Dollar falls exports go up. Dollar rises and ?

The 3.3% is surprising.

The graphs on China are interesting as they would tend to suggest more production for domestic demand.

Squire wrote:

Dollar falls exports go up. Dollar rises and ?

The 3.3% is surprising.

The graphs on China are interesting as they would tend to suggest more production for domestic demand.

Would the Olympic games have had any impact ?

cactus flower wrote:

Squire wrote:

Dollar falls exports go up. Dollar rises and ?

The 3.3% is surprising.

The graphs on China are interesting as they would tend to suggest more production for domestic demand.

Would the Olympic games have had any impact ?

They would have had a negative impact since so much industry was closed down for the period that the Olympics were taking place.

[googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3035415655640961960&q=kevin+phillips+bad+money&ei=gjY_SKIliZz8AYyS6eQD[/googlevideo]


http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/kevin-phillips-blasts-financial-elite/story.aspx?guid=%7BCABB1768%2D0B9F%2D446F%2D9FC3%2DA6E6C54D0E17%7D

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Is Kevin Phillips right that something funny is going on in the economy? Yes, although just how funny is less clear.

The numbers do suggest he's correct about one thing at least: public and private debt has indeed reached unprecedented levels.

Recently, we described Phillips' thesis, in his new book "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Finance of American Capital" that the U.S. economy has been run by a Washington-Wall Street mercantilist alliance for the benefit of the finance sector. See Column Here

Phillips doesn't flat-out predict that the resulting distortions will result in a crash. He says it's too early to say. But he meaningfully quotes a number of authorities, such as Yale economist Robert Shiller, to the effect that it will.


A very readable US financial blogsite here: http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

You can run a successful economy with the financial sector alone, only if you are lending to others, and providing the service to others, it fails if you are basically lending to yourself.

I mentioned on some thread somewhere that IMO the real bubble was not housing or dot.com but economies running on increased levels of debt coupled with the rediculous values of our currencies that pay someone in Europe or USA 20(or more) times what someone in Asia gets for doing the same job. That is the bubble, that is the annomily that needs to correct for until it does there is NO possibility of building real industrial production in western economies.

Yes we can specialise on high end or niche markets, but such thoughts are delusional for there is NOTHING that we do that cannot be done somewhere else for much less. You can't employ Europe on niche market production. It makes no sense locating business here unless the cost of transport increases then home production of bulkier items may once again have an advantage.

You simply cannot run anything with rising debt and continue to pay yourself inflated salaries. It is that simple and that stark.

Squire wrote:

You can run a successful economy with the financial sector alone, only if you are lending to others, and providing the service to others, it fails if you are basically lending to yourself.

I mentioned on some thread somewhere that IMO the real bubble was not housing or dot.com but economies running on increased levels of debt coupled with the rediculous values of our currencies that pay someone in Europe or USA 20(or more) times what someone in Asia gets for doing the same job. That is the bubble, that is the annomily that needs to correct for until it does there is NO possibility of building real industrial production in western economies.

Yes we can specialise on high end or niche markets, but such thoughts are delusional for there is NOTHING that we do that cannot be done somewhere else for much less. You can't employ Europe on niche market production. It makes no sense locating business here unless the cost of transport increases then home production of bulkier items may once again have an advantage.

You simply cannot run anything with rising debt and continue to pay yourself inflated salaries. It is that simple and that stark.

Not many people want to say it, but that's the way it is. We used to do it by taking other countries raw materials for less than they were worth and processing them in the west. The next idea was to move production there and take their labour cheap as well. The experience is that its not so easy to enslave populations and have them working in factories at the same time. Wages drift up in industrialised countries very quickly and there is an equalisation process going on across the globe - its not all a race to the bottom, surely it is a race to the middle, and that is where it should be ? As well as this, the rising price of oil is pushing millions into poverty and the poor into starvation territory - people are selling their furniture and clothes to buy food.

The US's productive capacity is rusty and people working in Walmart have only basic skills. US industry is beginning to go home, but there is still and enormous gap between what they are producing and what they are spending. Is there any acknowledgement of the reality of the situation from US politicians?

The Republicans are trying to hold the dam until November 4th. I think there could be tsunami on its way

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/Issues.aspx?Latest-FDIC-Report-Reads-Like-a-Horror-Novel-2144

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20648.htm

http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/20080830918/MM-News/Erste-Landkreis-Pleite-in-USA-droht.html


this makes for very unsettling reading

cactus flower wrote:

The experience is that its not so easy to enslave populations and have them working in factories at the same time. Wages drift up in industrialised countries very quickly and there is an equalisation process going on across the globe - its not all a race to the bottom, surely it is a race to the middle, and that is where it should be ? As well as this, the rising price of oil is pushing millions into poverty and the poor into starvation territory - people are selling their furniture and clothes to buy food.

