Temu se moramo upreti.

Janen Ganesh (Financial Times):

Europe must trim its welfare state to build a warfare state. There is no way of defending the continent without cuts to social spending.

Michael Roberts:

So so-called ‘liberal capitalism’ needs to survive and that means cutting living standards for the poorest and spending money on going to war. From welfare state to warfare state.

Največjo nevarnost sedanjega časa predstavlja kvazi-liberalna elita na oblasti, ki nas želi prepričati, da nam preti vojaška nevarnost iz Rusije in nevarnost totalitarizma iz Kitajske, zaradi česar moramo omejiti svobodo govora in demokratični izbor na volitvah in zaradi česar moramo namesto v tehnološki razvoj vlagati navzgor neomejena sredstva v orožje in zaradi česar se moramo odpovedati socialni državi, da bi lahko imeli vojaško državo.  Največja nevarnost sedanjega časa ne preti iz Moskve ali Pekinga, ampak iz Bruslja in od kvazi-liberalne elite, ki kot mesečarji sledijo zmešancem v Bruslju.

Norost je, da imamo fiskalno zavoro za vlaganja v družbeno infrastrukturo, za vlaganja v razvoj in za financiranje  ključnih javnih storitev, medtem ko sprostimo fiskalno zavoro za vlaganja v orožje. To ni samo norost, to je kriminal.

Progresivci se moramo organizirano upreti  tej norosti in temu kriminalu nad demokracijo in socialno državo.

Naša državljanska dolžnost je, da zaščitimo socialno državo, da zaščitimo državo blaginje in da namesto za orožje javna sredstva namenimo za družbeno infrastrukturo, za zdravstvo, izobraževanje in razvoj in s tem za našo prihodnjo blaginjo!

Nadaljujte z branjem→

The current discussion of a Mar-a-Lago accord presumes substantial inflows into US financial assets from governments seeking to hold safe global assets —
But there were no such flows in the US balance of payments in the fourth quarter.

And the fourth quarter isn’t an outlier — the runup in the US current account deficit in 2024 (please take note @IMFNews) was financed privately, official (official = foreign central bank and SWF) demand for US assets was modest!

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Nova nemška vlada načrtuje velik, bilijonski stimulus za spodbuditev nemškega gospodarstva, ki že tri leta stagnira. Toda za uspeh tega infrastrukturno-vojaškega keynesianizma Nemčija potrebuje nizke cene energije, kar pomeni, da potrebuje poceni ruski plin in da se odpove dosedanji kvazizeleni energetski politiki.

V javnosti bilijonski (1000-milijardni) stimulus paket nove nemške vlade, za katerega je bilo treba spremeniti v ustavi zapisano dolžniško zavoro in ki jo je, paradoksalno, izglasoval še parlament v stari sestavi, ker je obstajal realni strah, da nova koalicija zanj ne bi uspela zagotoviti potrebne dvotretjinske večine, popularno imenujejo “Merzev whatever it takes stimulus“. To je referenca na Draghijev “whatever it takes” program kvantitativnega monetarnega sproščanja s strani ECB (z začetkom v marcu 2015), ki je prek vpliva na znižanje obrestnih mer naredil prostor za fiskalno politiko perifernih držav (predvsem Italije in Španije) in s tem rešil evro pred razpadom. To nakazuje, kako velika so pričakovanja v zvezi s tem programom.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Iz nove publikacije, naročene s strani ECON komisije v evropskem parlamentu: Europe’s policy options in the face of Trump’s global economic reordering (marec 2025).

In this paper, we propose and analyse four scenarios of a second Trump administration’s economic policy and its impact on Europe, ranging all the way from moderate tariffs to full trade war, a full multilateral breakdown with the US leaving the IMF down to a more cooperative exchange rate realignment agreement. We assess two trade scenarios quantitatively and outline broader policy shocks and their economic consequences. Our findings highlight significant challenges for the ECB, requiring responses to trade disruptions, financial instability, and potential global economic reordering. We offer specific policy recommendations for the ECB to navigate these uncertainties.

Conslusions

Trump’s economic policies pose serious risks of trade and financial disruption. An escalating trade war, coupled with retaliatory measures and global exchange rate volatility, could severely impact the economic outlook. The ECB would be forced into uncharted territory, balancing inflationary pressures with slowing growth, creating difficult trade-offs and heightened uncertainty.

A period of economic turmoil could eventually lead to a new global economic agreement. If the crisis leads to international policy coordination, the EU may need to undertake major adjustments to its macroeconomic policy mix, including exchange rate strategy. In its 25-year history, neither the EU nor the ECB has negotiated such an agreement, meaning they would have to establish new policy coordination mechanisms and activate treaty provisions on exchange rate policy for the first time.

