Dog Brothers Public Forum

Paul Volcker Was Inflation’s Worst Enemy
As Fed chairman, he shored up the dollar and set the stage for decades of economic growth.
By John B. Taylor
Dec. 9, 2019 7:26 pm ET

Paul Volcker with President Reagan in the Oval Office, July 26, 1981. PHOTO: APPLEWHITE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Paul Volcker, who changed the course of economic history dramatically for the better, died Sunday at 92. He was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979 by Jimmy Carter and was reappointed in 1983 by Ronald Reagan. But his influence on policy wasn’t limited to his chairmanship of the Fed. In a public career spanning seven decades, he served the Nixon administration as undersecretary of the Treasury for international monetary affairs and advised President Obama during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

With his 6-foot-7 frame, his big cigar and his candid assessments, Volcker was one of the most colorful characters in American government during the latter half of the 20th century. Graduating summa cum laude from Princeton in 1949, he learned early on how to get things done—very big things—and get them done he did.

Volcker was at the August 1971 Camp David meeting where President Nixon decided to impose wage and price controls and abandon the international monetary system by closing the gold window. Soon after that meeting, Treasury Secretary George Shultz assigned Volcker to work out a strategy to fix what had been done to the monetary system. Milton Friedman’s ideas about flexible exchange rates were to be part of the plan: Countries would allow the value of their exchange rates to depreciate when they had a trade deficit and let their exchange rates rise when they had a surplus. The U.S. had an economic strategy, but Volcker implemented it by making other countries think it was their idea.

The approach worked, and the international monetary system was on its way to restoration. The course of economic history had been changed.

The job Mr. Carter gave Volcker in the late 1970s was even more important and more difficult. The wage and price controls imposed in 1971 had led to an inflationary monetary policy at the central bank under Chairman Arthur Burns. Inflation and unemployment skyrocketed and economic growth fell. That was the state of the economy when Volcker took the reins at the Fed in the summer of 1979.

Financial markets welcomed his appointment. Volcker’s Treasury experience was well known, and he convincingly argued against the view espoused in many academic circles that higher inflation rates would reduce unemployment. He said he wanted lower inflation. He said that monetary policy could do it. And he meant it.

Nevertheless, on Sept. 18, 1979, he only narrowly got support from his Fed colleagues for a decision to change monetary policy by raising the interest rate by a relatively small amount. This created doubts about his ability to change the Fed’s inflationary ways. Markets appeared to lose confidence.

So, reflecting on his experience at Treasury, he designed a whole new monetary policy aimed at marshaling consensus among his Fed colleagues. The policy was to raise the discount rate by 100 basis points, impose new reserve requirements on banks, and create a new procedure for setting interest rates that emphasized the money supply. His approach was to get buy-in from everyone on the Federal Open Market Committee. And he did. The FOMC approved the new policy unanimously, and it was announced Oct. 6, 1979.

With his emphasis on the money supply, Volcker could say that it was the market that determined the interest rate, and thus he could allow the interest rate to go higher, which he did. The federal-funds rate reached 20% in 1981.

In an off-the-record conversation I had during the early 1980s with Volcker and James Tobin, the Nobel laureate economist from Yale, Tobin asked Volcker to lower the interest rate. Volcker answered that he didn’t set the interest rate, the market did.

The higher interest rate did slow the economy, but Volcker showed a great deal of courage. Construction workers sent him two-by-fours in the mail. Farmers circled the Fed building. Yet Volcker stuck with it. He appeared on “Face the Nation” and was asked when he would stop fighting inflation. He simply answered that he couldn’t stop fighting inflation until he ended it. Volcker won Reagan’s support, and his efforts paid off. Inflation fell dramatically and created conditions for a quarter-century of strong economic growth. His successor at the Fed, Alan Greenspan, maintained Volcker’s focus on keeping inflation low.

Volcker deserves credit for slaying inflation in the early ’80s, and he was later called on frequently to serve in government. He worked hard to document and weed out corruption at international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations’ oil-for-food program in Iraq. He weighed in on the causes of the global financial crisis, arguing for higher capital requirements and for what would be called the “Volcker rule” to curtail proprietary trading.

“While zero interest rates may be necessary at the moment, they lead to some dangerous possibilities in terms of breeding more speculative excesses,” he told attendees at a Stanford University conference in 2009. He became an outside adviser to President Obama although, as his own experience had shown, change often comes from knowledgeable policy-making leaders on the inside.

