Monday 16th of September 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

losing money, self-respect and independence since the dicky wars...

Much of the angst being generated by Australia’s worst foreign policy decision since joining the American invasion of Vietnam may well be misplaced. It is unquestionable that the former prime minister and two former foreign ministers have been correct in their assessments of the decision by the Albanese Government to proceed with the AUKUS deal, as being nothing short of disastrous for Australian sovereignty and for our economy, but the question arises, will it ever happen?

 

AUKUS could be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history     By Les MacDonald

 

The US is engaged in a global attempt to sustain its unquestioned dominance over the last 30 or more years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What was that dominance based on? It was literally ordained ever since the Bretton-Woods Conference in 1944 decided that the world currency when World War II ended would be that of the only Western country left standing, the US.

That decision reshaped the international financial, economic and geopolitical architecture of the world. What it meant was that international trade, which began to flourish after the devastation of that war, would be exclusively undertaken using US dollars. It meant countries that needed to import needed to pay for those imports in US dollars. To do so they needed to either be able to export, and earn those dollars in payment for those exports, or to borrow from the international financial bodies, set up at Bretton Woods and controlled by the US.

Equally, when it came to the US dollar reserves being built up by those countries through their central banking authorities, they had to invest them in order to get a return. Washington placed many restrictions on how they could be invested in the US and so the go-to investment for most countries, particularly after Richard Nixon cancelled the convertibility of dollars into gold, was US Treasuries.

Since the Vietnam War, when the US turned from the largest creditor nation on the planet into the largest debtor nation due to its financing of that war, it then had to get the rest of the world and its citizens to finance its continuous foreign trade deficits and its Government budget deficits by selling larger and larger quantities of those US Government Treasuries. That has seen the US national debt increase from under $1 trillion in 1980 to about $35 trillion today. The rate of growth of that debt will soon reach $1 trillion a month. The question is, can the US repay that debt? The answer is an unequivocal no! The US has continued to finance that huge debt growth by selling the rest of the world and their own rich vastly increasing amounts of Treasury bonds.

The problem for the US is, since it weaponised the US dollar against countries around the planet that it does not like, less and less countries are prepared to hold their accumulated foreign reserves in the US dollar. The startling growth in the BRICS Alliance demonstrates declining faith in the ability of the US to redeem all that debt. BRICS is now in the process of developing a new world currency that, unlike the dollar which is a purely fit currency backed by nothing tangible, will be backed by convertibility into gold. The rate at which BRICS is attracting new countries applying to join places the future of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency in doubt.

The US Treasury is finding it increasingly difficult to get buyers for bonds it is selling at an increasing rate to finance its ballooning debt. Many large holders of US Treasuries are selling them off and buying gold. That is why Janet Yellen recently went to China to plead with them to buy more US Treasuries. The response was an increase in China’s dumping of the same. The truth is that the rest of the world has been funding the drunken sailor spending of the US for at least the last 30 years and they are increasingly deciding not to do so anymore.

What is the relevance of all of this to AUKUS? The US right now outspends the next nine countries in its defence expenditure. All of that is financed by foreign debt. As it gets harder and harder to find buyers for that debt, US military expenditure, including what it spends on the more than 800 military bases it sustains around the world, will simply be impossible.

The paltry injection of the $368 billion Australian dollars for these white elephant submarines will be a drop in the ocean of the vast reduction the US will have to make in its defense expenditure if it is to avoid national bankruptcy. Given that the US marine industry cannot even deliver the ships and submarines that the US navy currently has on order (neither can Britain deliver theirs), its capacity to deliver the nuclear submarines that we have been locked into by politicians, obsessed with proving that they have a bigger stick than China, is non-existent.

What we really need to worry about is, if we have made very large down payments on these big boys’ toys with both the US and the UK, will we ever get it back when they fail to deliver?

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-could-be-the-biggest-ponzi-scheme-in-history/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

growing pains....

 

Australia’s economy grim – but so is the rest of the world

     by Alan Austin

 

Strip out immigration – 6 quarters of negative per capita GDP – and Australia is in recession but it’s not all bad news for Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. The world is in low-growth mode. Alan Austin checks the performance.

In her public comments on yesterday’s national accounts for the June quarter, Katherine Keenan said: “The Australian economy grew for the eleventh consecutive quarter, although growth slowed over the 2023-24 financial year.” 

