — say, for example, a president who promises to “drain the swamp” and rein in the bureaucracy — they react with fury. Meet the infamous “Deep State,” or at least one crucial component of it.  

On paper, at least, President Donald Trump is the chief executive officer of the federal government. He sits atop a vast and incredibly powerful machine that includes nearly three million civilian federal employees, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. That does not include the more than two million in the Armed Services or the over 20 million government employees at the state and local level. Those millions of federal employees are spread out across hundreds — nobody has the exact number, apparently — of bureaucracies, agencies, departments, sub-agencies, and more. Official estimates on the number of agencies range as high as 430, or even higher. And regardless of which agency they work at, among those federal employees who gave to a political campaign in the last presidential election, almost all of them gave to Hillary Clinton.

In a memo produced by Rich Higgins while he was serving as U.S. national security council director for strategic planning in the Trump administration, the “Deep State” is referred to multiple times. Under “The Deep State,” the document outlines the general idea: “The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state beholden to no one, certainly not the American people. With no rule of law considerations outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel advocated, god bestriding the earth.” Throughout the memo, there are more than half a dozen references to this “Deep State,” including the idea that Democratic leadership “protects cultural Marxist programs of action and facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.” Even the Republican leadership, in cooperation with “globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests,” is willing to “service the deep state.”

The document, which outlines the coalition of interests that are said to be working to destroy President Trump and America, highlights a seemingly bizarre alliance among the hard Left, Islamist organizations, globalists, and more. “Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction,” Higgins observed, describing a Maoist-style insurgency being waged against the administration. “For this cabal, Trump must be destroyed. Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president. Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those engaged in the effort, especially those from within the “deep state” or permanent government apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.”

Higgins was reportedly removed from his post by the Deep State. Former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka referred to it as the “permanent state.”

And indeed, there does appear to be a sort of permanent governing class that, at least in part, is composed of unaccountable federal officials burrowed into the bowels of the bureaucracy. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this permanent government is hostile to the founding values of the United States — limited government, rule of law, inalienable rights endowed on individuals by God, traditional morality, and more. Of course, the first and most obvious piece of evidence is simply to examine the actions of this permanent governing class. The obvious fruits of the bureaucracy’s labors include constantly diminishing individual freedom, perpetually expanding government power, increased militarization of the bureaucracies, destroyed lives, reduced prosperity, and other ills.   

Consider also the fact that some 95 percent of the money donated by federal employees who gave in the 2016 presidential election went to Clinton. The massive imbalance held true across every agency analyzed by The Hill as part of an eye-opening investigation published in the days before the election. Among employees at the U.S. State Department, for example, more than 99 percent of all donations went to Clinton. That incredible ratio helps explain seemingly bizarre occurrences such as, for instance, the recently exposed plot by top State Department officials to install Clinton’s top aide as U.S. ambassador to Colombia amid a Deep State-backed scheme to empower communist forces there. It also helps explain why foreign policies started under previous administrations — using U.S. tax money to promote homosexuality abroad, as one example — continue despite the change in the political leadership.   

Some bureaucracies were even worse than the State Department. At the U.S. Department of Education, which has usurped virtually all authority over what gets taught in government schools today, 99.7 percent of donations went to Clinton. Virtually every bureaucrat in this department who donated (except three) supported Hillary Clinton, who supported Common Core and infamously claimed that it takes a (government) “village” to raise a child. That is why, despite the ostensible change in leadership, very little has actually changed in terms of policy at the department. In fact, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ false claims notwithstanding, the department continues its scheming to force government schools across America to teach the Obama-backed, dumbed-down Common Core standards — a politically toxic program to further nationalize and destroy education that Trump promised to crush.     

Other federal departments — including many that can literally destroy the lives of Americans on a whim — are almost as radically skewed in favor of Clinton and her anti-constitutional, Big Government agenda. Consider the Department of Justice as a representative example. According to The Hill’s analysis of election spending data, 97 percent of DOJ employees’ donations to a presidential campaign went to Clinton. Remember, those are the same bureaucrats who were in charge of investigating Clinton for a variety of serious crimes, including her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. Still today, despite having Attorney General Jeff Sessions ostensibly in charge, the DOJ remains dominated by a permanent class of bureaucrats and attorneys who loathe the average Trump voter.    

At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 99.4 percent of donations went to Clinton. The numbers were the same at the U.S. Department of Labor, with just 0.6 percent of donations going to Trump. At the U.S. Commerce Department, more than 98 percent of the cash went to Clinton. At the Department of Energy, it was 95 percent. Among Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats, 96 percent of their donations were for Clinton. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 96 percent of donations went to Clinton, too. At the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has been under fire for years for targeting conservatives, almost 95 percent of donations were for Hillary. At the Treasury Department, 95 percent went to Clinton. At the EPA, where former bureaucrats got caught circulating a guide teaching current bureaucrats how to resist the Trump policies voters supported, it was 96 percent.      

In other words, the federal bureaucrats in charge of foreign policy, “justice,” education, agriculture, health, tax audits, housing, commerce, and more are virtually all opponents of their boss — the man elected by the American people to rein in those very bureaucracies and bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats, who make up a key component of the “deep state,” are still giving overwhelmingly to Democrats ahead of the 2018 congressional elections, according to an analysis by the Washington Free Beacon released this week. Those trends are unlikely to change any time soon, with many of those bureaucrats having “job security” unimaginable in the private sector that includes a practical ban on being fired.    

Some analysts have tried to explain away the incredibly lopsided donation numbers by citing self-preservation. In essence, the argument goes like this: Trump said he would consider cutting back some of the sprawling federal bureaucracy, so bureaucrats were anxious about potentially losing their jobs or their power or both. However, even among the agencies ostensibly dealing with “defense” and “security,” where Trump vowed more resources, Trump still did poorly in terms of donations relative to Clinton. At the Defense Department, for example, some 84 percent of donations went to Clinton. At “Homeland Security,” 90 percent of the donations went to Hillary. And at Veterans Affairs, Clinton received almost 90 percent.  

Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, President Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to drain the Deep State bureaucracy swamp. Indeed, beyond the bureaucracy, many of Obama’s political appointees remain in their posts. At the State Department, for example, out of six undersecretary of state positions, only one has been filled so far. That single post was actually filled by an Obama-era official, Thomas Shannon, who has been working to have Deep State operatives put into key posts that will advance Obama’s agenda while ensuring that the “dirty laundry” never gets aired. Of the 23 assistant secretary of state positions, just three are filled so far, and two of those have been filled by officials from the Obama administration. A State Department official quoted in media reports said the agency had a “deep bench” of career bureaucrats working to “advance U.S. interests.” Even neocons, though, have warned that the State Department is still pursuing Obama’s policies despite the election.   

When asked about the huge number of appointments that have not been made, Trump suggested he might not make them. “We are not looking to fill all of those positions,” Trump explained on Twitter. “Don’t need many of them — reduce size of government.” In an interview earlier this year with Forbes, Trump echoed those comments, saying he would not be making many of the appointments that would normally be made, because “you don’t need them.” “I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it’s totally unnecessary,” he said. “They have hundreds of thousands of people.” Trump is right, of course. In reality, it is even worse — many of those jobs and the agencies the appointees would lead are unconstitutional. But by not filling those key posts, Trump is allowing Obama holdovers and swarms of bureaucrats across the federal government to run wild. He may be getting bad advice from “Deep State” operatives.         

In fact, some of the Deep State’s leading luminaries — such as fanatical “New World Order” advocate and population-control zealot Henry Kissinger, who has served as secretary of state and in other top posts — have even been embraced by Trump in recent weeks. On October 10, Kissinger visited the Oval Office and was showered with praise by the president. “Henry Kissinger has been a friend of mine. I’ve liked him, I’ve respected him,” Trump said. “He’s a man I have great, great respect for.” Beyond that, The New American has highlighted the troubling connections to globalist establishment and the Council on Foreign Relations — another key component of the “Deep State”even among some of his Cabinet appointments. Some of his top officials have even attended the annual Bilderberg meeting, another gathering of Deep State operatives.  

