Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,222]

Read the indictment charging Eric Adams

New York Mayor Eric Adams was charged with bribery, wire fraud and seeking illegal campaign donations, according to a federal indictment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/26/eric-adams-indictment-document-pdf/

Edited September 26, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,222]

39 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Woul New york elect a black man who wasnt a clown?

he was the only one who ran

and Dinkens was the only other one who won the mayorship

[robsblubot 3,595]

May require signing up to access

The Dangers
of Donald Trump,
From Those
Who Know Him
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/26/opinion/donald-trump-personality-history.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Nk4.9Siq.wd5q8xfycurJ&smid=url-share

“He will always put his own interests and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest. There’s no question about it.” Bill Barr

“He was extremely vulnerable to manipulation. And that became a problem for him as a president. And what I mean by that is, he had a very fragile ego, and he was very susceptible to flattery, as well as taking massive offense, as we all saw, to any kind of criticism.”Fiona Hill

“I believe anyone that puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States and anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.” Mike Pence 

“There is nothing ‘conservative’ about Donald Trump. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, not a ‘man’s’ ego.” Adam Kizinger 

there are SO many other quotes in the article... many come from conservative republicans.

Edited September 26, 2024 by robsblubot

[Vesper 30,222]

1 hour ago, robsblubot said:

“He will always put his own interests and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest. There’s no question about it.” Bill Barr

whilst completely true

I have to say

fuck Bill Barr

ex post facto shite

that motherfucker fucked up the Mueller Report by releasing his own version that falsely spun the hell out of it when he was Trump's Attorney General

[Vesper 30,222]

Reclaiming Urban and Rural Power: Models for Community and Social Wealth Accumulation in an Age of Austerity

Swedish Television, the Green Conversion and the Limits of Business Reporting

By Jonathan Michael Feldman, September 22, 2024; Updated September 23, 2024

https://www.globalteachin.com/uncategorized/swedish-television-the-green-conversion-and-the-limits-of-business-reporting

Introduction

I have studied industrial policy for several decades. So I was rather disappointed to learn what Swedish journalists and most politicians have to say when it comes to Sweden’s present Northvolt crisis. The key factors supporting a coherent industrial policy can include the combination of extensive state support matched to an experienced production platform. Where does experience come from in a relatively new sector? It comes from building upon the experience of related suppliers and others who do something very much like what the new sector does. Building massive new factories uncoupled from detailed and extensive production experience and state funding to cover risks seems like an absurd proposition.

Mechanism I: Corporate Failure

Swedish Television had a segment on the company Northvolt, a company facing severe economic challenges right now. The company is supposed to be the future of electric battery production in Europe and is based in Northern Sweden. An article by Richard Milne, published in The Financial Times on September 19, 2024, which a colleague referred me to after I wrote an initial draft of this article, reads as follows: “Northvolt’s sub-Arctic battery factory in northern Sweden was meant to symbolise Europe’s green fightback against China and the US. Instead, the start-up is in danger of turning into an emblem of the continent’s failure to stay in the race. The Swedish battery company has raised more capital than any other private group in Europe — more than $15bn in equity, debt, and government support. It is now struggling to secure funds as it tries to increase production at the gigafactory in Skellefteå while scaling down other projects and cutting jobs.”

The most remarkable reasons for the difficulties were never addressed by recent Swedish Television coverage, i.e. the success of the mission was highly improbable as could be understood by an examination of basic realities of industrial policy, industrial economics, and the character of the relationship between production and innovation. Milne’s article quotes Lars Lysdahl, a battery expert who works at Rystad Energy. Lysdahl noted the intense competition from China and argued that it is very difficult for start-ups to scale up in their early phases. These challenges are severe when it comes to battery cell development. One reason is that capital is quickly spent in such early, innovative stages. Lysdahl also explains that Northvolt tried “to do too many things” simultaneously and had “too many plans.” In contrast, the company’s competitors built up their capacity by first focusing on cell production, rather than doing “everything at once.”

Milne notes that carmakers delayed their plans and deliveries for electric cars. Yet, what is missing in this assessment is what I have noted as a requirement for addressing successful new product development risk, i.e. a diversified production system to balance the different performances that a company can be in. For example, the Budd Company (based in the Philadelphia area of the United States) used its presence in automotive markets to balance its presence in passenger rail markets and vice versa. When the auto segment of that company collapsed, the company entered a severe downward spiral. Yet, the spiral took place as state policies hurt passenger rail and helped the company’s competitors. Northvolt’s diversification effort seemed constrained into a series of segments tied to the same sector. The company has investigated “buyers or partners for its materials, recycling and energy storage businesses.”

Mechanism II: Media Failure

How did Swedish TV cover this story? See link: https://www.svtplay.se/video/e2dPVkZ/agenda/ikvall-21-15 The answer is that one of the factors pointed out as the cause, was supposed to be the CEO’s silence or the fact that he hides from media and the public. This is an utterly superficial example of a cause so downstream as to be exceedingly derivative and therefore trivial. Other key factors Swedish television coverage identified were clearly symptomatic and thus downstream and similarly trivial. See Plate 1 below. In contrast to what I and the Financial Times describe, Swedish Television (SVT) focused on surface phenomena (see Plate 1). The surface issues they highlighted included the following.

Production problems: That is not a cause of failure, but simply a descriptive symptom of a failure.

