Truth Out has the article Cutting Off Capital: How to Resist Trump’s Corporate Collaborators.

Instead of it being an isolated battle, it was Trump’s job czar actually involved in cutting wages, benefits and outsourcing work. This is one of the pieces that I think is the most critical, which is showing that the people that Trump has put in charge, like Wilbur Ross, are actually job destroyers. We want to completely change the story by putting the spotlight on them by saying, “These are actually the people that got rich destroying good jobs. It is not evil foreigners or immigrants. It is these guys.” That lets you raise a whole set of issues in terms of showing who they are and then, all the different ways that they gamed the system to enrich themselves at the expense of workers.

I thought I had been following the issues even before I started writing this blog. However, what is in this article is a far more sickening exposure what is going on. Since I already read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, I wasn’t made quite as badly physically ill as when I read her books. I guess she immunized me a little.

Vox has the article The dark psychology of dehumanization, explained.

Dehumanizing policies can kick-start a cycle of retribution and hostility

During the Republican presidential primary, Kteily and Bruneau surveyed 200 Muslims in the US, and asked them to respond to statements such as, “Donald Trump sees people from Muslim backgrounds as sub-human,” and, “Donald Trump thinks of people from Muslim background as animal-like.”

On average, the Muslims in the sample “felt strongly disliked and dehumanized by both Trump and non-Muslim Americans more broadly.” On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 indicating that Muslims did not feel dehumanized at all and 7 meaning they felt it intensely, the group average was 5.66, well beyond the halfway mark. (Similar results were found in a concurrent study of Latino Americans.)

This survey wasn’t designed to be nationally representative of all the Muslims living in America. Instead, it was designed to figure out what happens inside the mind of someone who feels dehumanized.

“And the consequences were big,” Bruneau explains. The more Muslims felt dehumanized by Trump, the more they dehumanized Trump. The more they felt dehumanized, the less likely they were to say they’d report suspicious activities in their communities.

The research predicts a vicious cycle. Trump’s policy and rhetoric gin up fear and dehumanize Muslim Americans. That provokes a more violent response from certain individuals in the Muslim community. Trump responds. And suddenly the whole country is a more hostile, less safe place for everyone, the researchers conclude in a paper that was recently published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

“We want to be careful to say that any backlash that we might expect isn’t unique to minority groups. In fact, some of our earlier work showed that Americans, too, who think they are dehumanized by Muslims are more likely to dehumanize Muslims,” Kteily says. “We think of this working both ways.”

This is a great explanation of the phenomenon that I have observed many times throughout my life. In Army training I experienced in 1967, I saw this dehumanization process used to take the civilization out of soldiers in training so that they could learn to be killers of other humans. I see this dynamic working in both directions the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I see it in the India/Pakistan conflict. This process was used throughout the Cold War that I lived through.

The article explains what has helped me to stand back and see this as it is.

Overall, the experts I spoke to all said that the No. 1 way to combat dehumanization is also, frustratingly, one of the hardest to accomplish: simply getting to know people who are different from us.

In my life, I have had many opportunities to get to know people of different cultures and from different parts of the world. It is hard to dehumanize people you know who are quite obviously just as human as anyone else.

The New York Times published the article Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates on January 19, 2017.

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

Perhaps it is just a technicality that makes Trump’s accusations about wire tapping “truthfully” deniable by the “intelligence” community and the FBI. Perhaps he just used the wrong words in describing how the eavesdropping was done or who the target was. Of course this story comes from the highly unreliable New York Times who can say in one story that Trump associates were eavesdropped on, and in another story that Trump is crazy to think he is the target of eavesdropping.

How about this quote from the article?

The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

The American government has not come to any such conclusion no matter how many times the corporate press says this. If you look at the evidence the American government has published, you will see that it is full of assumptions and it ignores its own evidence that points away from their assumptions.

Also note, that the “intercepted Russian communications” says nothing about how they were intercepted. Wouldn’t you think that inquiring minds would want to know even if The New York Times reporters don’t seem to have inquiring minds?

WikiLeaks has a very troubling release of information described on their web site in the article Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.

The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell’s 1984, but “Weeping Angel”, developed by the CIA’s Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.

The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom’s MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a ‘Fake-Off’ mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In ‘Fake-Off’ mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.