Clinton and Biden have realized how important it is for Deep State operatives to remain in place as they try to sabotage any semblance of America First policies promised to voters by Trump. Biden, for example, said they “call me all the time.” He responds by telling them: “Please stay, please stay. There has to be some competence and normalcy.” Clinton made similar remarks last month, urging federal employees to “stick it out, stick it out, because the tide has to turn.” “If [Democrats] can take back one or both houses of Congress in 2018, you will have people you can talk to again,” Clinton declared while promoting her book. At least 78 of Obama’s political appointees even “burrowed” into top-level civil service jobs where they essentially cannot be removed, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office.     

Those “Deep State” bureaucrats and bureaucracies have many ways to take down their enemies. Consider, for example, that these out-of-control, rabidly pro-Clinton agencies produce more decrees and regulations with criminal penalties attached than the government itself can count — literally. Estimates suggest there are close to half a million federal regulations with criminal penalties. But nobody knows the true number. When lawmakers asked the Congressional Research Service to calculate the number of statutes and regulations with criminal penalties, its response was that it lacked the “manpower and resources to accomplish this task.” Seriously. Despite the Constitution delegating all legislative powers to Congress, the reality is that most legislative powers (and even many judicial powers) have been usurped by the administrative arm of “Deep State” and its never-ending deluge of regulations and decrees.

That means, among other things, that virtually every American commits multiple federal crimes each day without even knowing it, according to the book Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by attorney Harvey Silverglate. In other words, any American who crossed the Deep State could, theoretically, be targeted for violating some criminal regulation that he or she never even heard of. That is one of the things that makes the ongoing “fishing expedition” against Trump by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a longtime Deep State operative, so dangerous — experts such as prominent emeritus law professor John Baker say there is literally no American over 18 who could not be charged with some federal crime. Combined with the out-of-control “intelligence” apparatus — another crucial component of the Deep State — literally nobody is safe. The vicious take down of Trump’s first national security advisor, Mike Flynn, appears to have been a clear-cut example of the “Deep State” taking down one of its enemies.        

Of course, different people mean different things when they talk about the “Deep State.” In the coming days and weeks, The New American magazine will also take a look at the Deep State behind the Deep State — manifested in, among other organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg network, and more. But for now, it is clear that the federal bureaucracy has become a crucial element of what is today known in the popular imagination as the “Deep State.” It is not alone, of course. But it is extremely powerful, and it has countless ways to destroy its enemies. If the American people hope to protect their Constitution and their liberties from the forces arrayed against it, defanging the administrative arm of the “Deep State” will be essential. And right now, Trump has the power to put that process in motion — if only he will take steps to do it.

Pubblicato in: Sistemi Politici, Unione Europea

Germania. Proiezioni YouGov sui seggi. Chaos.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-20.

2017-09-20__Germania_Poll__001

La società YouGov ha rilasciato i risultati di un sondaggio elettorale eseguito il 19 settembre, sulla base del quale è stata calcolata la proiezione del numero di seggi che sarebbero conquistati nel Bundestag.

Questi dati, anche quelli espressi in termini percentuali, sono alquanto differenti da quelli riportati da altre società di indagini, notabilmente perché proiettano l’Spd al 25% e l’Fdp al 7%.

Il sistema elettorale tedesco è un classico esempio di complessità al limite della capacità gestionale umana. Infatti, una parte dei deputati è eletta su base di collegi uninominali, un’altra parte su base proporzionale corretta, ed infine vi è un certo quale numero di seggi attribuiti su base ripartitiva.

Per fare previsioni con basso margine di errore servirebbe quindi un elevato numero di interviste, diciamo almeno un migliaio per ogni collegio, cosa del tutto improponibile in termini di tempi e di costi. Come risultato finale, la metodologia di studio deve per forza di cose essere fortemente estrapolante, con un consistente aumento dell’errore previsionale.

«For the 2017 German federal election, YouGov is publishing figures for a model similar to those created for the 2016 United States presidential election, 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, and 2017 United Kingdom general election using Multilevel Regression with Poststratification (MRP), which utilizes demographic data on individuals’ characteristics to project results across different states and constituencies using approximately 1,200 online interviews each day with voters in the YouGov panel.»

* * * * * * *

2017-09-20__Germania_Poll__002

2017-09-20__Germania_Poll__003

2017-09-20__Germania_Poll__004

Ricordiamo come, nell’interpretare questi risultati, si debba tener conto che il sistema di attribuzione nei collegi, sia pure parziale, condiziona moltissimo i risultati alla consistenza di un partito in un determinato collegio. Un partito che avesse la maggioranza assoluta in un unico collegio, otterrebbe un deputato anche se la sua percentuale su base federale fosse infima.

*

La Cdu passerebbe dal 41.5% al 36%. Se è vero che manterrebbe la maggioranza relativa, sarebbe altrettanto vero che perderebbe 5.5 punti percentuali. Il numero dei deputati passerebbe dagli attuali 311 a 255, perdendo così 56 seggi. Sarebbe molto difficile poter parlare di vittoria di Frau Merkel.

La Spd presenterebbe un calo percentuale minimo e, soprattutto, conserverebbe quasi intatto il numero dei deputati ottenuti, scendendo da 193 a 176.

La Fdp otterrebbe il 7% dei consensi, rispetto al 4.8 riportato nel 2013: supererebbe sì la soglia di sbarramento, ma conquisterebbe solo 52 deputati.

AfD passerebbe dal 4.7% al 12%, e, superando lo sbarramento, conquisterebbe 85 deputati, diventando la terza forza elettorale tedesca.

* * * * * * *

Se queste proiezioni dovessero trovare riscontro nei risultati usciti dalle urne, l’unica soluzione numericamente possibile sarebbe una riedizione della Große Koalition, con tutte le incongruenze politiche che ne conseguirebbero.

Segnaliamo infine un dato già noto, ma qui riportato con chiarezza.

AfD conseguirebbe, in termini percentuali, il 17% in Brandenburg, il 15% a Berlin, il 17% in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, il 18% in Saxony, il 16% in Saxony-Anhalt, ed il 17% in Thuringia.

In questi Länder AfD è costantemente maggiore dell’Spd.

Questa concentrazione di voti nei Länder orientali potrebbe essere determinate nella formazione del Bundesrat, il senato, che è composto di membri nominati, non eletti, dai governi nazionali, ed un governo ha bisogno della maggioranza sia al Bundestag sia al Bundesrat.

*

In conclusione, il chaos è sempre più prevedibile.

Pubblicato in: Sistemi Politici

Norvegia. Domani e dopodomani al voto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-07.

2017-09-07__Norvegia_001

Le proiezioni per le prossime elezioni politiche in Norvegia presentano un quadro di sostanziale parità tra lo schieramento di destra e quello di sinistra.

Le differenze percentuali registrate sono molto inferiori ai margini di errore delle proiezioni, margini stimabili attorno al ±4%.

Riportiamo qui a seguito i possibili scenari.

2017-09-07__Norvegia_002

2017-09-07__Norvegia_003


Bloomberg. 2017-09-07. Norway’s Election Is Close: Here Are the Possible Coalitions

With the established parties losing ground, Norway’s election is looking like a nail-biter.

That means there will be much wheeling and dealing after the Sept. 11 vote. If history is any guide (the last party to govern alone was Labor, 17 years ago) talks will end in a coalition. It could also end in a minority government, as we have seen over the past four years.

Here’s a brief guide to the potential scenarios facing the Nordic country after the vote:

Solberg II

Parliamentary arithmetic could hand outgoing Prime Minister Erna Solberg a second mandate at the helm of a Conservative-Progress Party coalition, again supported in parliament by the Christian Democrats and the Liberals. Latest polls suggest the new iteration of this center-right alliance could squeak out a victory to once again command a majority in the 169-member strong Storting.