Well said cactus - this reflects what surely many feel is an accurate picture and upshot of globalisation. And why shouldn't we all enjoy a similar living standard as long as it's sustainable? The EU gets 1.2 million barrels of oil from Russia as a third of the EUs daily requirement ... the U.S. uses 20 million barrels daily and has three quarters of the EU population.

Somehow in the back of my mind I see the U.S. needing the relax its immigration laws and growing the population dramatically. Or perhaps having to. I don't know why that came to mind looking at a graph on the FDIC link that Squire provided.

Slim Buddha wrote:

The Republicans are trying to hold the dam until November 4th. I think there could be tsunami on its way

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/Issues.aspx?Latest-FDIC-Report-Reads-Like-a-Horror-Novel-2144

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20648.htm

http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/20080830918/MM-News/Erste-Landkreis-Pleite-in-USA-droht.html


this makes for very unsettling reading

It surely does. Bank deposits not looking like a good idea. If everyone took this guys advice and pulled out of the shaky banks they would go down like nine pins.

There is a book in the top ten best sellers in China that tells everyone they should put 3% of their earnings into gold...if they take that advice that will have its own effect.

I moved most of my interests out of the West some years ago, reason was it was obvious that the western economies were a house of cards and the wealth created, was simply driving up costs and therefore negating any gain. If however the money had been invested elsewhere instead of having a consumer blow out the West would have effectively controlled the Eastern economies. At the minute we do own a fair amount of production in the East, but our position could have been a lot stronger.


Slim Buddha

I expect reality to set in somewhere between 4th November and January 20th. Whoever gets in is going to have an economic nightmare to deal with and an over extended military which they cannot afford.

Squire wrote:

I moved most of my interests out of the West some years ago, reason was it was obvious that the western economies were a house of cards and the wealth created, was simply driving up costs and therefore negating any gain. If however the money had been invested elsewhere instead of having a consumer blow out the West would have effectively controlled the Eastern economies. At the minute we do own a fair amount of production in the East, but our position could have been a lot stronger.


Slim Buddha

I expect reality to set in somewhere between 4th November and January 20th. Whoever gets in is going to have an economic nightmare to deal with and an over extended military which they cannot afford.

I think you are right. And that has implications for us all. I am watching this at the moment

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

First bit plausible enough. Second bit very convincing. Third bit a bit "out there" but not totally implausible. Takes a bit a staying power for the first 40 mins but if you stick with it it won't be a wasted 2 hours.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Squire wrote:

I moved most of my interests out of the West some years ago, reason was it was obvious that the western economies were a house of cards and the wealth created, was simply driving up costs and therefore negating any gain. If however the money had been invested elsewhere instead of having a consumer blow out the West would have effectively controlled the Eastern economies. At the minute we do own a fair amount of production in the East, but our position could have been a lot stronger.


Slim Buddha

I expect reality to set in somewhere between 4th November and January 20th. Whoever gets in is going to have an economic nightmare to deal with and an over extended military which they cannot afford.

I think you are right. And that has implications for us all. I am watching this at the moment

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

First bit plausible enough. Second bit very convincing. Third bit a bit "out there" but not totally implausible. Takes a bit a staying power for the first 40 mins but if you stick with it it won't be a wasted 2 hours.

I'll have to watch when the house is a bit quieter.

A time of big change. Any historic precedents come to mind? Fall of Carthage? Fall of the Roman Empire ? 1920s ?

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Squire wrote:

I moved most of my interests out of the West some years ago, reason was it was obvious that the western economies were a house of cards and the wealth created, was simply driving up costs and therefore negating any gain. If however the money had been invested elsewhere instead of having a consumer blow out the West would have effectively controlled the Eastern economies. At the minute we do own a fair amount of production in the East, but our position could have been a lot stronger.


Slim Buddha

I expect reality to set in somewhere between 4th November and January 20th. Whoever gets in is going to have an economic nightmare to deal with and an over extended military which they cannot afford.

I think you are right. And that has implications for us all. I am watching this at the moment

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

First bit plausible enough. Second bit very convincing. Third bit a bit "out there" but not totally implausible. Takes a bit a staying power for the first 40 mins but if you stick with it it won't be a wasted 2 hours.

I'll have to watch when the house is a bit quieter.