I don’t own this model TV (I don’t think), but I did discover that I have had some CIA malware installed on my computers for years. I am not about to mention which tool I have, but the CIA knows I have it, I am sure. I am only half-way through reading the article, so there may be other pieces of their software that I have installed on my computers.

Just to be clear, the “mal” in malware means “bad”. I wouldn’t have installed the piece of software if I had known it was malware. I will sit tight on it until I hear from the people who supply my anti-virus software or some other credible source. As long as I have had the software, whatever damage it can do, if any, has probably already been done.

Upon a little investigation, I think I have determined my worries about a particular piece of software are ill-founded. What a relief.

In my continuing efforts to research the cause of the inflation of the 1970s, I have found the article Stagflation in the 1970s. This may put an over emphasis on Nixon as to what started it all, but I think it does add some valid points.

By 1971, pressures produced by the Vietnam War and federal social spending, coupled with the increase in foreign competition, pushed the inflation rate to 5 percent and unemployment to 6 percent. President Richard Nixon responded by increasing federal budget deficits and devaluing the dollar in an attempt to stimulate the economy and to make American goods more competitive overseas. Nixon also imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze, followed by a mandatory set of wage-price guidelines, and then, by voluntary controls. Inflation stayed at about 4 percent during the freeze, but once controls were lifted, inflation resumed its upward climb.

At least it does mention the pressures of the Vietnam War. I have blamed LBJ for refusing to inconvenience the civilian population by raising taxes. Raising taxes would have prevented the civilian population from tying up resources that civilians wanted to use in their daily lives. Increased taxes would have allowed LBJ to divert resources to the war effort without causing inflation. What he left as a result of his policies was the government competing against the private sector for the same resources. This is one of the situations that tends to cause inflation.

Of course, one should not forget the way that Richard Nixon’s administration continued the war, and even escalated it despite promises of winding it down.

Thinking of the economic situation of today, there is such underemployment and idle resources that the private sector is not using, that the same competition between the government and the private sector is not happening. Thus, unfortunately, <sarcasm>we can afford costly wars without creating inflation even though we cut taxes. Income inequality has a neat way of keeping the money out of the hands of the people who would actually need to spend that money and cause inflation if we didn’t cut back on the wars. So it all works out in the end.</sarcasm>

In an effort to find out if I was crazy to think that our inflation problems of the 1970s began before the OPEC oil shocks, I have come across the article Whipping Stagflation. I am not attesting to the truth of this article, but this is the way I seem to remember it.

By 1971, pressures produced by the Vietnam War and federal social spending, coupled with the increase in foreign competition, pushed the inflation rate to 5 percent and unemployment to 6 percent. President Richard Nixon responded by increasing federal budget deficits and devaluing the dollar in an attempt to stimulate the economy and to make American goods more competitive overseas. Nixon also imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze, followed by a mandatory set of wage-price guidelines, and then, by voluntary controls. Inflation stayed at about 4 percent during the freeze, but once controls were lifted, inflation resumed its upward climb.

Uproxx has the article Donald Trump Kicked Off The Weekend By Taking To Twitter To Wildly Claim That Obama Wiretapped The Phones In Trump Tower.

On Saturday, Donald Trump started his day by tweeting that he believes President Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower just before his election victory in November. Citing no evidence, Trump called it a Nixon-Watergate level situation and compared it to McCarthyism.

No evidence? Well do you want some stinkin’ evidence? There is an interesting article that Donald Trump may have read before making his claims. Talking Points Memo has the article What The CIA and FBI Knew About Trump Before 2016.

It seems quite probable that as Trump moved closer to the presidency in the early months of 2016, alarm bells started to go off in the FBI and the CIA, as the relevance of business partnerships with Sater and reliance on capital out of the former Soviet Union suddenly became dramatically more relevant. Again, as I said, as long as Donald Trump was just Donald Trump this didn’t matter that much. There’s plenty of dirty money sloshing around the New York real estate world. But when it started to seem plausible that he might become the next President, this would start to be a matter of great concern.

Truthdig has the article The Deep State’s Hatred of Trump Is Not the Same as Yours.

Perhaps I am going to go beyond fair use by the size of the excerpt below, but this is too important to risk your missing this because you didn’t click on the link to the article.