Should the numbers add up and an agreement be reached, expect more tax cuts and additional investments in infrastructure financed by proceeds from the country’s vast sovereign wealth fund, as well as more policies designed to help businesses shift away from oil.

Tensions between the four are likely to remain. During the election campaign, the Progress Party infuriated the pro-environment Liberals with plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the arctic and the Christian Democrats for saying their leader is too soft on Islamic immigration.

Labor Coalitions

Norway’s biggest party for the past 90 years entered the election campaign confident of success, but has since tanked in the polls. Labor’s natural partners are the Socialist Left and the agrarian Center Party, with whom now NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg ruled between 2005 and 2013. Stoltenberg’s successor, Jonas Gahr Store, has ruled out working with the hard-left Red Party and the Greens, which have enjoyed a surge in the polls. He may have to reconsider if the numbers don’t stack up.

A Labor-led center-left coalition would aim to reverse some tax cuts passed by the Solberg government and boost spending on the welfare state. Labor’s 2018 shadow budget envisages slightly lower oil spending than the outgoing government’s.

Gahr Store will also face internal pressure, with the Socialist Left pushing for a stop to oil exploration and the Center Party demanding that Norway look at renegotiating its trade agreement with the European Union.

Labor could also reach out to the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, but that would be a very bitter pill for both sides to swallow.

The Greens say that they are willing to work with both blocs, though they are currently tightly intertwined with the Labor Party in Oslo’s City Hall.

Grand Coalition?

An alliance of Norway’s two biggest parties, Labor and the Conservatives, could easily overcome the 85-seat threshold needed for a majority in parliament. However, despite Scandinavia’s reputation for consensus politics, a German-style grand coalition has never happened and has again been ruled out by both sides. What’s more, most of the other minor parties present in parliament have refused to straddle the left-right divide, making new configurations highly improbable.

One thing is certain, an untested grand coalition would probably be the best for the nation’s beleaguered oil industry. The two main parties are the biggest backers of exploration, cheered on by businesses and the unions.

Again, highly improbable. But as recent events have show, democracy can create many strange results.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Geopolitica Mondiale, Problemia Energetici, Sistemi Politici

Cina. Contratti petroliferi in yuan convertibili in oro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-06.

2017-09-04__ChinaOilImportPie_article_main_image

«Dum Romae consulitur, Saguntum expugnatur.»

(Tito Livio, Storie, XXI, 7, 1)


Per comprendere a fondo cosa stia succedendo sarebbe opportuno aver ben presente almeno alcuni aspetti della situazione internazionale.

«Da un punto di vista meramente economico, se si considera il pil per potere di acquisto, il mondo genera 108,036,500 milioni Usd, la Cina 17,617,300 (16.31%) e gli Stati Uniti 17,418,00 (16.12%). L’Eurozona rende conto di 11,249,482 (10.41%) ed il Gruppo dei G7 di 31.825,293 (29.46%). Però i Brics conteggiano un pil ppa di 32,379,625 Usd, ossia il 29.97% del pil ppa mondiale. I Brics valgono come i paesi del G7.

Di conseguenza, la voce dell’Occidente vale nel mondo al massimo per il 29.46%, ma quella degli Stati Uniti vale solo il 16.12% e quella dell’Eurozona uno scarno 10.41%.»

*

Quanti ragionassero ancora con la visione dell’Occidente padrone del mondo incorrerebbero in un serio errore percettivo: questo era il modo di pensare tipico del passato, ma inconsistente con la situazione attuale e, soprattutto, con quella futura: il Gruppo dei G7 vale meno di quello dei Brics, ed ancor meno di quello dei Brics Plus.

Cina. Quanzhou. I Brics decidono cosa farsene dell’Occidente.

Brics. Il Summit di settembre a Xiamen. Ripudio dell’Occidente.

Cina. Xiamen. Brics Plus alla conquista del mondo.

Cina. Banche Cinesi e Belt and Road. Yuan come valuta internazionale.

^ ^ ^

Lord Keynes e gli autori post-keynesiani in Cina sono studiati nella storia dell’economia: le loro teorie hanno portato al suicidio dell’Occidente e gli Orientali non hanno nessuna intenzione di seguirli. Li lasciano volentieri ai loro contorsionismi mentali ed alla pratica dell’lgbt, da loro peraltro considerata reato e, quindi, penalmente perseguibile.

Cina. Inversione di rotta. Inizia la riduzione del debito.

Trump. Il debito sovrano totale da gennaio è sceso di 102.365 miliardi.

* * * * * * *

«Yuan-denominated contract will let exporters circumvent US dollar»

*

«China is expected shortly to launch a crude oil futures contract priced in yuan and convertible into gold»

*

«The contract could become the most important Asia-based crude oil benchmark, given that China is the world’s biggest oil importer»

*

«move will allow exporters such as Russia and Iran to circumvent U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan»

*

«To further entice trade, China says the yuan will be fully convertible into gold on exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong»

*

«It is a mechanism which is likely to appeal to oil producers that prefer to avoid using dollars, and are not ready to accept that being paid in yuan for oil sales to China is a good idea either»

*

«By creating a gold contract settled in renminbi [an alternative name for the yuan], Russia may now sell oil to China for renminbi, then take whatever excess currency it earns to buy gold in Hong Kong. As a result, Russia does not have to buy Chinese assets or switch the proceeds into dollars …. It’s a transfer of holding their assets in black liquid to yellow metal. It’s a strategic move swapping oil for gold, rather than for U.S. Treasuries, which can be printed out of thin air»

*

«China proposed pricing oil in yuan to Saudi Arabia in late July, according to Chinese media. It is unclear if Saudi Arabia will yield to its biggest customer, but Beijing has been reducing Saudi Arabia’s share of its total imports, which fell from 25% in 2008 to 15% in 2016. Chinese oil imports rose 13.8% year-on-year during the first half of 2017»

*

«The rules of the global oil game may begin to change enormously»

* * * * * * *

Conclusioni.

Fonti di informazione e difficoltà di tenersi informati.

I grandi media internazionali hanno taciuto sul fatto, ma questo esiste e resta nella realtà dei fatti.

Alcuni elementi da valorizzare.

– La Cina è il maggiore importatore di petrolio e gas naturale al mondo;

– L’economia cinese vale il 16.31% del pil mondiale, ma agendo sempre in collaborazione e sintonia con i Brics, in effetti ne vale 29.97%: ciò che fa determina ciò che accadrà nel resto del mondo;

– Tutto il circuito Obor, One Belt One Road, è finanziato in yuan. Questo sta generando un mercato di questa valuta che quasi ne raddoppia i volumi domestici;

– Dallo scorso anno lo yuan è rientrato nei diritti di prelievo del Fondo Monetario Internazionale;

– La Cina ha tutti gli interessi a mantenere ragionevolmente stabile il rapporto di cambio con il dollaro;

– La possibilità concreta di prezzare i prodotti petroliferi in yuan spezza il monopolio del dollaro in questo settore strategico;

– Nessuno si illuda che lo yuan possa rimpiazzare il dollaro a breve termine: per molti anni si dovrà però prendere atto dell’esistenza della possibilità di acquistare petrolio dia in dollari sia in yuan;

– La convertibilità in oro dei contratti dovrebbe sia ridurne la volatilità sia ostacolare la speculazione finanziaria su questi prodotti. Non solo: fornisce una solida garanzia e, simultaneamente, fonde i due mercati. Inoltre, il mercato energetico è talmente ampio che legarlo all’oro equivale ad un primo passo verso un Gold Standard;

– Nessuno si aspetti una riedizione di Bretton Woods. Però il passo è oltremodo significativo. Stiamo assistendo all’inizio della ricongiunzione della finanza all’economia: anche per questo processo sarà necessario molto tempo, ma la strada è questa;

– Quanto accade però non è un qualcosa di avulso dal resto del contesto, anzi, si muovo tutto in modo coordinato.