A worst-case scenario could see the collapse of the multilateral order, forcing Europe into a greater global financial role. If the US were to withdraw from the WTO and IMF, it could trigger a systemic shift akin to the breakdown of Bretton Woods in the 1970s. This would require European institutions to take on greater responsibility for global financial stability. The ECB, in particular, would need to expand its swap and repo operations, acting as a liquidity provider on a much broader scale, including to non-EU and non-bank actors.

The ECB must prepare for multiple economic and financial contingencies. The central bank will need to refine its inflation-targeting framework to account for external shocks, carefully calibrate its balance sheet reduction to avoid excessive financial tightening, and strengthen its financial backstops. It may also need to deepen coordination with EU fiscal authorities, particularly if a large-scale macroeconomic adjustment becomes necessary. In a scenario where the US politicises dollar liquidity or retreats from multilateral institutions, the ECB could face new responsibilities in stabilising global financial markets – requiring a strategic expansion of its crisis-management toolkit.

The ECB and European institutions must urgently prepare for these uncertain but increasingly probable scenarios.

Revija Foreign Policy (ki je morda še bolj jastrebska od revije Foreign Affairs) je v zadnji številki odkrila realpolitiko oziroma (kot ji oni rečejo) geopolitiko. V bistvu je cela številka namenjena ponovnemu odkrivanju realizma v mednarodnih odnosih. V svetu, v katerem sta se pomen in vloga Zahoda močno zmanjšala.

 Za pokušino – uvodni članek z istim naslovom kot zgoraj secira evropsko prebujenje v nov svet realpolitike, ki jo je povsem šokiral. nenadoma se je zbudila brez varuha in dojela, da je v tem novem svetu nepomembna in nebogljena. Stvari se dogajajo mimo nje. Lahko se samo repenči doma na svojem pragu, toda to nikogar ne zanima.

Jamie Galbraith (University of Texas) je naredil odlično analizo kaotičnosti trumpizma. Težko je bolje opisati kaotičnost ukrepanja in kaos, ki ga je povzročila reakcionarna psolovna elita, ki je prevzela oblast v ZDA. Na dolgi rok bo s temi ukrepi, ki kratkoročno škodijo šibkejšim (zaposlenim in potrošnikom) prizadela predvsem lastne interese. Tako kot komunisti, tako kot zeleni, tudi poslovneži nikoli ne bi smeli imeti odločilnega vpliva v vladi. Ker so ekstremisti. Nekaj njihovih idej je dobrih, toda njihov celotni, enostranski in ekstremistični program je katastrofa za družbo in gospodarstvo. Poglejte Slovenijo, poglejte Nemčijo, poglejte Argentino, poglejte Ameriko…

____________

What to make of the blur of news, revolutionary rhetoric, panicky fundraising texts, economic indicators, the plunging stock market, and, of course, President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025? Are we on the brink of a socioeconomic Armageddon? Or is there—as the great Tallulah Bankhead once said, “less in this than meets the eye”?

Leaving aside the buckets called “culture wars” and “foreign policy,” we may distinguish eight distinct forces at work in Trump’s economics. They are (a) the targeted destruction of specific regulatory agencies, (b) random disruptions of the federal civil service, (c) old-fashioned Reaganism, (d) tariffs, (e) migration, (f) energy, (g) the military, and (h) the general effect of rash and unpredictable policymaking—otherwise called uncertainty and chaos.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Vsi se trudimo razumeti smisel v ozadju Trumpovega kaotičnega razmontiravanja globalne trgovinske ureditve prek uvajanja visokih carin. Robert Lighthizer je v prvem Trumpovem mandatu (2017 – 2020) opravljal funkcijo predstavnika ZDA za trgovino (USTR) in imel osrednjo vlogo pri oblikovanju ameriške trgovinske politike v času Trumpove administracije. Lighthizer poskuša razložiti racio za Trumpovimi carinami, čeprav…

• (0:00) Why Do We Need to Reinstitute Tariffs?
• (6:10) The Slow Death of America’s Working Class
• (13:35) Donald Trump’s Plan to Fix the Economy
• (14:26) Was There an Organized Effort to Destroy America’s Free Market?
• (19:52) The Trifecta of Stupid
• (26:12) We Are in an Economic Emergency
• (32:16) The Three Ways to Balance Global Trade
• (34:45) Can America Be the World’s Biggest Manufacturing Power Once Again?
• (38:47) Why Lighthizer’s View Differs From Establishment Economists
• (49:13) How Washington and Big Business Benefit From the Death of the Middle Class
• (56:44) The Two Parts to Trump’s Tariff Plan
• (1:03:25) Will We See Inflation Due to Tariffs?
• (1:07:50) The Economic War With China
• (1:11:49) How China Is Trying to Avoid Trump’s Tariffs
• (1:25:50) Reestablishing an Economic Relationship With Russia
• (1:31:34) The Lies You’ve Been Told About the Nasdaq

Večkrat sem že pisal, da je zeleni vodik (proizveden iz viškov elektrike iz vode in vetra) – zaradi katastrofalno nizkega energetskega izkoristka in katastrofalne ekonomike, in to kljub visokim subvencijam – mrtev in da več kot 90 % vodikovih projektov nima niti enega kupca. Zato vsi ti projekti eden za drugim bankrotirajo in vsi resni igralci so se iz zelenega vodika umaknili. Podobno velja za modri vodik (proizveden iz metana, vendar z odvzemom CO2). O tem poročajo vsi poslovni mediji.