Quality deficits: That is not a cause of failure, but simply a descriptive symptom of a failure. Relates to a lack of experience, testing and long-production experience to iron out difficulties which in any case are learned often by learning by failing or doing. That learning often requires state financing to reduce market pressures while that learning happens. Yet, the government official from the Sweden Democrat (SD) party was antagonistic to any meaningful, deep industrial policy.

Dissatisfied customers: Clearly a symptom of failed production. Highly derivative.

An unsafe workplace: Evidence of a company that “cut corners” to save money probably because it lacks the necessary capital or mis-spends capital to compensate for a lack of experience. Also evidence of sloppy managers who are infused with hubris and rewarded by speculators who don’t understand how to develop a massive new industry.

Despairing employees: This is a byproduct of a failed managerial and production system. It could not possibly be a root cause, but is rather symptomatic of something done to such workers by higher ups. Referencing the objects of a failed system begs the question of the causation.

A managing director who hides: This too is utterly symptomatic of someone who does not want to expose himself to media and public scrutiny because of all the failed steps in the corporate strategy.

Plate 1: SVT Agenda Program Identifies Northvolt Failures

 

Source: SVT Agenda, broadcast September 22, 2024.

Mechanism III: State Failure

On the program on the Northvolt crisis, the business minister Ebba Busch gave one of her worst performances. All she could do, learning from Sweden’s Prime Minister, is to tell stories about problems and refuse to propose any meaningful answers. Her modus operandi: Tell a story that repeats the problem and evidences a superficial empathy (psychologize), say what might be nice, and refuse to do any deep thinking and make the necessary commitments. It is clear that Sweden would often be better off using an AI program rather than rely on government officials to address problems. As it is government employees are trained by media consultants who teach them how to dodge journalists’ questions by creating what are called “catch all narratives” by international relations scholars, i.e. stories that attempt to please everyone (without expending real costs) and thereby avoid larger truths. Why do politicians study the lessons of media consultants rather than gain knowledge from industrial economists and industrial policy scholars? The answer is that most politicians are economically under-educated because their value added is apparently political marketing, not deep industrial knowledge. Voters and not industrial artefacts are the politician’s object.

Milne writes that the Swedish Prime Minister argued that “it was up to private investors and the company to solve matters,” when it is obvious that large amounts of state investment are necessary to promote a business start-up like Northvolt. In contrast, the right-wing SD party government leader for industrial questions complained about the company’s Chinese machines and manuals and the links between Northvolt and China. Yet, Sweden put its Volvo factory and production system into Chinese ownership, because the state refused to spend money to facilitate production on a large scale (with potential exceptions being nuclear power and military production). Also, the Swedish state spends massive amounts, billions of Euros on ramping up military budgets, sending military aid to Ukraine, but refuses to do the same for green conversion. SD’s modus operandi is to identify obvious problems, like failed integration, and make them worse by undermining the capacity of the state to solve them. Under the leadership of Busch, the Christian Democratic Party now tries to emulate this formula which appeals to persons having the most superficial conception of reality.

Of course, the government follows the same script as did its predecessor government during the Saab Automobile failure, i.e. it can claim that it knows nothing about how to build cars and industries and should not take risks. The China dependency is true but begs the question of why the state fails to learn and mobilize to replace the Chinese inputs with its own industrial system, procurement incentives, training system, and networking with European producers to replace or deeply complement the Chinese supply chain. We have spending money without any production intelligence. The failure of the state to be introspective, bold and ambitious is just the other side of the limited capacities of politicians and the feeder systems into these politicians coming from media, universities, and political parties. It is a circular and systemic failure. The Swedish government takes risks by backing the nuclear power, military adventurism initiated by NATO planners and military industrial sectors, however. Why? Because it sees the future of its own political fortunes in those risks and industries.

A counter argument is that the electric vehicle industry is facing slower sales, but Sweden’s subsidy to polluting energy sources compounded the difficulties. The country has engaged in massive and accelerated military spending, money that could have been better spent on building more charging station infrastructure and mass transit. Military budget funds represent an opportunity cost against green industrial development, even as the defense industry increasingly markets itself as being green (while the Pentagon is one of the world’s largest polluters).

Solutions are Possible, but Difficult

It is ironic that critics of the government during the Saab Automobile crisis turned to China to bail out Sweden. The Northvolt crisis clearly shows that Sweden (like other parts of Europe) has very little idea of what is required for competition with China and the USA. China uses cheap, inexpensive products to entice Europeans to move off the path of relative self-reliance. The USA advances military adventurism with human rights propaganda to divert Europeans from spending on civilian production. Here, the Swedish military sector clearly benefits and is part of the political “crowding out” of the green industrial sector. Neither the right nor the left offers much of a solution, although apparently the Green Party made some noises about helping Northvolt. Yet, government intervention at this stage is a bit late in the game. Sweden required a greater scale of state/university involvement in the sector to scale up to the necessary (design, planning and production) challenges. Perhaps Sweden should invite 100 South Korean industrial policy planners and industrialists to remake the country’s economic model (with the necessary trade union support systems of old).

In order to address the problems elaborated above, a five step program is necessary.

First, Sweden requires greater media accountability and far more critical business reporting. This step is necessary to put pressure on company’s managers, financiers, politicians and universities which themselves often sidestep the necessary questions. The Swedish government now epitomizes “power without knowledge,” as the country embodies a severely warped technocratic state led by narrow-minded bureaucrats who are rewarded by the extent to which they embody superficiality that sells politically and consolidates power. The alternative formula is the integration of knowledge with power.

