Argentina’s Milei Says He’d Reject ‘Assassin’ China, Leave Mercosur
Milei described his foreign policy proposals as a global “fight against socialists and statists,” and revealed that he would appoint Diana Mondino, a trusted economic adviser, to be his top diplomat. She’s a former Standard & Poor’s director for Argentina and is running for Congress.
Video via Emil Cosman
Related:
Read More »[2017] Trump’s Budget Delivers Big Oil’s Wish: Reducing Strategic Petroleum Reserve
While most observers believe the budget will not pass through Congress in its current form, budgets depict an administration’s priorities and vision for the country. Some within the oil industry have lobbied for years to drain the SPR, created in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis.
…
Exxon, as well as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), have long lobbied for a drawdown of SPR‘s supply, according to lobbying disclosure records reviewed by DeSmog. They supported two key bills, proposed but never passed by Congress: H.R. 4136 in 2012 and S. 1231 in 2015.
H.R. 4136, lobbied for by Exxon, API, and IPAA**, says that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve can only be tapped if more federally owned public lands and waters were leased to the oil and gas industry. S. 1231, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Modernization Act of 2015, called for a Department of Energy study of the SPR “to determine options available for [its] continued operation,” to be completed 180 days after the bill’s passage.
…
“[T]he SPR is unnecessary in the first place. Private inventories and reserves are abundant, and open markets will respond more efficiently to supply shocks than federally controlled government stockpiles,” wrote Loris, who began his career as an associate for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. “Congress should authorize the Department of Energy to sell the entire inventory, using the revenues solely for deficit reduction.”
Crisis-hit Pakistan has made various economic modifications including hikes in fuel prices, raising taxes, and others demanded by IMF to unlock the loan program.
IMF sets another condition for crisis-hit Pakistan to revive loan
Related:
Pakistan and the International Monetary Fund:
In 2018, Imran Khan became Prime Minister of Pakistan. For this, they arranged friendly loans from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and China to avoid tough IMF conditions. In 2019, when economic conditions worsened, they went to IMF for the twenty-second time for a loan of US$1 billion. IMF gave loan based on conditions such as hike in energy tariffs, removal of energy subsidy, increase in taxation, privatization of public entities and fiscal policies to the budget.
IMF bailout package — rescue or trap for Pakistan?
“The IMF’s agenda is not to strengthen global economies because if it does that, then the Fund itself will be out of business,” he said.
U.S. Press Starts To Figure Out College TikTok Bans Are A Dumb Performance
One, the bans are generally designed to agitate a xenophobic base and give the impression the GOP is “doing something about China.” But the party that couldn’t care less about rampant corruption or privacy violations isn’t doing much of anything meaningful to thwart China. In fact, letting adtech, telecom, and app companies run rampant with little oversight runs contrary to any such goal.
Two, the bans distract the public and press from our ongoing failure on consumer privacy and security issues. Banning TikTok, but doing nothing about the accountability optional free for all that is the adtech and data-hoovering space, doesn’t actually fix anything. China can just obtain the same data from a universe of other international companies facing little real oversight on data collection.
Three, the ban is really just about money. Trump gave the game away with his proposal that TikTok be chopped up and sold to Oracle and Walmart. That cronyistic deal fell through, but it’s pretty clear that this moral panic is designed to either help TikTok’s competitors (Facebook lobbyists are very active on this front), or force the sale of the most popular app in modern history to GOP-allies. At which point they’ll engage in all the surveillance and influence efforts they pretend to be mad about.
Related:
Read More »On October 12, just a couple of months before the loudly announced US-Africa summit, the White House released a rather lengthy document, “The US Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa”. It defines Washington’s main objectives on the African continent, and details the goals it intends to pursue and the mechanisms of cooperation.
New US strategy in Africa: serious program or another bluff?
[World War I] Pro-war statements and speeches—as well as more coercive measures—gradually captured American public discourse in 1917. Fairly quickly, those who rejected the rationales for United States participation in the war found themselves increasingly isolated. Liberals, intellectuals, and even many socialists soon supported American intervention. A youthful critic in his twenties, Randolph Bourne wrote a bitter essay in the intellectual magazine Seven Arts, lambasting his fellow intellectuals for lining up so readily behind the war effort.
The War and the Intellectuals
Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky opened the New York Stock Exchange telling Wall Street his country is “open” for foreign corporations to exploit it with $400 billion in state selloffs.
Zelensky is literally selling Ukraine to US corporations on Wall Street
Geopolitical competition has no limits. This is especially the case when superpowers with global ambitions compete. As long as the competition is fair, it could drive development (although it might still have its socio-political and economic discontents). But when competition itself is projected as a phobia, it becomes more of an anomaly than a driver of growth and development. The most recent example of the super-power rivalry being framed in terms of ‘Sinophobia’ and ‘Russophobia’ is Washington’s newly revealed ‘Africa Strategy’ – a document that seeks to insert the US in Africa not as a competitor but as a country solely responsible for imparting ‘democracy’ and ‘openness’ to the so-called ‘backward’ societies of Africa. This is classical colonial statecraft reframed as a strategy for ‘engagement’ and ‘development.’ The document stipulates a US strategy to “foster … open societies”, “deliver democratic and security dividends”, and “support conservation, Climate Adaptation, and a Just Energy Transition.” This is an ambitious agenda with very ambitious objectives. But are these the real objectives?
Washington’s Africa Strategy Seeks to Counter Russia and China
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.