What the head of national accounts at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) could have added, but may not have known, was that only three economies among the 38 wealthy members of the OECD can boast that record – Australia, Turkey and Belgium.

The numbers announced yesterday look grim on their own. The quarterly increase in GDP was 0.22 per cent and the annual rise just 1.49 per cent, both low compared with Australia’s history of strong growth since the 1980s.

Global comparisons, however, confirm this is low growth era. Of the 32 OECD members to have reported June quarter growth, eight reported zero or negative growth. These include normally robust economies Germany, Sweden, Austria and South Korea. This is the second such quarter for Sweden and Estonia, which are now in recession.

Another 21 countries, including Australia, recorded positive quarterly growth below one per cent. These include powerhouses Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, the USA and the United Kingdom. Sluggish GDP growth is now normal, even in well-managed economies. The entire world is impacted by the war in Ukraine, the slowdown in China, refugee movements, global inflation and increased focus on non-economic growth.

 

Annual GDP growth low worldwide

Of the 32 OECD members which have reported annual GDP growth for June, the average was just 1.19 per cent, a low historically associated only with recoveries from recessions. See chart below.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://michaelwest.com.au/gdp-australias-economy-grim-but-so-is-the-rest-of-the-world/

dining rich....

Maybe it’s a case of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer, or do some of Albanese’s recent dinner companions reveal why he has narrowed his stance on human rights and embraced the big end of mining-town, or of Perth, to be exact? Jommy Tee and Kim Wingerei.

During the most tumultuous fortnightly parliamentary sitting of the year – the last week of May and the first week of June – dominated by the debates about the Israel/Palestine armed conflict, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, clandestinely sought the counsel of prominent Australian zionists, Mark and Jeremy Leibler.

Freedom of information (FOI) documents confirm that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) contacted the Leiblers through their law firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler, on 29 May, inviting them to come to a dinner at the Lodge the following week on June 4.

A separate FOI request confirmed the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet provided no briefing for the dinner, and there was no email traffic between the department and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

The Leiblers and the respective lobby associations they are affiliated with – the Australian Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and the Zionist Federation of Australia – are vociferous opponents of the Greens’ stance on Palestine, and of everybody else who dares to speak out against Israel and it’s gruesome and relentless attacks on Palestinian civilians.

MWM has previously highlighted the deep connections between the Israel lobby and various political players and its direct access to political power and leaders.

The first documented contact between the PMO and the Leiblers ABL occurred on May 29. Two days prior to the contact, additional security patrols were ordered for Albanese’s Marrickville electorate office. Three additional security drive-bys per day were organised across the period from May 28 through to June 10. The patrols were asked to take note of any protest activity, damage and graffiti and report back via text messages.

Parliamentary debate on Palestine

On May 28, the Greens gave notice seeking to introduce a procedural motion for the following day into the House of Representatives to recognise a Palestinian state. The motion to suspend standing orders to debate the Greens’ was defeated 80-5 the next day (May 29).

Despite the motion being voted down, all of the prolonged activism against the Israeli state-endorsed genocide and accusations that Labor was indifferent to the Palestinian genocide and soft in criticising Israel probably got under Albanese’s skin.

Time to call in some reinforcements over dinner. On the evening of May 29, the PMO made contact with the Leiblers’ law firm to arrange the dinner.

On June 3, one of the additional afternoon security patrols scheduled for Albanese’s electorate office reported back that police were in attendance at the office, and the patrol found graffiti at the exterior of the building. The next day the disruption by protesters to some Labor MPs’ offices and the frustration it was causing for MPs and their staff was discussed at the Labor caucus meeting. This generated much media copy that afternoon and the next morning.

Naturally, the Prime Minister is entitled to sup with whomever he desires. Nonetheless, the breaking of bread with two of Australia’s most powerful pro-Israel supporters during a particularly bitter parliamentary fortnight where Israel/Palestinian positions were discussed with acrimony does raise perceptions of privileged access.

Condemning Hamas but not the IDF

Prior to becoming PM, Albanese was on the record for strong support for the Palestinian cause, using his platform in Parliament to make pro-Palestinian speeches. He also attended and spoke at protests — including one where other demonstrators burned Israeli flags and tried storming the US consulate, according to archived news stories unearthed by Crikey ($).

In Government, and particularly since the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians, his and Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s stance has changed dramatically. While the International Court of Justice has called out Israel’s retaliation as genocide, Albanese and Wong have done nothing to stand up to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or indeed intervene in Australian companies openly exporting weapons parts and systems to Israel.