The American economy still needs change. Despite tax and regulatory reforms, the federal deficit remains large and the federal debt is rising. The answers are as simple as they were in Volcker’s time: Get back to sound and predictable budget policy. Paul Volcker’s career shows the way. Good economics leads to good policy, which leads to good results.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and co-author, with George P. Shultz, of “Choose Economic Freedom: Enduring Policy Lessons From the 1970s and 1980s,” forthcoming next month.

Mexico’s Polarizing President Presides Over Rising Violence, Flailing Economy
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador remains popular despite cartel crime and weak growth
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador greets supporters in the southern state of Oaxaca. PRESS OFFICE

David Luhnow and José de Córdoba
Dec. 7, 2019 12:15 am ET

MEXICO CITY—On Dec. 1, tens of thousands of people gathered in Mexico City’s gritty central square to celebrate Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s first year in office. His supporters chanted “It’s an honor to support Obrador.”

A few blocks away, thousands of protesters marched along the city’s elegant Reforma boulevard to rail against the president. Their chant was different: “It’s a horror to support Obrador.”

Since taking power, the silver-haired populist has polarized Mexico more than any president in recent memory. A majority see him as their first honest leader in decades, a man of the people and champion of the forgotten poor. For a growing minority, the president is a dangerous authoritarian who is consolidating power and failing to address the country’s basic problems like out-of-control crime and weak economic growth.

Stalling Out
Annual change in GDP
Source: International Monetary Fund
Note: 2019 data are estimates.
%
Mexico
U.S.
2009
’10
’11
’12
’13
’14
’15
’16
’17
’18
’19
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
His first year wasn’t an optimistic harbinger of his remaining five years in power. Mexico’s economy hasn’t grown at all this year, its worst performance in a decade. Even as the U.S. economy chugs along, Mexican businesses have slowed investment, spooked by the president’s governing style and economic decisions like suspending the country’s historic opening to private investment in the energy industry. At the same time, the window may be closing for ratification of a renegotiated free-trade pact among Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

Crime has hit record highs, with murders climbing another 2.2% during the first 10 months of the year compared with last year’s record tally of 36,685 slayings. More than ever, parts of Mexico appear ungovernable as powerful crime syndicates take on the government. In October, the Sinaloa cartel overran the northern city of Culiacán in a successful attempt to force the army to liberate a captured drug lord.

President Trump had been expected to designate Mexico’s drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, putting them on a par with groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda. On Friday night, he said he would “temporarily hold off” on that move at the request of Mr. López Obrador.

Mr. Trump, in tweets, said the two nations would “step up our joint efforts to deal decisively with these vicious and ever-growing organizations!” He said “all necessary work” had been completed to designate the cartels as terrorist organizations.

A series of recent clashes between cartel gunmen and security forces as well as massacres of civilians in Mexico has captured global attention. Last month, presumed gunmen from a cartel killed three mothers and six of their children, all U.S. citizens living in a fundamentalist Mormon community in the northern state of Chihuahua.


Men carry the remains of Dawna Ray Langford and her sons Trevor and Rogan, who were killed by unknown assailants in November. PHOTO: CARLOS JASSO/REUTERS
Rafael Chávez, a burly construction worker who runs a business remodeling homes, voted for Mr. López Obrador last year on the politician’s promises he would “transform” the country. But a sharp slowdown in construction has forced Mr. Chávez to cut the size of his crews to 12 from an average of 30.

“I had the hope he was going to be able to conjure a change,” says Mr. Chávez. But with crime growing and a weak economy, he says, it seems “everything is falling apart.”

Since taking power, the man who once said “to hell with your institutions” has become the most powerful president in decades, with a big majority in both chambers of congress. He has attacked many of the country’s fragile institutions like courts, the central bank, and regulators as part of a “mafia of power” against him. And his party is now trying to oust the non-partisan head of the agency that oversees elections in time for the 2022 midterms.

“It’s not yellow flashing lights—they are glowing red,” says Enrique Krauze, one of the country’s leading historians. Mr. López Obrador’s government appears to be “on the road to becoming a populist dictatorship.”

Despite the shaky first year, the veteran politician and baseball fan remains Mexico’s most popular leader in decades, with different recent polls showing an approval rating between 60% and 70%. Those are enviable numbers at a time when some leaders in Latin America have approval ratings in the single digits and others face violent street protests.

“It’s a paradox,” says Héctor Aguilar Camín, a leading Mexican writer. “It’s a president who has high credibility and very poor results.”

The answer may lie in Mr. López Obrador’s masterful use of political symbols. He slashed his own salary and that of top bureaucrats, arguing that Mexico can’t have a rich government and poor citizens. The savings have gone partly to fund an expansion in cash transfer programs for the elderly, middle-school students and others.