A time of big change. Any historic precedents come to mind? Fall of Carthage? Fall of the Roman Empire ? 1920s ?

Just watch it when you get the opportunity and you will get plenty of food for thought. That's a promise.

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Squire wrote:

I moved most of my interests out of the West some years ago, reason was it was obvious that the western economies were a house of cards and the wealth created, was simply driving up costs and therefore negating any gain. If however the money had been invested elsewhere instead of having a consumer blow out the West would have effectively controlled the Eastern economies. At the minute we do own a fair amount of production in the East, but our position could have been a lot stronger.


Slim Buddha

I expect reality to set in somewhere between 4th November and January 20th. Whoever gets in is going to have an economic nightmare to deal with and an over extended military which they cannot afford.

I think you are right. And that has implications for us all. I am watching this at the moment

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

First bit plausible enough. Second bit very convincing. Third bit a bit "out there" but not totally implausible. Takes a bit a staying power for the first 40 mins but if you stick with it it won't be a wasted 2 hours.

I'll have to watch when the house is a bit quieter.

A time of big change. Any historic precedents come to mind? Fall of Carthage? Fall of the Roman Empire ? 1920s ?

Just watch it when you get the opportunity and you will get plenty of food for thought. That's a promise.

I have watched nearly all of it, and have heard some of this before. A lot of things said in the video are undoubtedly true, while some of it (e.g. "all tax goes to the banks", the explosions in the towers) is bunkum. The video voices people's reasonable suspicions of the ruthlessness and destructiveness of governments in relation to their own and other countries populations. However i think the actual message of the video is proto fascist in character. I can't be accidental imo that Charles Lindbergh who is well known to have been one of Hitler's biggest supporters in the US, is approvingly quoted more than once in the video.

The message of the video is anti-taxation, without any suggestion of any alternative other than neocon privatisation. The line that there should be a return to the gold standard with a zero interest financial system, in a private ownership system would involve a traumatic shrinkage in the economy that would impoverish huge numbers of people. There is no reason to believe the John Doe would benefit from it. The video also has strong resonances of nazi propoganda with its " evil cabal of international bankers" theme which was a nazi anti semitic conspiracy theory. The anti-internationalism message is imo reactionary as it is clear that globalisation of trade and internationalisation is a powerful and potentially progressive trend. An end to national antagonisms would be a huge breakthrough for humanity.

i watched a Ron Paul video with some of the same material in it - his audience was overwhelmingly white. The conspiracy theorists mission seems to be to stir up a mixture of rational and irrational fears, an implant the message that taxation and international co-operation are evil conspiracies against them.

The tone of these videos is emotive, hypnotic and designed to create hysteria and fear. When did they first emerge? Was it by any chance a while after 9-11 when there a lot of public suspicions that it might have been a "false flag" government operation?

In a period of uncertainty and fear, this is a potent message, but imo a very dangerous one.

I've nearly watched it all. It could be very educational or very dangerous. There's a good bit of interesting stuff in it - I'd love to see a bit more about the collapse of the WTC towers for example and the stuff about Roosevelt provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbour leaves a lot of food for thought - America didn't have to enter the war and doing it for money might certainly have been a reason for it though at that point England had been paying America in land and territory for its aid through Lend Lease. Could America have had a moral incentive to enter the war ... ?

I've said the interest on money at present must be accountable in terms of economic growth, even if it was based on nothing else but the growth of population. I'm guessing that in our lifetimes we'll see that change - money will be quite plentiful but scare resources will be taxed heavily. Already Japan is talking about pumping in $18 billion to stimulate their economy. http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/international/japan_stimulus.ap/index.htm This will happen more and more.

If that video provokes any reaction then it might be to that Federal Income Tax for which payment there doesn't seem to be any basis in law. Revolution ahoy.

Very interesting - a lot more interesting that The Unit: Season 2 which I was going to watch. It brought a good bit of sci-fi to mind from Brave New World to Demolition Man which is a black comedy on the same theme. In that film with Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Denis Leary who is a cigar-smoking crusty and at first glance like the destabilising punks in Max Max but in the end turns out to be the embodiment of the natural instincts to resist absolute control (over every living soul) and procreate naturally among other things, in that film, most people live in a super-controlled world run by fascists.

Will nature win over in the long run? Or will we strive for peace with nature and each other? There can only be a certain number of wars waged, a certain proportion of time spent in meaningless work, education and other things before such a system eats itself.