– Questi contratti in yuan convertibili in oro sono solo il primo esempio: nella pentola cinese ne stanno soffriggendo innumerevoli altri.

Ricordiamocelo bene: sta cambiando un’epoca.

Cina. Inversione di rotta. Inizia la riduzione del debito.

Trump. Il debito sovrano totale da gennaio è sceso di 102.365 miliardi.

Nota.

212.4 milioni di tonnellate di petrolio corrispondono grosso modo a 1,335 milioni di barili. Ossia ad un prezzo all’ingrosso di  circa 67 miliardi di dollari americani, trasporto e raffinamento escluso.


Crude Oil. 2017-09-03. China Readies Yuan-Priced Crude Oil Benchmark Backed By Gold

The world’s top oil importer, China, is preparing to launch a crude oil futures contract denominated in Chinese yuan and convertible into gold, potentially creating the most important Asian oil benchmark and allowing oil exporters to bypass U.S.-dollar denominated benchmarks by trading in yuan, Nikkei Asian Review reports.

The crude oil futures will be the first commodity contract in China open to foreign investment funds, trading houses, and oil firms. The circumvention of U.S. dollar trade could allow oil exporters such as Russia and Iran, for example, to bypass U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan, according to Nikkei Asian Review. To make the yuan-denominated contract more attractive, China plans the yuan to be fully convertible in gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges.

Last month, the Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary Shanghai International Energy Exchange, INE, successfully completed four tests in production environment for the crude oil futures, and the exchange continues with preparatory works for the listing of crude oil futures, aiming for the launch by the end of this year. ?

“The rules of the global oil game may begin to change enormously,” Luke Gromen, founder of U.S.-based macroeconomic research company FFTT, told Nikkei Asia Review.

The yuan-denominated futures contract has been in the works for years, and after several delays, it looks like it may be launched this year. Some potential foreign traders have been worried that the contract would be priced in yuan.

But according to analysts who spoke to Nikkei Asian Review, backing the yuan-priced futures with gold would be appealing to oil exporters, especially to those that would rather avoid U.S. dollars in trade.  

“It is a mechanism which is likely to appeal to oil producers that prefer to avoid using dollars, and are not ready to accept that being paid in yuan for oil sales to China is a good idea either,” Alasdair Macleod, head of research at Goldmoney, told Nikkei.

Nikkey Asian Review. 2017-09-03. China sees new world order with oil benchmark backed by gold

Yuan-denominated contract will let exporters circumvent US dollar.

*

DENPASAR, Indonesia — China is expected shortly to launch a crude oil futures contract priced in yuan and convertible into gold in what analysts say could be a game-changer for the industry.

The contract could become the most important Asia-based crude oil benchmark, given that China is the world’s biggest oil importer. Crude oil is usually priced in relation to Brent or West Texas Intermediate futures, both denominated in U.S. dollars.

China’s move will allow exporters such as Russia and Iran to circumvent U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan. To further entice trade, China says the yuan will be fully convertible into gold on exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

“The rules of the global oil game may begin to change enormously,” said Luke Gromen, founder of U.S.-based macroeconomic research company FFTT.

The Shanghai International Energy Exchange has started to train potential users and is carrying out systems tests following substantial preparations in June and July. This will be China’s first commodities futures contract open to foreign companies such as investment funds, trading houses and petroleum companies.

Most of China’s crude imports, which averaged around 7.6 million barrels a day in 2016, are bought on long-term contracts between China’s major oil companies and foreign national oil companies. Deals also take place between Chinese majors and independent Chinese refiners, and between foreign oil majors and global trading companies.

Alan Bannister, Asia director of S&P Global Platts, an energy information provider, said that the active involvement of Chinese independent refiners over the last few years “has created a more diverse marketplace of participants domestically in China, creating an environment in which a crude futures contract is more likely to succeed.”

China has long wanted to reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the commodities markets. Yuan-denominated gold futures have been traded on the Shanghai Gold Exchange since April 2016, and the exchange is planning to launch the product in Budapest later this year.

Yuan-denominated gold contracts were also launched in Hong Kong in July — after two unsuccessful earlier attempts — as China seeks to internationalize its currency. The contracts have been moderately successful.

The existence of yuan-backed oil and gold futures means that users will have the option of being paid in physical gold, said Alasdair Macleod, head of research at Goldmoney, a gold-based financial services company based in Toronto. “It is a mechanism which is likely to appeal to oil producers that prefer to avoid using dollars, and are not ready to accept that being paid in yuan for oil sales to China is a good idea either,” Macleod said.

Yuan-denominated gold contracts have significant implications, especially for countries like Russia and Iran, Qatar and Venezuela, said Louis-Vincent Gave, chief executive of Gavekal Research, a Hong Kong-based financial research company.

These countries would be less vulnerable to Washington’s use of the dollar as a “soft weapon,” if they should fall foul of U.S. foreign policy, he said. “By creating a gold contract settled in renminbi [an alternative name for the yuan], Russia may now sell oil to China for renminbi, then take whatever excess currency it earns to buy gold in Hong Kong. As a result, Russia does not have to buy Chinese assets or switch the proceeds into dollars,” said Gave.

Grant Williams, an adviser to Vulpes Investment Management, a Singapore-based hedge fund sponsor, said he expects most oil producers to be happy to exchange their oil reserves for gold. “It’s a transfer of holding their assets in black liquid to yellow metal. It’s a strategic move swapping oil for gold, rather than for U.S. Treasuries, which can be printed out of thin air,” he said.

Market share

China has been indicating to producers that those happy to sell to them in yuan will benefit from more business. Producers that will not sell to China in yuan will lose market share.

Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, is a case in point. China proposed pricing oil in yuan to Saudi Arabia in late July, according to Chinese media. It is unclear if Saudi Arabia will yield to its biggest customer, but Beijing has been reducing Saudi Arabia’s share of its total imports, which fell from 25% in 2008 to 15% in 2016.

Chinese oil imports rose 13.8% year-on-year during the first half of 2017, but supplies from Saudi Arabia inched up just 1% year-on-year. Over the same timeframe, Russian oil shipments jumped 11%, making Russia China’s top supplier. Angola, which made the yuan its second legal currency in 2015, leapfrogged Saudi Arabia into second spot with an increase of 22% in oil exports to China in the same period.

If Saudi Arabia accepts yuan settlement for oil, Gave said, “this would go down like a lead balloon in Washington, where the U.S. Treasury would see this as a threat to the dollar’s hegemony… and it is unlikely the U.S. would continue to approve modern weapon sales to Saudi and the embedded protection of the House of Saud [the kingdom’s ruling family] that comes with them.”

The alternative for Saudi Arabia is equally unappetizing. “Getting boxed out of the Chinese market will increasingly mean having to dump excess oil inventories on the global stage, thereby ensuring a sustained low price for oil,” said Gave.

But the kingdom is finding other ways to get in with China. On Aug. 24, Saudi Vice Minister of Economy and Planning Mohammed al-Tuwaijri, told a conference in Jeddah that the government was looking at the possibility of issuing a yuan-denominated bond. Saudi Arabia and China have also agreed to establish a $20 billion joint investment fund.

Furthermore, the two countries could cement their relationship if China were to take a cornerstone investment in the planned initial public offering of a 5% state in Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil company. The IPO is expected to be the largest ever, although details on the listing venue and valuation are yet scant.

If China were to buy into Saudi Aramco the pricing of Saudi oil could shift from U.S. dollars to yuan, said Macleod. Crucially, “if China can tie in Aramco, with Russia, Iran et al, she will have a degree of influence over nearly 40% of global production, and will be able to progress her desire to exclude dollars for yuan,” he said.

“What is interesting is that China’s leadership originally planned to clean up the markets next year, but brought it forward to this year. One interpretation of that change is that they have brought forward the day when they pay for oil in yuan,” said Simon Hunt, a strategic adviser to international investors on the Chinese economy and geopolitics.