Second, any elements of society that understand the failure mechanisms of business, media, and government spheres should consolidate their power into an alternative space. It would be in the interest of the Green and Left parties to promote this space, if they have the intellectual capacity to do so. The deference to business leaders and entrepreneurs and the speeches that use a lot of empty green business discourse are clearly insufficient. Right now, however, one of these parties seems to emphasize the enlargement of state services rather than material wealth production. In contrast, the Social Democratic party of decades ago at least built up industrial science parks linked to experienced and somewhat diversified producers like Ericsson, another company facing severe challenges (for similar reasons as Northvolt, i.e. a weak industrial policy support and intervention system).

Third, if any enlightened politicians are elected, they might promote an alternative kind of business education which involves the study of industrial policy and cooperative business development. In contrast, a search in Google Scholar suggests that student papers are what most research on Northvolt consists of.

Fourth, the enlightened individuals in business, universities, politics, and media should form study circles to identify the various challenges associated with industrial production. Apparently, this competence is now degraded in Sweden. Sweden should be an advocate for a more robust and competent industrial policy at the national and European Union levels. Instead, politicians babble about free markets and business solutions. In any case, the study circles should form the core of a prelude to the creation of a state-business-corporate research program and steering mechanism for state capital to support green industrial development.

Fifth, a media campaign must be launched to go on the offensive against business incompetence. Sometimes Swedish Television has done this as in their campaigns exposing criminality by banks and financiers. Apparently, the Swedish left’s way of doing this has been suboptimal if not existent. Some political parties have dabbled in Marxism, but the use of that approach has often been used to deconstruct rather than reconstruct the system. Various scholars like Seymour Melman and Joseph Lieberman explain the necessary agenda of exposing business incompetence and necessary solutions as do more recent studies by Jon Rynn and Dani Rodrik which outline green production needs and industrial policy options. My own approach has been elaborated elsewhere.

For further explanations for the failures of the business model, see Annex 1. On the state’s failures, see Annex 2. I have put my response to the AI answers in brackets and in bold letters. The failure of the AI responses are outlined in Annex 3.

Annex 1: Question 1: About a Failed Industrial Policy

Northvolt undertook to build several factories for a complex technology on a massive scale, but the company had zero production experience before that. Is this correct? Is this scenario likely to generate failure, particularly when there is no massive state support? (Author).

The Answer from ChatGBT4

Yes, the statement is correct—Northvolt, a Swedish battery manufacturer, committed to building large-scale battery production facilities despite having no prior production experience. The company was founded in 2016 with the ambitious goal of developing lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage, aiming to compete with established battery makers like Tesla, Panasonic, and LG Chem. Its founders, including former Tesla executive Peter Carlsson, leveraged their expertise from the industry, but Northvolt itself did not have prior experience in large-scale battery production.

Potential for Failure

Building complex technology factories on a massive scale without prior production experience is a risky endeavor, particularly in a competitive, capital-intensive industry like battery manufacturing. Several factors could contribute to potential failure in this scenario:

1. **Production Complexity**: Large-scale lithium-ion battery production requires precision in chemistry, safety, automation, and quality control. Without prior experience, it is challenging to achieve high-quality, reliable production processes, which can lead to costly delays and setbacks.

2. **Supply Chain Challenges**: Securing materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel at competitive prices is critical. Northvolt would need to establish a strong and stable supply chain, which requires experience and deep industry relationships.

3. **Competition**: Established players like Tesla, CATL, and LG Chem already have economies of scale, robust R&D departments, and extensive production experience. New entrants with no production background must innovate rapidly while competing against these giants.

4. **Capital Intensity**: Battery manufacturing requires significant upfront capital investment, often in the billions. Without state support or sufficient private backing, financial constraints could limit Northvolt’s ability to scale, fund R&D, or weather initial losses.

5. **Lack of State Support**: As you noted, without massive state support, it is more challenging to take on such a high-risk venture. State support can provide subsidies, loans, and access to grants for R&D, and incentivize local demand for EV batteries, all of which can ease financial and operational burdens.

Why Northvolt’s Approach Could Succeed

Despite these risks, Northvolt has managed to gain significant traction for a few reasons:

1. **Strategic Partnerships**: Northvolt has secured partnerships with major automotive and industrial players such as Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo, which provide long-term purchase agreements and financial backing. These partnerships reduce market risk and help with funding. [It is unclear to what extent the capacities of these firms were in battery production and how involved they were in Northvolt’s actual production. A separate inquiry to ChatGBT4 stated: “Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo are major automotive manufacturers with experience in electric vehicle (EV) development, but they did not have extensive battery production experience prior to partnering with Northvolt. These companies have historically relied on external battery suppliers rather than producing batteries in-house. Here’s a closer look at their involvement in Northvolt’s production and their own battery expertise.” So the AI program is bit confused. See Annex 3 below].

2. **European Green Transition**: Northvolt has benefited from strong demand for sustainable, locally-produced batteries as part of Europe’s transition to green energy. The EU has supported battery projects through its Battery Alliance and various other programs aimed at reducing reliance on Asian imports. [Macroeconomic demand is hardly equivalent to the role played by demanding customers and users who place demand and thereby adjust production to demands put by such procurement actors or customers. See references, below.]

3. **Innovation and R&D**: Northvolt is focusing on advanced battery technologies and recycling, aiming to develop more efficient, eco-friendly battery solutions. If successful, this could provide a technological edge over competitors. [A wish for success is not a reason for success].