The Denis Leary types - wouldn't there be a culture created by the Rockefeller microchippers to blacken such a movement or uprising? Is the whole thing a fair auld argument for New Age self-sufficiency, independence even Anarchy?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

Auditor #9 wrote:

Very interesting - a lot more interesting that The Unit: Season 2 which I was going to watch. It brought a good bit of sci-fi to mind from Brave New World to Demolition Man which is a black comedy on the same theme. In that film with Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Denis Leary who is a cigar-smoking crusty and at first glance like the destabilising punks in Max Max but in the end turns out to be the embodiment of the natural instincts to resist absolute control (over every living soul) and procreate naturally among other things, in that film, most people live in a super-controlled world run by fascists.

Will nature win over in the long run? Or will we strive for peace with nature and each other? There can only be a certain number of wars waged, a certain proportion of time spent in meaningless work, education and other things before such a system eats itself.

The Denis Leary types - wouldn't there be a culture created by the Rockefeller microchippers to blacken such a movement or uprising? Is the whole thing a fair auld argument for New Age self-sufficiency, independence even Anarchy?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

I deeply smell a rat from the "conspiracy theory" movement in the US. The main figures try to appear to be anti-establishment, but their economic proposals are a right wing nightmare if possible worse than Bush. They present the economic crisis and decline of the US as a plot by a handful of people, rather than something that something systemic to capitalism or its dysfunction. They attract a lot of disaffected people and stir up scapegoating. They should come out and say exactly what kind of economic and social system they propose.

The New Agers live off other people's taxation. If everyone tried to live like that there would be social collapse and starvation.

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

Quote :

The New Agers live off other people's taxation. If everyone tried to live like that there would be social collapse and starvation.

Well I don't think we should have to work as hard as the Americans in that model in order to keep the wheel turning...

Slim Buddha wrote:

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

The religion bit was interesting too but a bit out of place, no? A lot of work just to prove a point that a lie can be propagated and made widespread in a culture.

On the #7 Tower - I was always under the impression that one of them was 'taken down' (demolished) because it had been damaged by the fall of the two 110-storey collossuses ... I'd like to look into that a bit more though, all that stuff about the collapse of the twin towers...

Slim Buddha wrote:

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

I was glad I watched it. I missed a bit of the religious side, but the continuity of religious iconography is interesting - Zoroastrianism seems to have a lot of the characteristics too.

I think there is a fair chance that 9/11 was a "false flag" job, or at least that it was allowed to go ahead. There is not a doubt that this type of thing has been done over and over again - evidence of it has been released under the 30 year rule in the US say in relation to the removal of the Mossadeq democratic government in Iraq. It is also credible that it was a genuine radical islamicist attack. Even if it was there is imo complicity from the US who fuelled these groups directly and indirectly. There is not sufficient evidence on the video to establish it either way.

On the collapse of the towers, I watched most of it live on Sky at the time and it all appeared to be a consistent chain of events. There were no independent civil engineers I don't think who said that it wouldn't have collapsed, and the video said there was molten steel everywhere. A huge amount of petrol hit the building internally. An immense heat would have been generated.

If the whole thing was a US plot anyway, why focus all the attention on the red herring of whether or not the buildings were blown up. We all know for sure they were hit by planes. The Pentagon is a different question.

The fact that corporations make money out of both sides in war is also undoubtedly true. There is a brilliant bit in "Oh What a Lovely War" that illustrates it.

What do you think of the financial side of it? The claim that all interest is profit to the Central Bank? The idea that all taxation is robbery? and the dollar going back on the gold standard ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

The New Agers live off other people's taxation. If everyone tried to live like that there would be social collapse and starvation.

Well I don't think we should have to work as hard as the Americans in that model in order to keep the wheel turning...

Slim Buddha wrote:

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

The religion bit was interesting too but a bit out of place, no? A lot of work just to prove a point that a lie can be propagated and made widespread in a culture.

On the #7 Tower - I was always under the impression that one of them was 'taken down' (demolished) because it had been damaged by the fall of the two 110-storey collossuses ... I'd like to look into that a bit more though, all that stuff about the collapse of the twin towers...

The stuff on 7 WTC alone is very strange but the totality of the 9/11 section of the film is the strongest part of the film.

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

I was glad I watched it. I missed a bit of the religious side, but the continuity of religious iconography is interesting - Zoroastrianism seems to have a lot of the characteristics too.

I think there is a fair chance that 9/11 was a "false flag" job, or at least that it was allowed to go ahead. There is not a doubt that this type of thing has been done over and over again - evidence of it has been released under the 30 year rule in the US say in relation to the removal of the Mossadeq democratic government in Iraq. It is also credible that it was a genuine radical islamicist attack. Even if it was there is imo complicity from the US who fuelled these groups directly and indirectly. There is not sufficient evidence on the video to establish it either way.

