Oh, the Horror!

Global Financial Bloodbath: $5 Trillion Wiped In 2 Days | Will Europe Turn To China

For decades, one of the biggest—if not the biggest—US exports was (and is) debt, mostly government debt. Foreign nationals use Treasury bills as collateral, often in trade with nations other than the US. Meanwhile, Wall Street makes out as the "middle man," and Congress Critters can spend money feeding their special interest friends without raising taxes. So we are selling off bits of our nation in return for trinkets.

To cut the trade deficit, we will need to cut the budget deficit or save more as a nation (and consume less). In recent years, the Treasury floated more short-term debt, which we must roll over, so interest rates may not decline by much (although those looking for a "cash" position while things get sorted may want what the Treasury offers). Painful adjustments (many affecting quite influential groups) will be required.

Inflation has helped boost the stock market beyond the valuations the traditional "P/E" ratios would suggest. We may be witnessing a return to the mean, which may seem mean indeed as investors race to "de-leverage" first. Meanwhile, most corporations bought back shares when interest rates were low, pumping up the market, and may be selling now.

It is said Europe will turn to China to replace the United States, while China turns to Europe to replace the United States. I wish them luck.

He's got it Wrong.

 I Break Down Every Key Moment of Trump & Zelenskyy’s Fight (to PROVE who’s really right)

I don't always agree with Paul Warburg's opinions, but I find his analysis of the Ukraine conflict informative. His take on the Oval Office Meeting misses the mark. 

I support military aid for Ukraine -- even when Biden "paused" it in the early days of his administration, I thought it should continue. To me, that pause was like ringing the lunch bell for Putin.

I am surprised that people who shrugged off Russia's Crimea grab are such war hawks now. I'm also aware that the longer the war lasts and the aid flows into an impoverished nation, the more people become dependent on the new status quo. This is not a criticism of Ukrainians; it's a criticism of the human race (in the meeting, Zelensky made a comment that kinda serves as proof). One thing Trump's plan has right: you have to offer them a better future. Also, no one voted for Trump because he would give security guarantees to Ukraine (quite the opposite). He's gone about as far as he can go in that direction.

I watched the whole thing and never got the feeling that President Zelenskyy wanted to sign the agreement (or even wanted to be there). If you were hiring a partner for peace, he would fail the interview. Also, when he handed President Trump those photos, it was obvious to me that he didn't tell Trump in advance. If I'm right, that was a big mistake and awfully rude. What I saw was a guy who wanted to maneuver Trump into saying something, out of politeness and in front of the press, that would be useful later.

If Zelensky only gets pre-screened questions from reporters, that's not Trump's fault (Trump was called a Russian spy daily for a couple of years). It is laughable to suggest that a "rude" question would throw Zelensky off his game. Was it done so Trump could say something nice about him later? Gee, what planning!

West Winging It

FULL Body Language Analysis of Trump and Zelenskyy's MELTDOWN

During the turn of the Century, The West Wing was a popular political Comedy/Drama about the Presidency of the United States of America. It was fiction, so the progressive president (Martin Sheen) could come out looking a little better and his conservative foes a little worse than might be the case in, say, the real world.

President Zelensky of Ukraine started his political life with a similar program. You get to write the script. The clever things you say and do ultimately work out in your favor -- regardless of the mid-show hilarious hiccups. Unfortunately, starring in a "West Wing" style show is poor training for sitting in the almost sacred setting (for most Americans) of the West Wing Oval Office while dealing with President Donald Trump. During that meeting, he wanted commitments from Trump in public, in front of the world, that he couldn't get in private. Unfortunately, Zelensky wasn't writing the script.

Abraham Lincoln, during the Dark Days of the Civil War, said, "We must disenthrall ourselves." I read that as a fourteen-year-old boy and wondered what "disenthrall" meant.  To be enthralled was to be emotionally caught up in a book or a movie or a love affair. So, to "disenthrall" means to disengage your emotions and try to look at the situation you are in objectively. President Zelensky was not capable of doing that. Indeed, he wanted to "enthrall" Donald Trump and perhaps everyone else.

His inability to view the world objectively has set him up for failure. Hopefully, he will leave the scene soon and accept the gratitude of his grateful nation before that turns to loathing.

By and large, commentators assume that if Kamala Harris were President, the largess towards Ukraine would continue. Why? It was Biden's administration that pushed the war, largely as a part of their anti-Putin morality play (See Ukraine's Color Revolution, Hunter and Burisima, Trump's first impeachment, etc.). Democrats are the party of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's "Russia-US Reset Button" (this after Russia took part of Georgia -- not the US state). After that little show, Putin grabbed Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and Obama shrugged. In its first days in 2021, the Biden Administration stopped the arm shipments to Ukraine that Trump began (they wanted to engage with Russia diplomatically). That was like ringing the lunch bell for Vladimar Putin. He geared up for war, not diplomacy.