4. **Experience of Founders and Team**: While Northvolt as a company lacked production experience, its leadership, particularly Peter Carlsson, brought industry expertise from Tesla, which has been critical in navigating complex production challenges. [One manager or even a few does not equal the experience of actual engineers, production workers and others who gain learning and production experience in actually working on a problem. If this was the selling argument, it was a ridiculous premise. Whoever bought this argument has a very low level of knowledge of production systems.]

Conclusion

While Northvolt did face significant risks due to its lack of production experience, its approach is less likely to lead to failure because of the strategic partnerships, market demand for local, sustainable batteries, and regional support for green energy initiatives. That said, a venture of this scale without state support would be much riskier, as capital and operational challenges would be harder to overcome. Northvolt’s ability to align with European environmental goals has been crucial in mitigating these risks. [Your answer is deficient for reasons stated above.]

Annex 2: Question 2: Failure to Mobilize Experienced Suppliers and the Universities

Were there supplier companies with experience similar to Northvolt that could have been part of the original production system in Sweden and thus reduce risk, increase production success and lower quality and production problems (but such companies were not acquired and there was no massive university mobilization to develop complementary inputs)? (Author).

The Answer from ChatGBT4

Yes, there were and are several experienced supplier companies in the global battery manufacturing ecosystem that could have played a key role in reducing Northvolt’s risks, improving production success, and ensuring higher quality, but Northvolt did not initially acquire these companies or fully mobilize universities to develop complementary technologies. Here’s a breakdown of the key points related to the potential benefits of involving such suppliers and institutions, and how Northvolt’s strategy unfolded without fully leveraging them:

1. Experienced Battery Suppliers and Partners

The battery production ecosystem involves specialized suppliers for critical components like:

Electrolytes: Companies like Umicore or BASF (with deep expertise in cathode materials) and electrolyte suppliers such as Mitsubishi Chemical or Soulbrain have years of experience in creating high-quality materials that are integral to lithium-ion battery performance.

Anode and Cathode Production: Established players like POSCO Chemical, Nippon Denko, or Hitachi Chemical offer expertise in the design and production of these crucial battery components. Their existing production know-how could have helped mitigate quality control issues.

Battery Production Equipment: Equipment suppliers such as Wirtz Manufacturing (for battery plate manufacturing) or KOBELCO (for electrode production) could have provided the machinery and experience to streamline and improve production processes.

Benefits of Integrating Suppliers

Risk Reduction: By incorporating suppliers with long-established production capabilities, Northvolt could have reduced technical and operational risks. These suppliers could have transferred process knowledge, equipment expertise, and quality control methods, which Northvolt, with its limited initial experience, had to develop from scratch.

Higher Initial Quality: Working with experienced suppliers could have helped Northvolt avoid the steep learning curve involved in producing high-quality batteries, thereby reducing the risk of defective or suboptimal products in the early stages.

Faster Ramp-up: Rather than having to build everything from the ground up, integrating specialized suppliers would have accelerated production ramp-up times, getting products to market faster.

2. Missed Opportunities for Supplier Acquisitions

While Northvolt has since developed partnerships with various suppliers and automakers (e.g., Volkswagen and BMW), there was no initial push to acquire experienced suppliers or companies to bring in-house expertise in battery production. This could have been a missed opportunity to:

Gain Immediate Manufacturing Expertise: Acquisition would have immediately infused Northvolt with practical production knowledge, proprietary manufacturing techniques, and access to proven supply chains.

Control Over Critical Inputs: By owning key suppliers, Northvolt could have secured control over the quality and availability of raw materials and components, reducing dependency on external markets.

3. Lack of Massive University Mobilization

Another significant aspect of the scenario is that Northvolt did not initially involve a massive mobilization of universities and academic institutions in Sweden (or Europe more broadly) to develop complementary inputs, conduct advanced R&D, or train the workforce required for this cutting-edge industry. Such a mobilization could have greatly benefited Northvolt’s project in several ways:

Advanced R&D: Universities could have spearheaded research in innovative battery chemistries, production processes, and recycling technologies, helping Northvolt gain a competitive edge while reducing the costs of in-house research.

Workforce Development: University partnerships could have helped address the skills gap in battery technology by establishing training programs specifically designed to prepare engineers, chemists, and technicians for employment at Northvolt’s factories.

Access to Knowledge and Innovation: Swedish universities, such as the KTH Royal Institute of Technology or Chalmers University of Technology, have expertise in areas like material science, renewable energy, and electrochemistry, which could have been leveraged for collaborative innovation projects. This would have driven better integration between theoretical advancements and industrial applications, reducing risks.

Missed Benefits of University Partnerships:

Localized Innovation: A well-established partnership with Swedish and European universities would have created a localized innovation ecosystem, reducing reliance on global supply chains for inputs and technology. This could have mitigated risks, especially in the wake of global supply chain disruptions (like those seen during the COVID-19 pandemic).

Long-Term Technological Competitiveness: Mobilizing universities and research institutes to focus on next-generation battery technologies could have positioned Northvolt to stay ahead in the race for more efficient, affordable, and eco-friendly batteries.

Annex 3: AI Admits to its limitations

I directed ChatGBT4 to address the limits of its previous answers. Here was the reply.

Your critique highlights an important inconsistency in my earlier responses regarding the roles of Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo in Northvolt’s journey. I understand your point that while these companies were indeed significant partners of Northvolt, my initial response could have better clarified their actual experience in battery production and level of involvement in Northvolt’s manufacturing process.