China is also making efforts to set other commodity benchmarks, such as gas and copper, as Beijing seeks to transform the yuan into the natural trading currency for Asia and emerging markets.

Yuan oil futures are expected to attract interest from investors and funds, while state-backed oil majors, such as PetroChina and China Petroleum & Chemical (Sinopec) will provide liquidity to ensure trade. Locally registered entities of JPMorgan, a U.S. bank, and UBS, a Swiss bank, are among the first to have gained approval to trade the contract. But it is understood that the market will be also open to retail investors.

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Sistemi Politici

Polonia. Referendum costituzionale. Un gran bel problema per tutti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-31.

Warszawa. Palazzo Jabłonowski 001

«Andrzej Sebastian Duda (Polish pronounciation: [ˈandʐɛj ˈduda] (About this sound listen); born 16 May 1972) is a Polish politician who is the sixth and current President of Poland, holding the office since 6 August 2015. Before his tenure as President, Duda was a member of Polish Lower House (Sejm) from 2011 to 2014 and the European Parliament from 2014 to 2015. ….

Duda began his political career with the now-defunct Freedom Union Party in the early 2000s.

After the parliamentary elections in 2005, he began his collaboration with the Law and Justice Party (PIS).

From 2006 to 2007 Andrzej Duda was an undersecretary of state in the Ministry of Justice.

Then, from 2007 to 2008, Duda was a member of the Polish State Tribunal.

During the presidency of Lech Kaczyński, from 2008 to 2010, he was an undersecretary of state in the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland. ….

In the first round of the 2015 presidential election, Duda came first, receiving 5,179,092 votes and thus 34.76% of valid votes.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Il presidente Duda proviene dalle fila del partito Legge e Giustizia (PiS), ma ha sfumature politiche differenti dall’attuale governo.

Negli ultimi tempi ha ripreso un tema a lui caro, e sicuramente di grande interesse, non solo per la Polonia. Lo riportiamo espresso in due punti.

In primo luogo, Mr Duda constata come la attuale costituzione sia stata scritta più di venti anni or sono e molte sue assunzioni non siano più riscontrabili nel paese. Una revisione critica sarebbe quindi necessaria, anche per evitare contenziosi, sia pure in buona fede.

«la costituzione definisca la Polonia come un’economia sociale di mercato, un sistema che secondo il presidente non esiste all’atto pratico, perché mai implementato».

*

«He expects people to suggest, among other topics, whether the charter should guarantee free education, health care and family bonuses and how far it should define the power of state agencies».

In secondo luogo, il presidente Duda solleva un problema riscontrabile nella maggior parte delle Costituzioni.

«molte imperfezioni del testo costituzionale al momento vigente nel paese»

*

«la non chiara distribuzione dei poteri fra le varie autorità statali»

*

Mr Duda affronta il grande problema della chiarezza espositiva del testo costituzionale. Il problema organizzativo e politico esiste, sicuramente, ma anche la sua espressione lessicologica e sintattica ha grande rilevanza pratica.

Problema questo non da poco.

Gli estensori di un testo costituzionale incontrano grandi difficoltà.

Il testo non può essere un trattato di scienza giuridica e molti termini sono usati senza essere inequivocabilmente definiti, perché usati nella corrente accezione dei termini, accezioni che sono però tempo varianti.

Inoltre il testo dovrebbe essere di indirizzo generale, blindando solo i concetti irrinunciabili e lasciando una ragionevole libertà interpretativa sul resto.

A quanto ci risulterebbe, questa sarebbe la prima volta che un custode della costituzione solleva un problema del genere, forse per troppo tempo sottovalutato.

Nota. La Unione Europea sta scatenando un lotta contro la Polonia, accusandola di non avere e non volere recepire i canoni di diritto europeo, ovvero quelli liberal democratici. Prepariamoci ad una lotta senza quartiere.

Macron: Polonia mette in dubbio solidarietà Ue e stato di diritto


McClatchy Dc Bureau. 2017-08-26. Polish president seeks proposals for new constitution

WARSAW, Poland. Poland’s president on Friday invited his compatriots to make suggestions for a new constitution to replace one that took effect 20 years ago.

President Andrzej Duda is calling on citizens to send their ideas to his office and to share them with local authorities over the next year with the aim of holding a referendum in November 2018 on possible changes.

The proposals are to be discussed in regional meetings with social groups during the coming year and will be the basis for about 10 questions asked in the referendum.

Duda first floated the idea in May, apparently taking the governing party by surprise. It was seen as an effort to demonstrate his independence from ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s most influential politician.

In a speech Friday in Gdansk, Duda said the existing constitution — which took effect seven years after democracy was restored in Poland — was “interim,” had shortcomings and wasn’t fit for a mature democracy.

“The new constitution should take us forward into the future,” Duda said.

He expects people to suggest, among other topics, whether the charter should guarantee free education, health care and family bonuses and how far it should define the power of state agencies.

The current constitution took effect under a left-wing government, which taints it in the eyes of right-wing critics.


Agenzia Nova. 2017-08-26. Polonia: presidente Duda, necessario considerare adozione nuovo testo costituzionale.

L’attuale costituzione polacca è da considerare come di transizione e deve essere sostituita da una nuova. Lo ha affermato oggi il presidente polacco Andrzej Duda, sottolineando le molte imperfezioni del testo costituzionale al momento vigente nel paese. Duda ha parlato nel corso di un convegno organizzato dal sindacato Solidarnosc a Danzica. Secondo il presidente polacco, l’attuale costituzione ha diverse pecche, come la non chiara distribuzione dei poteri fra le varie autorità statali. Fra gli esempi citati da Duda, il fatto che la costituzione definisca la Polonia come un’economia sociale di mercato, un sistema che secondo il presidente non esiste all’atto pratico, perché mai implementato. “Ci sono diversi ambiti in cui sarebbe opportuno avere maggiore precisione”, ha affermato Duda.

Nei mesi scorsi, il capo dello Stato polacco ha annunciato che nel 2018 si svolgerà un referendum costituzionale nel paese. “I cittadini polacchi hanno il diritto di esprimersi per decidere se la Costituzione, che è in vigore da venti anni, dovrebbe essere cambiata”, ha detto Duda durante le commemorazioni per la Giornata della Costituzione a Varsavia. “È giunto il momento di avviare un serio dibattito costituzionale, non solo fra i rappresentanti politici ma con l’intera nazione”. Duda ha aggiunto che dovrebbero essere gli stessi polacchi a decidere sulle direzioni di sviluppo del paese. “Quali diritti civili, quali libertà devono essere evidenziate di più”, ha detto il capo dello stato.

La Polonia “dovrebbe essere un paese in cui tutti sono assolutamente uguali davanti alla legge”, ha detto Duda. Inoltre, ha proseguito il capo dello Stato, il paese dovrebbe essere un luogo in cui “non esistono privilegi infondati, dove non esistono caste migliori di cittadini, dove tutti i cittadini sono uniti. È un compito che, a mio avviso, come presidente, deve essere compiuto”. Duda ha aggiunto che una scelta del genere dovrebbe essere presa attraverso un voto pubblico. “Voglio un referendum costituzionale l’anno prossimo, quando si festeggerà il centenario dell’indipendenza”, ha detto Duda.


The Warsaw Voice. 2017-08-26. Constitutional referendum in 2018?

Poland’s President Andrzej Duda plans to use his right to announce a constitutional referendum, having secured the Senate’s approval, but the process will take a while, he told the weekly W Sieci.

Duda mentioned November 11, 2018, the 100th anniversary of regaining independence by Poland, as “one of the potential dates”.

The referendum would be preceded by a broad debate and could contain several, maybe between 10 and 20 questions, the answers to which would determine the course of works on the new constitution.

The President does not rule out a 2-day referendum.