To the contrary, both have been quick to condemn Hamas and call for the release of hostages and the odd tepid call for a ceasefire, while staying silent about the tens of thousands of civilians murdered by the Israel Defence Force (IDF). Just this week, Albanese wasted no time in tweeting about the six hostages found dead, yet not a word about the Israel bombing of a school in the West Bank that left at least people dead the next day.

So far, the IDF has bombed 564, or 85%, of all schools in Gaza, according to Wikipedia, killing thousands of children, with nary a word of reproach from Albanese or Wong.

Dining with Perth glitterati

It’s not just Albanese’s stance on Palestine that seems to have changed since his ascension to the prime ministership. While the Government has committed to ‘Net Zero’, its lack of real action has left much to be desired. Little has been done to curb coal mining and burning, promotion of electric vehicle sales has been timid in the face of the opposition’s predictable “killing the ute” scare tactics, and we continue to export our emissions to the rest of the world via a natural gas market that favours exporters and keeps prices high for Australians.

Ironically, the Western Australian government is the only one of the states that protects domestic gas supply, but we doubt this was on the agenda when Albanese was the ‘guest of honour’ at a luxurious dinner hosted by Mineral Resources chief Chris Ellison at his Osborne Park HQ, according to a report in the AFR ($).

The high-powered crowd included former State Premier Mark McGowan, who is on Ellison’s and BHP’s payroll as an advisor, in addition to working with former treasurer Joe Hockey’s Bondi Partners. Major political donor Woodside’s CEO, Meg O’Neill, was also at the tables.

Paying for the Prime Minister’s time is normal practice, and the following day, some of the same crowd was at another Perth dinner, paying $2,000 each for the privilege.

From takeaways to five-star dining, Albanese has come a long way from a Sydney inner west council house. He has worked hard and ended up in the top job in the land through intellect, dedication and the ability to connect with people from all walks of life. Having achieved it, the question remains if his principles and beliefs remain. Once at the pinnacle, will he continue to advocate for real change or tinker around the edges of policies and spending as he seems to have done so far?

Will his desire to win the next election be his downfall, courting the rich and powerful more than his electoral base?

Or maybe that’s the only way…

https://michaelwest.com.au/albanese-dining-with-billionaires-and-zionists/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

fly a kite....

The US is pushing for the AUKUS partnership to launch some world-leading new military technology projects before Joe Biden’s presidency ends, amid signs of growing impatience with the initiative.

The US National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, revealed in an interview at the White House that he wanted to see “two or three signature projects launched and under way by the time the administration finishes” on January 20.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/white-house-pushes-for-aukus-to-move-to-pillar-two-weapons-focus-20240908-p5k8s5.html

 

THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT RUN BY THE PRESIDENT WHO IS NOW IN COMPLETE LALALALALAND... THE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE PENTAGON THROUGH JAKE (DUNNY) SULLIVAN, ANTHONY (JEWISH) BLINKEN AND LLOYD AUSTIN THE MILLESIME... THESE THREE MORONS ARE PUSHING HARD TOWARDS WW3... AUSTRALIA NEEDS AUKUS LIKE FLYING A KITE IN A DEAD CALM...

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

sinking aukus

 ‘AUKUS-plus and the realities of Australia’s involvement in US nuclear proliferation’    By Richard Tanter  

US attack submarines operating from Australia could be armed with US nuclear weapons at the stroke of a presidential decision; and US strategic bombers based in Australia could be nuclear-armed, as in fact USAF nuclear safety regulations permit in crisis already.

 

I was asked to speak today about ‘AUKUS and non- proliferation’ – which is already in itself a problem – because the standard and overly simple conceptions of what constitutes nuclear proliferation obscure the nuclear reality Australia has placed itself in.

The three AUKUS submarine projects are but a part of a wider restructuring of the place of Australia in United States alliance arrangements that might be termed ‘AUKUS-plus”.

Beyond the well-documented strategic, fiscal and defence capability risks and travails of the submarines projects, AUKUS-plus centres on Australian embrace of US-auspiced doctrines of ‘integrated deterrence’ to reshape Australia’s force posture through heightened integration with US combatant commands – including IndoPacific Command, Space Command, and indeed Cyber Command.