Here’s a refined clarification that should resolve this confusion:

1. Automakers’ Expertise in Battery Production

• While Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo are major players in electric vehicle development, they historically did not have extensive experience in manufacturing batteries.
• Volkswagen, for example, sourced batteries from suppliers like LG Chem and CATL before taking more aggressive steps to develop in-house battery capabilities, including partnerships with Northvolt.
• BMW and Volvo similarly relied on third-party suppliers for their EV batteries and lacked internal battery production expertise.

2. Involvement in Northvolt’s Production

• Volkswagen, the most significant of the three, not only entered into long-term supply agreements with Northvolt but also invested in the company and became involved in a joint venture battery factory in Salzgitter, Germany. This gives Volkswagen a direct role in scaling production, although this came after Northvolt had already embarked on its production journey, rather than at the outset.
• BMW and Volvo primarily signed supply agreements with Northvolt for batteries but were not deeply involved in production operations in the early stages. Their involvement was primarily to secure a battery supply for their EVs, not to contribute expertise or know-how to Northvolt’s manufacturing processes.

ChatGBT4: Conclusion

The confusion stems from how their partnerships were presented. While these automakers are crucial partners for Northvolt in terms of demand and financial support, they did not significantly reduce Northvolt’s production risk through direct involvement in battery manufacturing, as they themselves lacked deep battery production expertise. Therefore, their contribution to mitigating production challenges was more financial and strategic (i.e., securing orders and funding) rather than operational or technological.

In this context, the earlier statement about these partnerships reducing market risk is accurate in the sense that they provided funding and ensured long-term demand, but their lack of battery production expertise means they did not play a direct role in overcoming the technical and operational risks associated with Northvolt’s entry into large-scale production.

References

For more information on some of the reasons why green production can fail related to state and corporate failure, see my article on industrial policy here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00225266221080407

For an analysis of why industrial policy requires mobilization from below as well as a diversified production platform, see my article on green jobs here: https://labordoc.ilo.org/discovery/fulldisplay/alma995318865002676/41ILO_INST:41ILO_V2

On demanding customers who improve production by suppliers, see: Jonathan M. Feldman, “The Conversion of Defense Engineers’ Skills: Explaining Success and Failure Through Customer-Based Learning, Teaming and Managerial Integration.” Chapter 18 in The Defense Industry in the Post-Cold War Era: Corporate Strategy and Public Policy Perspectives, Gerald I. Susman and Sean O’Keefe, eds. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1998: 281-318.

[Vesper 30,222]

1 hour ago, robsblubot said:

 

this is a perfect example of the mindset that infects the brains of far too many and shows why the US may well put the motherfucker back into power:

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

he was the only one who ran

and Dinkens was the only other one who won the mayorship

But I mean even if he wasnt.

 

I dont think the people of new york city would elect a black man who wasnt a clown. Its a segregated and racist city. The average white guy in Manhattan, or Jewish guy in Brooklyn wouldnt vote for a black guy who wasnt a bought and paid for cop. Hell even Bernie Sanders had to leave the city for the whitest state in the country to play socialist. Its easy to get white people to vote for those policies when they believe its only going to be used to benefit other white people. Same way black guys in Chicago were all for immigration when it was thought to just be light skin Latinas and Asians with good hair coming in the country to have sex and cook, but now the democrats are the problem when the folks got there and got housing, jobs, and food they felt they should be getting instead. Humans are a funny bunch😂

[robsblubot 3,595]

The movie The Apprentice apparently focus on how Trump first learned how to win in politics:

Lawyer Roy Cohn’s 3 rules: Attack attack attack Admit nothing, deny everything Always claim victory

Sounds familiar.

[Vesper 30,222]

Just now, robsblubot said:

The movie The Apprentice apparently focus on how Trump first learned how to win in politics:

Lawyer Roy Cohn’s 3 rules: Attack attack attack Admit nothing, deny everything Always claim victory

Sounds familiar.

Roy Cohn was one of the most vile humans the US ever produced in the 20th century

self-hating closeted gay man who was one of the ultimate red-baiters and weaponisers of politics and power

a true piece of dog shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Roy Cohn was one of the most vile humans the US ever produced in the 20th century

self-hating closeted gay man who was one of the ultimate red-baiters and weaponisers of politics and power

a true piece of dog shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

 

Lindsey Graham before Lindsey.

[Vesper 30,222]

Just now, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Lindsey Graham before Lindsey.

10 times worse

Graham is just hypocritical RW ass kisser, a gutless coward

Cohn was an evil monster

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

10 times worse

Graham is just hypocritical RW ass kisser, a gutless coward

Cohn was an evil monster

I see no difference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Vesper 30,222]

Just now, Sir Mikel OBE said:

I see no difference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

they both are horrid, but Cohn NEVER would even say the right thing (like Graham has, but then he backtracks like a bitch when he feels too much heat)

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

they both are horrid, but Cohn NEVER would even say the right thing (like Graham has, but then he backtracks like a bitch when he feels too much heat)

 

Lindsey has also got the benefit of living at least a decade longer than Roy Cohn ever did. We dont know if Roy could have got an idea later in life if HIV didnt end him at a relatively young age.

[Vesper 30,222]

The Politics of Kamala-nomics

Today on TAP: To win the blue-wall states, Harris needs to drive home the progressive populist planks she unveiled yesterday.