The austerity is a welcome change in a country where many former presidents retired as multimillionaires. Enrique Peña Nieto, Mr. López Obrador’s predecessor, left office hounded by scandal and a record low 16% approval. The former president appears regularly in the pages of Mexico’s top society magazines, jet-setting on holidays around Europe with his new 31-year-old girlfriend, a model. Mr. Peña Nieto has long denied wrongdoing.


President López Obrador talks to a fellow passenger during a commercial flight in in Mexico in February. PHOTO: ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Mr. López Obrador is the symbolic opposite. He put the country’s version of Air Force One, a Boeing 787, on the auction block and flies economy class, delighting fellow travelers. He disbanded the 8,000-strong elite presidential guard, saying the people would protect him. And he turned the sprawling and secretive presidential compound into a tourist attraction visited by millions. Rather than rest and play golf on the weekends, he visits the country’s poorest corners.

“This is one of the best things that has happened in all of my life,” said Omar Escovedo, 59, a retired state worker, during a recent visit by the president to the mostly indigenous hamlet of Amanalco near the capital. Over the past decade, the politician visited every county in Mexico—all 2,457.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Do you think a populist leader can bring peace and prosperity to Mexico? Join the conversation below.

He has also proved adept at communication. In a country where presidents hardly ever held news conferences, he holds one nearly every morning that is carried live on radio, television and the internet to millions of his supporters.

There, Mr. López Obrador hammers home his vision of a country cleaved in two. His opponents are traitorous “conservatives”—a term from Mexico’s 19th century civil wars—and modern-day “neoliberals.” To him, these Mexicans are corrupt, beholden to foreign interests, and wealthy. Mr. López Obrador has even resurrected a 19th century word, “fifí,” meaning Frenchified and effete, to describe them.

On the other side are Mr. López Obrador and his supporters. These are the inheritors of Mexico’s 19th-century patriots and revolutionaries who seek to extinguish corruption and, through the hand of the state, produce well-being for all, especially the poor and the nation’s indigenous people.

“If you oppose López Obrador, then you are a traitor, corrupt, a coup monger,” says José Crespo, a political analyst at Mexico City’s CIDE university. “It’s a Manichaean use of history where on one side are the good Mexicans and on the other the very bad Mexicans.”

Crime is perhaps the president’s biggest vulnerability. A majority of Mexicans give him negative marks on crime, which they say is the country’s most pressing problem. A December poll by newspaper Reforma found 65% of Mexicans believe organized crime is stronger than the Mexican government. Just 29% said the government is stronger.


Soldiers stand guard in Villa Unión, a Mexican town near the border with the U.S., after a shootout with suspected cartel gunmen earlier this month. PHOTO: JULIO CESAR AGUILAR/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The crime wave has also hit Mexico City, which until recently had been relatively shielded from the carnage in the countryside. More than eight in 10 city residents say crime is their biggest problem, polls show. Just south of Mexico City, Catholic churches in parts of Morelos state have suspended Mass during evenings because parishioners are too frightened to attend, according to Ramón Castro, the bishop of Cuernavaca.

From the day he took power, the president declared an end to the country’s war on drugs, saying “you can’t fight fire with fire.” Mexico’s U.S.-trained Naval Marines, the force that killed or captured most top cartel leaders in the past decade, including Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, has been sidelined, say Naval officers. No major cartel figure has been arrested or killed this year.

The president disbanded the 40,000 strong Federal Police, built up under the previous two administrations in a bid to create a capable police force to pursue organized crime. In its place is a new National Guard, drawn mostly from the ranks of army and naval police. The Guard has 70,000 members and will grow to 140,000, the government says.

Critics say the Guard is a work in progress with no clear mission. So far, it has been deployed to stop Central American migrants from reaching the U.S., patrol Mexico City’s subway system, fight gasoline theft and deal with high-profile incidents such as massacres by organized crime. “It’s been a very reactive force, scattered, without a clear vision,” says Eduardo Guerrero, a Mexico City-based security analyst.

Deadly Trend
Homicides in Mexico
Source: Mexico's National Statistics Institute
2010
’12
’14
’16
’18
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Analysts say that while Mexico has mostly relied on the armed forces to control organized crime, it has for years neglected a long-term fix: building professional police forces, especially at state and local levels, that can actually solve crimes like murder. Less than 13% of violent crimes end up with a suspect appearing before a judge, compared with 80% in the U.S., according to Alejandro Hope, a security analyst and former member of Mexico’s intelligence agency.

By dismantling the Federal Police, the president went back to square one in creating a trained federal force. His government has also cut federal funding to train state and local police forces, according to government budget data.