According to Duda’s words, the question on whether Poland should adopt euro could also be included in the referendum.
Poland’s ruling party Law and Justice (PiS) will support President’s motion for a referendum on what changes to the constitution should be made, Internal Affairs Minister Mariusz Blaszczak told Radio Zet.


The Warsaw Voice. 2017-08-26. Duda seeks support.

Polish President Andrzej Duda is seeking support for his proposal of a constitutional referendum outside ruling party Law and Justice (PiS), the daily Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes.

Duda will attend on Friday a conference held by trade union Solidarnosc concerning a constitutional draft prepared by the trade union years ago, presidential ministrer Pawel Mucha says.

The president’s participation in the conference will mark an actual launch of the debate on the possible questions for the referendum, while the reaction of the ruling party will be a benchmark of any potential changes in its stance on the issue.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Cina, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Sistemi Politici

Cina. Inversione di rotta. Inizia la riduzione del debito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-28.

Pechino-Cina

李克强:抓住有利时机推动央企降杠杆

La caratteristica che ha permesso al Governo ed all’economia cinese di imporsi quale prima forza sui mercati mondiali è riassumibile in poche parole: meritocrazia ed empirismo totalmente deideologizzato.

Le azioni di governo politico ovvero economico dipendono dalle circostanze e non da ciò che reciterebbe una qualche teoria.

L’esatto opposto del modo di pensare occidentale.

È anche per questo motivo che gli occidentali trovano grande difficoltà a comprendere la Cina e sbagliano regolarmente interpretazioni e previsioni.

Il Governo Cinese ha varato una direttiva in accordo alla quale le imprese di stato dovranno ridurre la loro esposizione debitoria, anche attraverso un deleveraging appositamente studiato.

I miserandi economisti occidentali, liberal ideologici, trasecoleranno e prediranno il tracollo a breve della Cina: tutte le loro teorie sul debito sono diventate cascami storici.

«Lower debts can benefit the whole economy»

*

«A government guideline to further reduce the debt ratios for central SOEs in an active and steady manner will also be rolled out.»

*

«We should seize the opportunity and step up the deleveraging of SOEs. Lower debts can benefit the whole economy»

*

«Central SOEs are the backbone of the economy»

*

«In the first seven months of this year, central SOEs registered a profit of 846.9 billion yuan ($127.2 billion), up by 16.4 percent year-on-year, compared with a 3.7 percent drop in the same period last year»

*

«Central SOEs’ debt ratio was 66.5 percent in July, down by 0.2 percentage points from the start of this year»

*

«China will further reduce leverage at central State-owned enterprises by establishing multiple channels to reduce corporate debts»

* * * * * * * *

«Lower debts can benefit the whole economy»

Adesso tutto il mondo dovrà adeguarsi.

Dura lezione della storia dover andare a lezione dai cinesi per imparare l’economica classica di Adam Smith.

Nota. Soes è acronimo di State-owned enterprise.


The State Council. The People’s Republic Of China. 2017-08-26. China to step up deleveraging at central SOEs.

China will further reduce leverage at central State-owned enterprises by establishing multiple channels to reduce corporate debts, a State Council executive meeting chaired by Premier Li Keqiang decided on Aug 23.

In the first seven months of this year, central SOEs registered a profit of 846.9 billion yuan ($127.2 billion), up by 16.4 percent year-on-year, compared with a 3.7 percent drop in the same period last year. Central SOEs’ debt ratio was 66.5 percent in July, down by 0.2 percentage points from the start of this year, according to the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council.

The performance by central SOEs in quality and efficiency improvements over the past two years has received full affirmation from the Premier.

“Central SOEs are the backbone of the economy. We need to conduct in-depth analysis to find key drivers that contribute to the transition to profits and consolidate the upward momentum,” Premier Li said.

“We should seize the opportunity and step up the deleveraging of SOEs. Lower debts can benefit the whole economy,” he added.

The meeting decided that the government will establish an alert line mechanism for debt ratios of different overly leveraged sectors. Central SOEs will face strict control over investments out of their main business portfolios and in programs that could increase their debt ratios. Enterprises that see sharp profit growth will be urged to pay down their debts. A government guideline to further reduce the debt ratios for central SOEs in an active and steady manner will also be rolled out.

The debt-for-equity swaps will be pushed forward in line with market rules and the law, and explore new market-based models for the swaps. Agencies that implement the swaps will receive support to expand their funding channels. Companies that are invested or run by State capital or qualified central SOE funds will be encouraged to take part in the swaps using various market channels.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Sistemi Economici, Sistemi Politici

Italia. Ma come tripudiano gli italiani! – Sondaggio Swg

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-26.

Mela con il Coltello tra i Denti. - Copia

La Cna-Swg ha pubblicato i dati relativi ad un sondaggio fatto a livello nazionale.

Il titolo sarebbe “pensionati più fiduciosi dell’italiano medio“.

Sarebbe fiducioso? Solo il 15%!

*

«il 15% degli interpellati è fiducioso (mentre la media nazionale si ferma all’8%) e un altro 17% è comunque orientato positivamente»

*

«Che la situazione possa ancora peggiorare è convinzione solo del 39%, benché verso il futuro prevalga l’atteggiamento preoccupato: il 52% è pessimista»

*

«Il 51% degli anziani sostiene di vivere male»

*

«Solo il 12% di quanti percepiscono un assegno inferiore ai 750 euro mensili è soddisfatto della qualità della propria vita contro il 65% di quanti ritirano una pensione superiore ai 1750 euro»

*

«Il 52% degli interpellati è convinto che negli ultimi cinque anni il proprio tenore di vita sia rimasto immutato, il 2% ritiene lo ritiene migliorato e il 46% peggiorato»

*

«Il 41% dei pensionati valuta la propria situazione economica attuale buona (in perfetta media nazionale), il 25% normale (italiani al 41%) e il 33% difficile»

*

«Solo il 25%, però, è in grado di sostenere economicamente la famiglia con le entrate correnti»

*

«un altro 29% ci riesce perché può contare su altri redditi e il residuo 46% abitualmente non ce la fa.»

* * * * * * * *

– Il 52% degli intervistati è pessimista;

– Il 51% degli anziani sostiene di vivere male;

– Il 46% ritiene peggiorata la propria condizione negli ultimi cinque anni;

– Il 25% degli intervistati può sostenere la famiglia;

– Il 46% non riesce a mantenere la propria famiglia.

* * * * * * * *

Aspettiamo tranquillamente che la gente perda la pazienza e dia inizio ad una nuova rivoluzione francese, con tanto di ghigliottina al lavoro.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Sistemi Economici, Sistemi Politici

Filippine. La situazione analizzata dal punto di vista cinese. Xinhua.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-22.

Mare Cinese del Sud 001

Essere obiettivi è davvero arte difficile, anche nella più perfetta buona fede.

Per gli italiani Oberdan Sauro e Battisti sono irredentisti martiri per l’Italia, mentre per gli austriaci sono traditori della patria. Chi studiasse la storia solo su testi italiani abbraccerebbe la prima interpretazione, chi invece studiasse la storia su testi austriaci abbraccerebbe la seconda.

La scelta delle fonti di informazione condiziona l’idea che ci si forma di quanto accade. Ma mica è detto che l’informazione di parte dica la verità.

*

Ma non esiste solo il punto di vista occidentale, esiste anche quello degli altri. Non solo. I media occidentali hanno tutti un’impronta liberal che le recenti elezioni hanno dimostrato essere minoritaria. Seguire solo questi media sarebbe fuorviante. Le elezioni hanno dimostrato e stanno dimostrando come i liberals democratici ed i socialisti europei siano una minoranza: il loro pensiero non rispecchia quello occidentale.  Proprio per niente.