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-09-26-politics-of-kamala-nomics/

My colleague David Dayen has provided us with a deep and thorough unpacking of Kamala Harris’s economic platform, which she unveiled yesterday in a speech in Pittsburgh, in a fact sheet, and in an 82-page booklet. The paradox here is that the progressive populist red meat, as David noted, was much more apparent in the fact sheet and booklet than in the speech itself.

Those progressive particulars include such “worker-centered industrial policies,” as David termed them, as extending tax credits not just to domestic manufacturing but to manufacturing in Rust Belt factory towns and to manufacturing companies that actually empower workers. Her proposed tax credits would be “linked to the treatment of workers, ensuring the right to organize, and supporting investments in longstanding manufacturing, energy, and agricultural communities.” With the future of U.S. Steel’s aging factories in the Mon Valley (like the future of aging factories everywhere) very much in question, the Harris booklet states that her proposed tax credits

will provide significant additional benefits to investments made in longstanding manufacturing, farming, and energy communities, especially to those who commit to retool or rebuild an existing facility. These new tax credits will also reward companies that engage with industry, workers, unions, and communities to protect jobs, including in light of increasing automation, as well as companies that develop plans to hire existing workers at comparable wages. There will be a special focus on rewarding reinvestment, retooling, and rehiring in longstanding steel and iron communities like those in Pennsylvania’s Mon Valley.

The linkage of support for industrial revitalization to support for workers’ right to join a union would be groundbreaking. A less explicit form of that linkage was initially part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, but it didn’t pass muster with Joe Manchin. Should Harris not only win but be blessed with a Democratic Congress, minus Manchin (and Kyrsten Sinema), she could well be able to enact such tax credit criteria in a reconciliation bill. (As long as we’re talking pro-worker tax policy, there’s always my personal hobbyhorse, linking corporate tax rates to the ratio between CEO pay and median worker pay: the higher the ratio, the higher the tax.)

Combine Harris’s industrial policies with her commitment to provide tax credits to build new and affordable housing, and her commitment to fund expansions of apprenticeship and retraining programs, and she has what I’ve previously characterized as something of a “guy” policy to complement her family policies—a larger Child Tax Credit, an affordable child care program, and paid family leave—that probably have greater appeal among women than men (single young men particularly).

As David noted, Harris’s speech was devoted at least as much to affirming her pro-business and capitalist cred as it was to her seriously pro-worker proposals. Given the degree to which she’s still undefined to millions of prospective voters, and given the Trump campaign’s efforts to define her as a committed commie and malevolent Marxist, such affirmations of economic normality are understandably in order.

But her messaging on the stump, on the airwaves, and in social media would do well to stress the more explicitly pro-worker planks of her platform. If she’s to carry the blue-wall trio, the place-based investment and the preference for decent-paying jobs with benefits should resound as loudly as her Child Tax Credit. And if she’s elected and able to enact the key elements of her platform, she’ll be remembered not primarily for being a capitalist, since there’s nothing remarkable in that: Every president in our history has been a capitalist. She’ll be remembered for enacting the kinds of social democratic reforms to capitalism that create a more vibrant and egalitarian America.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,222]

 

[Vesper 30,222]

more Adams hype bollocks from the past

[Vesper 30,222]

Canary takes legal advice over Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney’s antisemitism smears

https://www.thecanary.co/editorial/2024/09/25/canary-legal-action/

The Canary is consulting libel lawyers over think tank Labour Together and its offshoot Stop Funding Fake News’s 2018-19 campaign against it. Specifically, we are looking into whether the groups’ actions constitute defamation. Moreover, the main protagonist in both those groups is Keir Starmer’s senior policy advisor in Downing Street – and we’ll be coming for him, too.

As the Canary previously reported, the Guardian/Observer recently revealed that Labour Party PM Keir Starmer’s top Downing Street aide Morgan McSweeney plotted to ‘destroy the Canary‘ – before ‘we destroyed the Labour right’.

It shows not only how him and his closest cronies tried to kill us – but also how they brought about Jeremy Corbyn’s downfall. The intention all along? To install Starmer as Labour leader, and eventually PM.

Morgan McSweeney: creating fake antisemitism crises

You can read the Observer piece here. It is extracts from Taken as Red: How Labour Won Big and the Tories Crashed the Party by Anushka Asthana. In it, she describes how McSweeney – he of Liz Kendall failed leadership bid campaign fame – rose up the ranks in Labour. He got to the point where, after 2017’s near-election victory for Corbyn, McSweeney was determined to finish Corbyn off. So, he began rallying his troops.

The group (now known as supposed think tank Labour Together) included Trevor Chinn (executive committee member of pro-Israel lobbying group the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and hedge fund manager Martin Taylor. Labour Together was born – and MPs on its side included Jon Cruddas and Steve Reed.

As Asthana wrote:

One of McSweeney’s obsessions was the Canary, an alt-left website that had seemed to appear from nowhere and grown to a peak of 8.5m hits a month. Moreover, Corbyn supporters trusted the site equally to the Guardian, their other favourite source of information.

And so McSweeney had an aim – to schmooze the Guardian and kill the Canary.

“Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us,” he told the Labour Together MPs.

So, the antisemitism ‘crisis’ was created – but how did this impact the Canary?

Stop funding the Canary

As Asthana wrote:

As part of a “Stop funding fake news” campaign, they took screenshots of articles they felt had either racist or fake content, then posted messages on Twitter aimed at brands that were advertising on the websites’ pages. Unquestionably, the readership of the Canary took a hit.

That part is incorrect. It wasn’t our readership that took a hit. That had already happened due to (oddly) Facebook changing its algorithms to de-prioritise news and groups on people’s feeds. A coincidence? Maybe.