Witness, for example
AUKUS submarine bases east and west
integration of space surveillance capabilities at North West Cape with US planning for space warfare,
yet more expansion of Pine Gap,
rotational deployment of B-52 nuclear-capable bombers to RAAF Base Tindal
dedicated USAF infrastructure at other northern airbases, and
hard wiring of Australian defence facilities into US networks, such as the integration of the Delamere Air Weapons Range into a single trans-Pacific virtual and material coalition air, space, and cyber weapons range stretching from Australia to Alaska.

These shifts are critical to understanding where Australia stands in relation to nuclear proliferation, but are obscured by conventional thinking about nuclear proliferation in terms of ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ dimensions.
Horizontal proliferation is usually reduced to the question which countries have the bomb or seek to acquire it. This ‘who’s got the bomb?’ discourse is famously flawed by double standards.

We can’t stop talking about the dangers of actual or potentially outliers like North Korea and Iran, and we cannot begin to start talking about the dangers posed by Israel as the fifth or sixth largest nuclear weapons state.
Even more conceptually underdeveloped, ‘vertical proliferation’ is usually presented as a matter of a nuclear weapons state having more bombs or building better bombs, with side glances to the nuclear energy infrastructure underpinning weapons acquisition.

In reality, vertical proliferation properly understood includes acquisition and distribution of critical ‘non-nuclear’ infrastructure that enables use of nuclear weapons.

In the US case, this includes globally-distributed technologies of support for nuclear operations, including delivery systems, command, control, communication and intelligence capabilities (NC3I), precision-strike targeting, space-based surveillance and missile defence.

These are the underpinnings and capabilities without which ‘the bomb itself’ is effectively irrelevant.

For Australia, there are two salient modes of our involvement in US nuclear proliferation:

  • The hard materiality of military bases, delivery systems, bases, logistics, and so on, that underpin the extraordinary velocity of which US military activities are capable.
  • The dematerialised (but not wholly – sensors, computers and satellites are decidedly material) Herzian landscape of globally distributed NC3I facilities linking Washington and combatant commands to sensors and computers by globe-spanning optical fibre and satellite communications.

Australia’s nuclear posture has long been replete with elements of US vertical nuclear proliferation, and is now moving to more direct involvement in US nuclear operations.

  • Historically, our specialisation has been hosting NC3I – Pine Gap and in the past Nurrungar, North West Cape submarine communications, seismic detection of nuclear weapons, and so on.
  • The AUKUS submarine projects are strategically explicable only as a (marginal) contribution to nullifying China’s secure second strike nuclear force on its currently small number of ballistic missile submarines – themselves the essence of a plausible Chinese deterrent capability. The AUKUS debate has by and largely ignored the threat to this capability to which Australia is committing itself, with all its attendant risks– possibly the most destabilising contribution to ‘the ‘nuclear balance’ that Australia could possibly make.
  • The nuclear-capable strategic bomber deployments – currently for Tindal, and most likely other nuclear-capable bomber types to other airfields in due course – will launch from Australian bases, critically enabled by an RAAF protective screen of F-35s and early warning and control aircraft, and a fleet of refuelling tankers. The B-52 bomber deployment magnifies risk further by the Australian government’s positive embrace of entanglement of nuclear-capable and conventionally armed strategic weapons platforms at the one base. How is China to distinguish what B-52s are coming their way?

Australian deepening involvement with properly understood US vertical proliferation is a geographic kind of ‘horizontal’ proliferation, deepening our involvement in US nuclear operations.

And there may be more to come.

Australia may not yet be hosting US nuclear weapons, but recall that there are currently no legal or policy impediments to the introduction of nuclear weapons into Australia.

On the basis of Australia’s involvement with both US NC3I and active base support for strategic power projection, and the compromised sovereignty of our defence decision-making exemplified by the AUKUS catastrophic policy process, it is now possible to conceive two future plausible Australian pathways to US nuclear weapons in Australia, based on straightforward changes of current US policy:

  • US attack submarines operating from Australia could be armed with US nuclear weapons at the stroke of a presidential decision; and
  • US strategic bombers based in Australia could be nuclear-armed, as in fact USAF nuclear safety regulations permit in crisis already.
  • These are not fanciful considerations – certainly conceivable, technically and politically, and not implausible.

 

 

Panel presentation by Professor Richard Tanter to the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Conference, AUKUS: Assumptions & Implications, Canberra, 16 August 2024

 

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-plus-and-the-realities-of-australias-involvement-in-us-nuclear-proliferation/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.