Da un punto di vista meramente economico, se si considera il pil per potere di acquisto, il mondo genera 108,036,500 milioni Usd, la Cina 17,617,300 (16.31%) e gli Stati Uniti 17,418,00 (16.12%). L’Eurozona rende conto di 11,249,482 (10.41%) ed il Gruppo dei G7 di 31.825,293 (29.46%). Di conseguenza, la voce dell’Occidente vale nel mondo al massimo per il 29.46%, ma quella degli Stati Uniti vale solo il 16.12% e quella dell’Europa uno scarno 10.41%.

È davvero ingenua per non dire patetica la arrogante presunzione di quanti considerano l’Occidente egemone dominante: gli altri non glielo permetterebbero. Ma ancora più farsesca è la proterva superbia di quanti presumono che l’Eurozona (10.41%) possa condizionare il mondo: è vero proprio l’opposto.

Cina. Quanzhou. I Brics decidono cosa farsene dell’Occidente.

*

Diamo volentieri atto che i media cinesi, arabi, russi ed indiani sono usualmente molto più obbiettivi e quasi sempre riportano i fatti senza distorcerli, cosa non da poco. Di norma separano le notizie dai commenti.

* * * * * * *

I discorsi sopra fatti non sono per nulla di lana caprina.

L’Occidente ha perso negli ultimi decenni molte posizioni proprio per l’essersi incancrenito in simili ideologie. Da ultimo, sta persino perdendo la Turkia, da oltre settanta anni fedele alleata.

Ma quadro analogo si prospetta nel sud – est asiatico, con i rapporti con le Filippine.

Ma senza alleati l’Occidente corre il rischio di contare ancor meno di quanto conti ora.

Ma le Filippine hanno una posizione strategica nel Mare Cinese del Sud e sull’Oceano Pacifico.

Poniamo adesso un quesito: e se Mr Duterte avesse ragione? Perché non voler ascoltare anche le sue ragioni?

* * * * * * *

«Most Filipinos remain appreciative of the performance of President Rodrigo Duterte after one year of his term»

*

«In the national Capital Region, the survey said Duterte also scored 80 percent, or 7 percent higher than a previous survey conducted in March»

*

«Duterte managed to get high approval rating despite the strings of criticisms hurled in his way by some western countries and human rights groups alarmed by the hardline drug war»

*

«In the past year, President Duterte has initiated a series of economic reforms to accelerate economic development. Despite much “political noise,” the government seeks sustained growth around 6.5- to 7 percent in 2017, by banking on multiple initiatives, especially higher infrastructure spending»

*

«the current Philippine government debt of $123 billion is about to soar to $290 billion because China, the “most likely lender,” would impose high interest rates on the debt»

*

«These figures assume absence of transparency by the Duterte government and China on the interest rate, conditionality and repayment terms of $167 billion of new debt for the Philippines»

*

«the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) anticipated the Philippine debt position to remain sustainable, despite deficit spending for infrastructure. Between 2017 and 2022, the Duterte government plans to spend about $160 billion to $180 billion to fund the “Golden Age of Infrastructure.” An expansionary fiscal policy shall increase the planned deficit to 2 to 3 percent of GDP»

*

«Given deficit spending of 3 percent of GDP, the DBM assumes growth will be 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent this year and 7 percent to 8 percent from 2018 to 2022 (plus inflation of 2 percent to 4 percent). As a result, it projects the debt-to-GDP ratio to decline from 41 percent in 2016 to 38 percent in 2022»

*

«The realities are very different, however»

*

«Duterte is focused on infrastructure (his infrastructure budget as percentage of GDP is 2 to 3 times higher in relative terms).»

*

«Such objectives are far from neutral economic observation, but they do reflect political partisanship that is typical of Washington’s neoconservative and liberal imperial dreams»

*

«Duterte stressed that Russia is a reliable partner, and he offered to continue their friendship»

* * * * * * *

I media liberal occidentali odiano Mr Duterete per almeno due motivi, per loro di importanza fondamentale.

In primo luogo. Mr Duterte ha dichiarato guerra alla droga ed ha disposto la pena di morte in via amministrativa degli spacciatori, ottenendo in tempi molto rapidi una quasi completa bonifica delle Filippine.

In secondo luogo, pur tollerando a parole l’omosessualità e l’lgbt, si è fermamente opposto alla legalizzazione delle coppie omosessuali.

There is no gender because you can be a he or she… That’s their culture. It does not apply to us. We are Catholics and there is the Civil Code, which says that you can only marry a woman for me… a woman to marry a man. …. That’s our law so why would you accept that gender?»

*

Ma ciò che l’Occidente liberal considera i reati dei reati, nelle Filippine e nel resto del mondo sono invece comportamenti normali e legali. L’Occidente conta quanto il nobile decaduto che chiede l’elemosina sul sagrato di una Chiesa. Il blasone non è commestibile.

L’irrigidimento ideologico dell’Amministrazione Obama nei confronti delle Filippine ha obbligato Mr Duterte a riavvicinarsi alla Cina ed alla Russia, che, non nutrendo ideologie di sorta, non possono nemmeno cercare di imporle ai loro partner economici e militari.

Per irrigidimento ideologico l’Occidente ha già quasi perso la Turkia: nulla vieta di pensare che la prossima perdita siano proprio le Filippine.


Nota.

Nella comparazione economica è stata usato l’indice del pil ppa, per potere di acquisto, perché più appropriato. Il discorso teorico sarebbe lungo ed anche alquanto barboso: ci spiegheremo con un esempio.

Consideriamo due persone che guadagnino ciascuna 1,500 euro al mese.

La prima vive a Londra, dove l’affitto di una camera ammobiliata si aggira sui 1,200 euro al mese. Pur essendo persona molto parsimoniosa, vive ai margini della miseria, nella fascia di povertà.

La seconda vive in Venezuela. Con tale introito mensile può permettersi una villetta, la cuoca e due persone di servizio. Essa vive in condizione di lusso.

Stessa entrata mensile, ma differenti poteri di acquisto.

Il pil ppa è calcolato tenendo conto del costo della vita, rendendo così comparabili dati raccolti in paesi diversi.



New China. 2017-05-25. Philippines’ Duterte asks Putin for arms support

MOSCOW, May 24 (Xinhua) — Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has asked his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, for arms to fight Islamic militants in the Asian country.

“Our country needs modern weapons to fight against ISIS. We had certain orders in the U.S., however, the situation is not very good now. I came to Moscow to ask for your help and support,” the Kremlin quoted Duterte as telling Putin in a meeting on Tuesday.

Duterte stressed that Russia is a reliable partner, and he offered to continue their friendship.

“We need to improve trade exchange between the two countries,” the Philippine leader said.

Putin noted that Moscow and Manila have many bilateral projects, including power engineering, defense cooperation, and transport infrastructure.

Duterte arrived in Moscow on Tuesday for a four-day official visit, but was forced to cut short his trip as fighting broke out in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao.

Putin said he hoped the conflict in the Philippines would be resolved “with minimum losses.”

Duterte’s delegation remained in Moscow to sign bilateral agreements on Wednesday, Russian media reported.


Xinhua. 2017-07-17. Philippines’ Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll

MANILA, July 17 (Xinhua) — Most Filipinos remain appreciative of the performance of President Rodrigo Duterte after one year of his term, according to an independent poll released here Monday.

A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country.

Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte’s performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte’s performance. Overall, the poll said Duterte scored the highest among the top government officials covered by the survey.

“Most Filipinos remain appreciative of the performance of (Duterte), Vice President Maria Leonor Robredo and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel,” the poll said, adding that Robredo got 61 percent while Pimentel, 62 percent.

In the national Capital Region, the survey said Duterte also scored 80 percent, or 7 percent higher than a previous survey conducted in March. In the main Luzon Island, the survey said Duterte scored 75 percent, or 4 percent higher than the March survey. Duterte scored the highest in his bailiwick Mindanao, scoring 95 percent, or 7 percent higher than the score he got in March, the survey said.

However, the survey noted that Duterte’s approval rating dropped 2 percent in the Visayas region in the central Philippines from 86 percent in March to 84 percent.