What McSweeney did hit was the Canary’s advertising revenue. However, at the time support for us surged and we had more financial supporters than ever before. Yet it wasn’t enough to stop a round of redundancies and a reduction in workers’ hours at the Canary.

What McSweeney also achieved was to tarnish the Canary’s reputation. Of course, he also achieved his ultimate goal of destroying Corbyn’s leadership and getting Keir Starmer into power. Now, McSweeney sits at the top of 10 Downing Street as head of political strategy.

It goes without saying none of our content was racist or fake. An independent investigation by government-approved media regulator IMPRESS found nothing the Canary published was antisemitic.

But mud sticks – as did the financial consequences of McSweeney, Labour Together, and Stop Funding Fake News’s malicious smear campaign against us.

Taking legal action for everyone who was smeared

John Ranson was previously an editor at the Canary, until the previous owners made him redundant after the Stop Funding Fake News campaign. He said:

We were used to being attacked, and we’d already seen a big drop in readership due to social media algorithm changes. But the Stop Funding Fake News tirade was just bizarre.

By this time we were well aware that our editorial standards were among the most rigorous in UK journalism. We were under a proper regulator in IMPRESS. We weren’t ‘fake news’; we were just news that McSweeney etc either didn’t like or couldn’t understand.

So yes, it felt personal and any threat to our ability to carry on was a worry. But it was also pathetic, laughable and sad to see how afraid some people were of Corbyn’s brand of common sense decency.

So, the Canary is looking into whether or not we have a civil case for defamation. Obviously, there has been a passage of time relating to this. However, it was only after the Guardian article that the main instigator, McSweeney, was positively identified. Before this, the Canary only had a hunch.

We will not stand by while the people who nearly destroyed us don’t face justice.

Moreover, we will not stand by while the same people also defamed and smeared countless innocent socialists with false antisemitism claims. McSweeney and his cronies targeted members of the public with these smears – often putting people under huge amounts of stress and distress.

Starmer’s Labour – filled with toxic individuals and careerists – are already targeting some of the most vulnerable people in the UK, while being complicit in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza and now Lebanon.

Now the Canary knows that senior individuals in that government have potentially committed defamation – we will not stand idly by and do nothing.

[Vesper 30,222]

https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Policy_Book_Economic-Opportunity.pdf

Vice President Harris and Governor Walz are charting a New Way Forward—to a future where everyone has the opportunity not just to get by, but to get ahead. They grew up in middle-class families and believe that when the middle class is strong, America is strong. That’s why building up the middle class will be a defining goal of their Administration. They know that prices are still too high for middle-class families, which is why their top economic priorities will be lowering the costs of everyday needs like health care, housing and groceries and cutting taxes for more than 100 million working and middle-class Americans. Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will create an Opportunity Economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed—from buying a home to starting a business and building wealth.

They will bring together workers, community leaders, unions, small business owners, entrepreneurs, and great American companies to remove barriers to opportunity, revitalize communities, create jobs, grow our economy, and propel our industries into the future—in rural areas, small towns, suburbs, and big cities. In an Opportunity Economy, more Americans can experience the pride of homeownership. Vice President Harris and Governor Walz have a plan to end the housing shortage and lower prices, partnering with the private sector to build 3 million additional homes. As these new homes are built, the Harris-Walz Administration will also give a historic $25,000 in down-payment assistance to help more Americans buy their first home and provide shelter, opportunity, and security for their loved ones.

Vice President Harris and Governor Walz know that small businesses—neighborhood shops, high-tech startups, small manufacturers, and more—are the engines of our economy. As part of their agenda, they have put forward a plan to help small businesses and entrepreneurs innovate and grow, which the Vice President aims to have spur the creation of 25 million new business applications. Their plan includes expanding the start-up expense tax deduction for new businesses tenfold and taking on the everyday obstacles and red tape that make it harder to grow a small business.

They will invest in the competitive advantages that make America the strongest nation on Earth—our workers, innovation, and industry—so that America remains a leader in the industries of the future. They will revitalize American manufacturing, strengthen our industrial base, and invest in cutting-edge technologies. They will create workforce programs that work for all Americans and strengthen the care economy, opening pathways to the middle class for more Americans that don’t require a college degree. And they will protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies and will strengthen these programs for the long haul so that Americans can count on retiring with dignity and getting the benefits they earned.

It’s time to finally turn the page on Trump and chart a New Way Forward—one in which Americans have the opportunity to create a better life and future for themselves and their families. Vice President Harris will be a president for all Americans, a president who unites us around our highest aspirations, and a president who always fights for the American people. As a prosecutor, Attorney General, Senator, and now Vice President of the United States, that has always been her life’s work.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,222]

27 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Lindsey has also got the benefit of living at least a decade longer than Roy Cohn ever did. We dont know if Roy could have got an idea later in life if HIV didnt end him at a relatively young age.

Bully, coward, victim? Inside the sinister world of Trump mentor Roy Cohn

In a new documentary, film-maker Ivy Meeropol discusses the dark legacy of Roy Cohn and how his nefarious work affected her family

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/17/roy-cohn-film-ivy-meeropol-hbo

Back in 2004, with the documentary Heir to an Execution, Ivy Meeropol began the decades-spanning project of exorcising the demon haunting her family. The Academy-shortlisted film sheds some light on the dark heritage of the Meeropol kids, descended as they are from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the couple executed by the United States government in 1953 having been convicted of sharing military secrets with the Soviet Union. When not teaching as an economics professor, Ivy’s father Michael spent most of his adult life on a crusade to restore and advocate for the reputation of his late parents, after years of defamation from the sinister prosecutor in the case Roy Cohn. Ivy’s film-making brought some elusive semblance of closure to this process – until, that is, early November 2016.