If Harris had won on Nov. 5, the American Media would have started the distancing process on Nov 6. It would be time for "a new look." It would go on from there, and it would be ugly. There would be story after story of Ukrainian corruption. Many of these stories might actually be true (truth is not a priority in a political operation). Why would this happen? Because our involvement in the War in Ukraine is a political loser. Why are the "experts," who shrugged off the Crimea invasion when they were in power, war hawks now? Why did they manipulate Zelensky into confronting Trump in the Oval office to effectively repudiate the very agreement he was there to sign? It's part of the political operation. They want to regain power. Blowing up the peace deal hurts Trump and helps them. Any leader who can "disenthrall himself" would see that and avoid the trap.

Zelensky did confirm what I wrote about in the Post "Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise." He said the Ukrainian people are actually doing all right despite the hardships of war. This is why Trump is offering them an alternative prosperous future. We can get rare earths from our 51st state -- Greenland, Canada, maybe Cuba. Who wants to be first?

Z-mania

 Breaking: President Trump and VP Vance Spar with Zelensky in the Oval Office

In the past, the US made agreements with Joseph Stalin, Breshnev, and Mao -- but Zelensky warns the US about making a deal with Putin. He also tells JD Vance that his intelligence breifings are crap (which may be the case -- unless they are focused on LGBTQ matters). But hey, Z, Marco Rubio knows his dictators.

By lecturing on Putin's untrustworthiness, Zelensky wanted Trump to give a public "reassurance" that could be spun into a security guarantee. It blew up in his face.

Europeans don't understand the US. Trump went way out on a limb for Ukraine. His supporters -- you know, the people who got him elected -- oppose massive aid for Ukraine, and they certainly don't want US corporations economically entwinded there (and their employees being human shields in the border lands). Many are outright hostile to our involvement, which goes back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first Trump impeachment over that "perfect Ukrainian phone call" -- to Zelensky, as fate would have it.

Now, European "intellectuals" try to score "we stand with Ukraine" debating points after Zelensky wants to tell the US who it can negotiate with. What's the reaction of most Americans to all this? Fine, it's your problem now.

Zelensky played a leader on TV, where he got to write the script and the clever ending. Well, not today. Today he screwed the pooch. The American people will never support a forever war in the middle of Eurasia. Trump went further with this deal than is politically wise.

Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise

 Putin makes huge mistake as Trump’s comments backfire | Former senior advisor to Zelenskyy

First, non-native speakers of "American" need to know that "Being in the Disinformation Space" is a synonym for "Shut up, you ignorant fool." So, if the Z-man meant to say that to the President, well, he did. Trump probably gained another million supporters as a result. 

Let's assume Ukraine in the 2020s is not a corrupt Banna Republic, but rather a "poor but honest" nation. They don't want to live under Russian domination (who would?). Their European neighbors need to keep an expansionist Russia from their borders -- in fact, all of NATO shares that interest. As a result, this "Poor but Honest" nation receives massive amounts of aid for its war effort.  Soon, the decent people of this honest nation are employed in industries and businesses whose continued prosperity depends on continued war. Career prospects and promotions become dependent on continued war. The politicians in control have a support network dependent on divvied-up war aid. Would the decent people of this poor but honest nation lean toward the most favorable war aims, even if this means further fighting? Because, yes, while they are decent, they are also human.

Of course, not every person in every nation is decent. Corrupt officials and fraudulent businesses can be found everywhere. Realistically, "Corrupt Banna Republic" is a more accurate descriptor of Ukraine's ruling class -- which is more Kleptocratic than Aristocratic. Unsurprisingly, much of the massive infusion of aid is stolen or misallocated. Peace becomes a threat to prosperity. To get Ukraine on board the "peace train," the rulers need to see the war "gravy train" pulling onto the siding. Promises of peacetime opportunities for graft will, no doubt, be required. Their cooperation cannot be bought, but perhaps it can be rented.

While Ukraine's rulers may face a (financial) loss with the end of fighting, Russia's rulers have much to gain. The ending of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets, for instance. Is it possible that Trumps negotiators sensed a stubborness in Ukraine that was lacking in their discussions with the Russians?

 

Negotiating the Negotiations.

Did Trump Just Betray Ukraine?

President Trump's most vocal supporters are quite anti-Ukraine aid. This goes back to Trump's first impeachment, which was based on his phone call with Z-man.

When the Clinton-Pelosi-Obama team failed to frame him as a Russian Spy, Congressional Democrats and the media launched an Impeachment using a leak by a naturalized Intelligence Staffer from Ukraine. Now, by this time any listener to Conservative talk radio considered Ukraine a money laundering piggy bank for Democrats (ie, Hunter Biden's million-dollar no-show job with the legendarily corrupt Burisima). This colored their perception of the Obama-backed "Color Revolution." The chief witnesses at Pelosi's Kangaroo Impeachment Court did not dispel this impression. One was the rumored Brookings Institution paramour of the KGB ex-agent (if there is such a thing) that made up the infamous Steele Document (created by an ex-MI6 agent). To Trump supporters, the swamp is full of poisonous snakes.

I don't think Trump carries a grudge toward Ukraine but he cannot ignore the hostility of much of his political base. Throwing Ukraine under the first tire of the bus does him no political harm and may free him up to aid Ukraine in the future. Meanwhile, few voters want the US involved in conflicts in the Eurasian land mass. Even the Caucasians don't know where the Caucasus is.