Meanwhile, the national corporate media and the U.S. intelligence community have been attacking Trump for a very different and strange reason. They have claimed, with no serious or credible evidence, that Trump is, for some bizarre reason, a tool of the Russian state. The charge is as wacky as anything Glenn Beck or, for that matter, Trump (former leader of the preposterous “birther movement”), used to say about President Obama. Citing vague and unsubstantiated CIA reports, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other forces in the establishment media want Americans to believe that, in Glenn Greenwald’s properly mocking words, “Donald Trump is some kind of an agent or a spy of Russia, or that he is being blackmailed by Russia and is going to pass secret information to the Kremlin and endanger American agents on purpose.”

Beneath the wild and unsubstantiated charge that Trump is some kind of Moscow-controlled Manchurian president is a determination to cripple and perhaps remove Trump because he wants to normalize U.S. relations with Russia. Why, you might ask, would smoothing things over between Washington and Moscow be a terrible thing? It wouldn’t be for everyday Americans who don’t want to see themselves, their children and their grandchildren blown up in a nuclear war over, say, Ukraine (where the Obama administration provocatively helped create a fascist, NATO-affiliated regime on Russia’s western border) or Crimea (where the vast majority of the population welcomed reversion to Russia).
.
.
.
Do serious progressives committed to democracy, peace and social justice really want to lie down in the same warmongering and pro-surveillance bed as the CIA and the Pentagon? Doing so is bad for their souls and moral integrity. It’s also bad for democracy and for peace to help empower and legitimize the imperial system’s unelected and infamously nefarious deep state “intelligence” bureaucracy, “maybe the only [Washington] faction worse than Donald Trump,” according to Greenwald. As Whitney wisely counsels, “Leftists should avoid the temptation of aligning themselves with groups and agencies that might help them achieve their short-term goal of removing Trump, but ultimately move them closer to a de facto 1984 lock-down police state. Misplaced support for the deep state Russophobes will only strengthen the national security state’s stranglehold on power. That’s not a path to victory, it’s a path to annihilation.”

Take to the streets (and highways, town plazas, fossil-fuel extraction sites, shop floors, assembly halls, airwaves and airports, etc.) against Trump, by all means. But also take to the streets against the grim neoliberal Democrats who opened the barn door for his dangerous presidency and against the unelected “deep state” interests working always to increase the ever-upward concentration of global capitalist wealth and power. We don’t want to bring Trump down just to help install an administration more properly suited to selling and otherwise advancing American empire, inequality and ecocide.

Naked Capitalism has reprinted the interview it calls Keynesianism and the Great Recession.

One can say that the Obama administration’s failure to reinvigorate the economy after eight years and to reform the banks was the central factor that lost the elections for Hillary Clinton.
.
.
.
But this wasn’t a defeat by default. On the economic issues that motivate many of these voters, Trump had a message: The economic recovery was a mirage, people were hurt by the Democrats’ policies, and they had more pain to look forward to should the Democrats retain control of the White House.

The problem for Clinton was that the opportunistic message of this demagogue rang true to the middle class and working class voters in these states, even if the messenger himself was quite flawed. These four states reflected, on the ground, the worst consequences of the interlocking problems of high unemployment and deindustrialization that had stalked the whole country for over two decades owing to the flight of industrial corporations to Asia and elsewhere. Combined with the financial collapse of 2007-2008 and the widespread foreclosure of the homes of millions of middle class and poor people who’d been enticed by the banks to go into massive indebtedness, the region was becoming a powder keg of resentment.

One of the reasons I focus this blog on economics issues is the fact that failure to understand economics has major political repercussions. This drives major repercussions on our quality of life in the US and in the world.

Real Progressives has the interview Rohan Grey of the Modern Money Network joins Real Progressives.

When I tuned in near the beginning this was in the middle of a discussion of relieving the student debt problem. That was such a great discussion that I would have been satisfied for that to be the topic of the whole interview. The interview just kept getting better and better as it went on to other issues.

Rohan Grey likes to discuss these issues with the precision that I relish. He is far more interested in just telling you the plain truth than he is of coming up with an explanation that will get you to buy into what he says. At one point he discussed exactly why I believe that it is a bad idea to use an argument that fuzzes over some truths in order to get you to believe in the premise. In my experience, a technique that fuzzes the truth will always come back to bite you. If you have a good and honest story, just tell the truth about it.

I have been known to attack explanations of the Modern Model Model if they stray into trying to ignore some thorny questions. I have found that if you really understand the model, there are perfectly true explanations of those thorny problems. The true explanation is better than the fuzz.