Zato se mi zdi zanimivo, ko spremljam nekatere vodiku naklonjene platforme, kako nočejo sprejeti realnosti. Takšen je denimo današnji Newsletter, ki ga pripravlja Hydrogen Economist. Pravi nekako takole:

najprej je bil velik hype, za katerega zdaj vemo, da ni bil realističen, nato je prišla huda ohladitev, zdaj pa smo v fazi ponovnega ovrednotenja vodikove strategije, …vendar “dolgoročni potencial vodika za razogljičenje industrij in zagotavljanje trajnostne surovine za e-goriva ostaja neizčrpen. Stroški se bodo znižali in izboljšanje ekonomije bo omogočilo naložbe v infrastrukturo, vendar bo to lahko trajalo dlje, kot je industrija pričakovala pred petimi leti.“

Torej propagandisti so se – v izostanku dejstev – zatekli v religijo.

_____________

A reassessment of clean hydrogen’s growth trajectory is underway, but the energy vector’s long-term potential to decarbonise remains intact

First came the hype. Then the reality check. Now, the clean hydrogen sector has entered its first full-blown correction, with some developers aggressively scaling back capacity targets and, in some cases, cancelling projects altogether.

French utility Engie is one of the few to go public with its reduced ambition, pushing back a 4GW green hydrogen target to 2035 from 2030. Elsewhere, UK-based BP has shelved its large HyGreen project in northern England, which had been expected to hit 500MW by 2030. The move came amid a broader strategy shift from the oil and gas major that has seen it scale back investment across the transition business.

Talk of reduced near-term capacity targets and cost overruns in other regions, including the Middle East, has also circulated in recent weeks, while projects in Scandinavia have also hit the buffers, including Europe’s largest e-methanol plant.

The industry’s pause for breath has been prompted mainly by prohibitively high production costs, which have in turn deterred offtakers from reconfiguring their processes to run on green or blue hydrogen. Subsidies have failed in many cases to bridge the gap between viable prices and offtakers’ willingness to pay for clean hydrogen, or its derivative and e-fuels.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

No, znanstveniki so očitno nekaj narobe izračunali in uradniki so preuranjeno (ali neupravičeno) zagnali preplah, kajti do dviga morske gladine (zaradi taljenja ledu) ni prišlo. Tropski otoki se kar niso hoteli potopiti. Nasprotno, kot je lani pisal New York Times (The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish), ponekod je bilo celo zaznati znižanje ravni morske gladine (oziroma nekateri otoki so se celo povečali).

And indeed, when the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands, which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls, were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage in their entirety. As the ice caps melted and the seas crept higher, these accidents of geologic history were bound to be corrected and the tiny islands returned to watery oblivion, probably in this century.

Then, not very long ago, researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.

No, dve leti pred tem pa so znanstveniki v ZDA in za njimi ameriški vladni uradniki znova zagnali preplah, da se bo gladina vode na ameriških obalah do leta 2050 dvignila za en čevelj (33 cm). New York Times (12.2.2022):

V znanosti zlato pravilo pravi, da če podatki ne potrjujejo teorije, je treba spremeniti / zamenjati teorijo. V podnebni znanosti to očitno ne velja.

Jaz pa bi vseeno rad vedel, kaj se bo zgodilo z morsko gladino, ker bi stara leta rad preživel na otoku Fiji. In zdaj ne vem, ali naj kupim hišo na obali ali jadrnico…

_____________

* Sarkastičen sem. Vendar znanstveniki in razni “klubi znanstvenikov” (Rimski klub) vsakih 10 let zaženejo nov preplah (od tega, da bo zmanjkalo nafte, da bo zmanjkalo pitne vode, da gremo v novo ledeno dobo,…, do tega, da gremo v vročo dobo). Mednarodne organizacije in vlade ter za njimi mediji nato zaženejo splošno histerijo, usmerijo napore in sredstva v tisto smer. … nakar se svarila ne materializirajo – nafte je nenadoma dovolj še za 500 let, pitne vode je več kot dovolj, nismo zmrznili… 

… in znanstveniki, mednarodne organizacije in vlade nato pozabijo na prejšnji splošni alarm in lansirajo nov preplah in novo kampanjo. Zdaj se pač pripravljamo na neznosno vročino in poplavitev južne poloble … če ne bomo znižali izpustov CO2, tako da damo na strehe, polja in travnike, jezera, reke in morje sončne panele in vetrnice.

Vse skupaj se zdi en velik BS. Vprašanje je le, kdo ga lansira, da bi z njim zaslužil.