On the collapse of the towers, I watched most of it live on Sky at the time and it all appeared to be a consistent chain of events. There were no independent civil engineers I don't think who said that it wouldn't have collapsed, and the video said there was molten steel everywhere. A huge amount of petrol hit the building internally. An immense heat would have been generated.

If the whole thing was a US plot anyway, why focus all the attention on the red herring of whether or not the buildings were blown up. We all know for sure they were hit by planes. The Pentagon is a different question.

The fact that corporations make money out of both sides in war is also undoubtedly true. There is a brilliant bit in "Oh What a Lovely War" that illustrates it.

What do you think of the financial side of it? The claim that all interest is profit to the Central Bank? The idea that all taxation is robbery? and the dollar going back on the gold standard ?

Jet fuel could not create molten steel. A lot of heat was generated but not enough to create molten steel. The architect and structural engineer of the WTC said the towers were built to withstand a plane crashing into it. It just does not add up.

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

I think the religion bit is interesting if a bit dry. The stuff on 9/11 is more convincing because there is too much there which simply does not add up to the official version. Especially on 7 WTC. I mean, how does a 47 storey building collapse with only a few fires recorded in it? The international banker stuff is least convincing because the conclusions drawn are fantasist, agenda-driven stuff. I thought it was a bit of a curate's egg, really.

I was glad I watched it. I missed a bit of the religious side, but the continuity of religious iconography is interesting - Zoroastrianism seems to have a lot of the characteristics too.

I think there is a fair chance that 9/11 was a "false flag" job, or at least that it was allowed to go ahead. There is not a doubt that this type of thing has been done over and over again - evidence of it has been released under the 30 year rule in the US say in relation to the removal of the Mossadeq democratic government in Iraq. It is also credible that it was a genuine radical islamicist attack. Even if it was there is imo complicity from the US who fuelled these groups directly and indirectly. There is not sufficient evidence on the video to establish it either way.

On the collapse of the towers, I watched most of it live on Sky at the time and it all appeared to be a consistent chain of events. There were no independent civil engineers I don't think who said that it wouldn't have collapsed, and the video said there was molten steel everywhere. A huge amount of petrol hit the building internally. An immense heat would have been generated.

If the whole thing was a US plot anyway, why focus all the attention on the red herring of whether or not the buildings were blown up. We all know for sure they were hit by planes. The Pentagon is a different question.

The fact that corporations make money out of both sides in war is also undoubtedly true. There is a brilliant bit in "Oh What a Lovely War" that illustrates it.

What do you think of the financial side of it? The claim that all interest is profit to the Central Bank? The idea that all taxation is robbery? and the dollar going back on the gold standard ?

Jet fuel could not create molten steel. A lot of heat was generated but not enough to create molten steel. The architect and structural engineer of the WTC said the towers were built to withstand a plane crashing into it. It just does not add up.

The architect would say that. It was probably in the project brief. But what is the big difference between planes hitting the TTs or a bomb?
Why does it matter so much?

Cactus Flower wrote:

If the whole thing was a US plot anyway, why focus all the attention on the red herring of whether or not the buildings were blown up. We all know for sure they were hit by planes. The Pentagon is a different question.

What do you think of the financial side of it? The claim that all interest is profit to the Central Bank? The idea that all taxation is robbery? and the dollar going back on the gold standard ?

Slim Buddha wrote:

The stuff on 7 WTC alone is very strange but the totality of the 9/11 section of the film is the strongest part of the film.

I had forgotten about the Pentagon already - that film had brainwashed me so much! The Pentagon stuff was creepy alright - the plane disintegrated ... and the footage from the cameras around the place were confiscated and are still not released ... I used to look at webcams for New York before this happened (I wanted a café bar with a plasm tv linked up to the NY skyline in realtime ) and there were tons which subsequently disappeared - this would surely have been the same with Washington and the Pentagon but has anyone ever seen webcam footage of the plane passing by? It would be very interesting to get a list of the cams that are in that area although in fairness the Pentagon would not be very visible for security perhaps although you'd never know...

I don't remember them asking that the gold standard be reinstated - this is something I disagree with anyway. Maybe their spell is working

It matters because what the film demonstrates is the fairy story of the 9/11 commission's report has not been put under the necessary media scrutiny to illustrate the fatal flaws in it. It is bullshit. Look at the 9/11 section again and tot up the examples of evidence which go contrary to the official version. Then ask yourself, which is more plausible, bearing in mind who are in the White House?