“At first, I really didn’t want to make a film about Roy Cohn, because I felt like I’d delved into my family’s story enough, and I didn’t really relish returning to that topic,” Meeropol tells the Guardian over the phone from her home quarantine.

“That made me resistant to tackling his story, even though I was fascinated and compelled by him and I certainly had this unique perspective. But once I did decide to embark on this project, which was a result of Trump’s election – that’s what made me decide to do this – then I did start to feel like this might be an extension of my earlier work.”

Meeropol’s latest feature, HBO’s boldly titled Bully. Coward. Victim. The Story of Roy Cohn, returns her to the grimmest chapter of her personal history. But she revisits the topic with fresh perspective to illuminate the other side of her life’s defining conflict, with focus placed less on her family’s struggle than on Cohn himself, a significant yet little-seen character in the previous film. It plays like a timely companion piece to Meeropol’s early work, enriching and recontextualizing her ideas instead of simply restating them. “I made it clear I didn’t want this to be Heir to an Execution Part II,” she says. “I wanted it to be something new.”

She began by decentering herself, the implicit protagonist of Heir to an Execution. She knew she’d have to provide what she refers to as a “synopsis” of how she and her relatives fit into the material, but she wanted that to serve as the gate through which she could venture into new territory. “What was gratifying was how I was able to build on Heir to an Execution, expanding on the period of time when my father and uncle were trying to reopen the case. All that new material, which tied back to Cohn, was a revelation.”

The film functions in part as critical biography, comparing conflicting sides of a personality more complicated than evil. While she refrained from playing armchair psychologist and digging into his childhood, Meeropol examined Cohn as an avowed social conservative who lived an open-secret second life as a gay bon vivant. (John Waters provides color commentary on Cohn’s years in the queer hotspot Provincetown. A rare interview, he only agreed to sit down after Meeropol explained her stake in Cohn’s world. She laughs when she recalls him conceding: “For you? I’ll do it!”)

He shared a house with Norman Mailer and counted Andy Warhol as a friend, yet demonized “deviants” of all stripes in public statements clashing harshly with the company he kept. Recreational assholery seemed to be his greatest hobby, as the millions in deliberately unpaid bills from hotels and dry cleaners still attest, but Meeropol looked for a more circumspect view all the same.

“If I was going to make this one-note, there’s nowhere to go with that,” Meeropol explains. “He is a complex person. I had to decide to have a little empathy for him. I thought of him as a young man in Washington for the first time, first job with McCarthy, and that that was probably one of the unfriendliest spaces at the time for a gay person. He had to be so careful, but then at the same time, he was laughing and traipsing around with G David Schine.”

The relevance of Cohn and his legacy of dishonest, dirty tricks has been renewed by the ascendancy of Donald Trump, the lawyer’s longtime client and protege. His wobbly-fisted rule has inspired a recent wave of Cohn-related art, including a remounting of the Pulitzer-winning play Angels in America with Nathan Lane as the larger-than-life Cohn and last year’s documentary Where’s My Roy Cohn? Meeropol thinks of that superficially similar production as complement rather than competition, by the way; once she saw how director Matt Tyrnauer’s approach differed from her own, as she says, “I wasn’t worried so much.” He inspected a linear history, while she intends her film as something closer to a timely warning of the psychology Cohn and Trump share. Though at times, she still questions its efficacy. The people who stand to learn the most from her efforts seem the least likely to give them a chance.

“I was thinking about how to get this movie in front of Trump supporters in specific,” she says. “That motivated me in the beginning, the thought that people who support him need to know where he learned his moves, where he got his mob connections … It’s frustrating, though, because I know that I don’t know how to break through to that world. The title alone will probably rule out some people. I hope they’ll be intrigued by the complexity of those three words, not just bully and coward, but victim. But anyone who’s interested in how we got here, whether you’re pro-Trump or not, can get a lot from this movie.”

Whether they like it or not, the film will infiltrate Trump voters’ living rooms when it goes to air on HBO this Thursday. When it does, Meeropol will be ready to close the book on a subject that’s always blurred the lines between the personal and professional. “I’m definitely ready to move on,” she says. “After Heir to an Execution, I thought I’d said what I needed to say and gone through what I needed to go through with regard to my family history. Now I really have, in a different way. I hope that I don’t need to again. Unfortunately, we have to keep talking about my grandparents. I just don’t know if I’ll be the one doing it from now on. I think I’ve said enough on the subject.”

But this conversation never really ends, so long as her family line continues onward. Every new generation of parents will have to make sense of the scar left by Cohn for their children, approximating the difficult process that Ivy Meeropol has completed on a national scale. Though she’s done the more intimate version too; when her son, now 15, turned eight, she did the thing she’s spent most of her adult life doing, and explained the bad thing that happened when Grandpa was little.

“I delayed telling him about this,” she says. “He’s very close with my father, but I just thought about the myriad things that could upset him as a child, so I kind of shielded him. But with my kids, I eventually told them that their great-grandparents believed in changing the world, and that Julius was involved in secret-sharing with the Soviet Union specifically because of what he believed in, which was equality and justice. He had to know, eventually, and I wanted him to hear it from me.”