Duterte managed to get high approval rating despite the strings of criticisms hurled in his way by some western countries and human rights groups alarmed by the hardline drug war campaign and the declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao in the southern Philippines.

Government authorities said the ongoing war in Marawi City against militants allied with the Islamic State has so far claimed the lives of at least 593 people, including 411 terrorists, 97 security forces and 45 civilians.

Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022.


Xinhua. 2017-07-26. Philippine President Duterte vows for closer relations with China

MANILA, July 25 (Xinhua) — Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte pledged on Tuesday that his country is to build stronger bilateral relations with China.

“The Philippines attaches great importance to China’s status and influence in the world, and is willing to build stronger relations with China,” Duterte said in his meeting with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Duterte said the Philippines highly appreciates the support China extends to his country and the role China plays in his country’s nation building, especially China’s support to combat terrorism.

Duterte expressed his satisfaction with the development of the bilateral ties between the two countries, saying the Philippines is willing to deepen cooperation with China in all sectors so as to benefit the two countries and their peoples.

Wang reiterated that China unswervingly supports Philippine’s independent foreign policy.

Wang recalled that bilateral relations between China and the Philippines have fully improved under the guidance of the leaders of the two countries, saying improvement in relations has brought tangible benefits to the two peoples.

“Facts speak louder. For neighbors, dialogue is better than confrontation, cooperation is better than friction. History will show that we have made a right choice,” Wang said.


Xinhua. 2017-08-05. The myths and realities of Duterte’s infrastructure initiative

In the past year, President Duterte has initiated a series of economic reforms to accelerate economic development. Despite much “political noise,” the government seeks sustained growth around 6.5- to 7 percent in 2017, by banking on multiple initiatives, especially higher infrastructure spending.

According to Ernesto Pernia, Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), investment spending must be ramped up to 30 percent of GDP for the Philippines to become an upper middle-income economy by the end of Duterte’s term in 2022, and to pave the way for a high-income economy by 2040.

Yet, the huge infrastructure investment effort has been often misreported internationally. Infrastructure investment is a case in point.

The allegation: Infrastructure as ‘debt slavery’

In early May, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno estimated that some $167 billion would be spent on infrastructure during President Duterte’s six-year term. Only a day later, US business magazine Forbes released a commentary, which headlined that this debt “could balloon to $452 billion: China will benefit.”

According to the author, Dr. Anders Corr, the current Philippine government debt of $123 billion is about to soar to $290 billion because China, the “most likely lender,” would impose high interest rates on the debt: “Over 10 years, that could balloon the Philippines’ debt-to-GDP ratio to as high as 296 percent, the highest in the world.”

These figures assume absence of transparency by the Duterte government and China on the interest rate, conditionality and repayment terms of $167 billion of new debt for the Philippines. Due to accrued interest, “Dutertenomics, fueled by expensive loans from China, will put the Philippines into virtual debt bondage if allowed to proceed.” Corr assumes China’s interest rate would amount to 10 percent to 15 percent.

But why would the Philippines accept such a nightmare scenario? Because, as Corr puts it, “Duterte and his influential friends and business associates could each benefit with hundreds of millions of dollars in finder’s fees, of 27 percent, for such deals.”

He offers no facts or evidence to substantiate the assertions, however.

The official story: Debt decline, despite infrastructure investment

Recently, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) anticipated the Philippine debt position to remain sustainable, despite deficit spending for infrastructure. Between 2017 and 2022, the Duterte government plans to spend about $160 billion to $180 billion to fund the “Golden Age of Infrastructure.” An expansionary fiscal policy shall increase the planned deficit to 2 to 3 percent of GDP.

To finance the deficit, the government will borrow money following an 80-20 borrowing mix in favor of domestic sources, to alleviate foreign exchange risks—which would seem to undermine the story of China as the Big Bad Wolf.

The fiscal strategy is manageable because the economy, despite increasing deficit, will outgrow its debt burden as economic expansion outpaces the growth in the rate of borrowing. So what is the expected impact on the debt-to-GDP ratio?

Given deficit spending of 3 percent of GDP, the DBM assumes growth will be 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent this year and 7 percent to 8 percent from 2018 to 2022 (plus inflation of 2 percent to 4 percent). As a result, it projects the debt-to-GDP ratio to decline from 41 percent in 2016 to 38 percent in 2022.

The realities: Growth over deficit financing

The current Philippine debt-to-GDP ratio compares well with its regional peers. It is half of that of Singapore and less than that of Vietnam, Malaysia, Laos and Thailand (see Figure 1). The starting point for a huge infrastructure upgrade is favorable. True, in a downscale risk analysis, Philippine growth performance might not reach the target, but would be likely to stay close to it – which would still translate to a manageable increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Yet, Corr claims that Philippine debt ratio will soar seven-fold in the Duterte era, whereas the DBM estimate offers evidence the debt could slightly decline. The difference between the two is almost 260 percent.

Today, Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 250 percent of its GDP. However, at the turn of the 1980s, the ratio was still closer to 40 percent, or where the Philippine level is today. Yet, Corr claims the Duterte government would need barely four years to achieve not only Japan’s debt ratio today but a level that would be another 50 percent higher!

The realities are very different, however. The contemporary Philippines enjoys sound macroeconomic fundamentals, not Marcos-era vulnerability. Moreover, Corr’s tacit association of Duterte’s infrastructure goals with former President Marcos’s public investment program (and the associated debt crisis in the 1980s) proves hollow. Duterte is focused on infrastructure (his infrastructure budget as percentage of GDP is 2 to 3 times higher in relative terms).

Today, borrowing conditions are also more favorable (365-day Treasury bill rates are 3 to 4 times lower than in the Marcos era). Furthermore, the Philippine gross international reserves, which amount to 9 months, are relatively highest among Asean economies and 3 to 4 times higher than in the Marcos era (Figure 2).

In addition to realities, Corr’s analysis ignores the dynamics of debt. Any country’s debt position is not just the nominal amount of the debt, but its value relative to the size of the economy. An economy that is barely growing and suffers from dollar-denominated debt lacks capacity to pay off its liabilities, as evidenced by Greece. In contrast, with its strong growth record, the Philippines has the capacity to grow while paying off its liabilities.

Geopolitical agendas, economic needs

Corr could have challenged DBM’s assumptions about Philippine future growth, potential increases in infrastructure budget, contingent adverse shifts in the international environment and so on, but his purposes may be political.

He is close to US Pentagon and intelligence communities, which strongly oppose Duterte’s recalibration of Philippine foreign policy between the US and China. According to the US Naval Institute, he has visited all South China Sea claimant countries and undertaken “field research” in Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Brunei. He has been an associate for Booz Allen Hamilton (as once was Edward Snowden). Though he has ties with international multilateral banks, he is less of an “economic hit man” and has more interest in US security matters.

Corr led the US Army social science research already in Afghanistan and conducted analysis at US Pacific Command (USPacom) and US Special Operations Command Pacific (Socpac) for US national security in Asia, including in the Philippines, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Currently, he is researching Russia and Ukraine for the Pentagon. He has urged President Trump to use stronger military presence in the South China Sea, bullied Pakistan with sanctions, and supported independentistas in Hong Kong and Taiwan, labeled Chinese students abroad as Beijing’s informants, while exploring US nuclear options against North Korea.

Such objectives are far from neutral economic observation, but they do reflect political partisanship that is typical of Washington’s neoconservative and liberal imperial dreams– but not the views of most Americans, according to major polls.

In the Philippines, Duterte’s supporters see Chinese debt as a business deal that will ultimately support the country’s future. After Forbes, the Duterte government’s critics were quick to report the story, but without appropriate examination of its economic assertions and possible strategic motives. Overall, while liberals tend to oppose the debt plans for geopolitical reasons, their economists are more sympathetic.

In any real assessment, simple realism should prevail: When the rate of economic expansion exceeds that of debt growth, low-cost financing for public projects can make a vital contribution to the Philippines’ economic long-term future.