Aside from the National Guard, the president is betting that reducing poverty will reduce crime. Some 800,000 youth have signed up to an apprentice program called “Youth Building a Future” that gives them a monthly stipend in exchange for learning a trade, a process that Mr. López Obrador hopes will keep them from becoming cannon fodder for gangs.

The president is also relying on the force of his personality to tamp down crime, calling on gang members to think of their mothers. “We’re calling on criminals to tone it down, that we all start to behave better. To hell with criminals. Fuchi, guácala,” he said, using colloquial terms that mean “gross, yuck.”

Last week, a small army of gunmen in a convoy of about 50 armored trucks, some mounted with .50 caliber rifles, attacked a small town in Coahuila, less than 40 miles from the Texas border, shooting up the town hall. At least 23 people, 17 of them presumed cartel members, were killed in a two-day running battle between security forces and gunmen, who wore helmets and military fatigues, and drove trucks emblazoned with the insignia of their self-styled “Northeast Cartel.”

On the economy, the outlook appears grim. Economists forecast just 1.2% growth next year—well below the president’s promises of 4% average annual growth and 6% growth by the end of his term.

Lack of Confidence
Mexico's gross fixed investment index
Source: Mexico's National Statistics Institute
Total
Construction
2016
’17
’18
’19
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
ConstructionxSept. 2019x93.4
Investment in machinery, equipment and construction fell 6.8% in September compared with a year ago, and is down 4.8% in the first nine months of this year, Mexico’s statistics agency said Friday.

Many blame the stagnation on the president’s decisions like canceling Mexico City’s partially built new airport, the country’s largest public-works project. Mr. López Obrador spiked the project after some $5 billion had already been spent, saying it was too extravagant. His finance minister later quit, saying economic decisions were being made on the basis of ideology.

The nationalist also reversed or suspended the economic overhauls—from ensuring public school teachers are tested for competence to opening the energy sector to private investment—carried out by Mr. Peña Nieto. Even auctions to attract private investment in renewable energies like wind farms have been scrapped.

Mexico’s stagnation marks the first time in two decades that Mexico’s economic cycle has diverged from the U.S., its northern neighbor and destination for 85% of its manufactured exports.

To spark economic growth, the president is betting on the resurrection of debt-ridden state oil firm Pemex, injecting it with new money and forcing it to build an $8 billion new refinery in his home state of Tabasco. But the oil industry accounts for under 4% of Mexico’s economic output.

His government closed down ProMexico, the country’s overseas investment offices. While he is supportive of the renegotiated free-trade deal with the U.S., he has yet to visit a single modern factory.


A refinery belonging to Pemex, the Mexican state oil firm. PHOTO: DANIEL BECERRIL/REUTERS
In July, on a visit to the countryside, he extolled the virtues of a primitive sugar-cane grinder powered by one mangy horse in a video he posted on his Twitter account which went viral. “This is an authentic people’s economy,” he said as the horse went around in a circle, grinding out the cane juice. “This is the economy we are promoting,” he said.

His austerity drive, while good for public finances, has forced thousands of top technocrats out of institutions like the central bank and finance ministry by slashing wages and cutting benefits like private health insurance.

“I’ve seen a year of destruction of institutions, of projects, of talents, of human capital,” says Valeria Moy, the director of “How are we doing, Mexico?” a Mexico City-based think tank. “This year, nothing has been built, and much has been destroyed.”

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com and José de Córdoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-hero-murderer-day-20994055.amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0MR6wLL4P-YEmNYqoRmPBfgt2XPaygVanwrs7sVtdBNzrO3hJCF57N6ss

Could There Be a Cold War Reboot in Latin America?
Scott Stewart
Scott Stewart
VP of Tactical Analysis, Stratfor
8 MINS READ
Nov 26, 2019 | 09:00 GMT

HIGHLIGHTS

Russia is working with former Soviet allies in Latin America to undermine U.S. influence and distract Washington from Moscow's activities elsewhere. 

In doing so, Moscow is using online propaganda to stoke the anti-government rhetoric now fueling protests in Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia and Colombia.

Russia will likely deploy similar tactics to weaken other U.S.-allied governments in Latin America, placing Western businesses and organizations operating in the region increasingly at risk.

South America is again in flames. A wave of anti-government protests has ravaged the streets of Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia and Colombia in recent months. Such chaos, of course, isn't new to the region. From the 1960s to the 1990s, terrorist and insurgent groups instigated a series of vicious Cold War proxy battles. But in this iteration, which I'm calling the "Cold War 2.0" in Latin America, it's not armed proxy groups in play but already existing social tensions that Moscow is adeptly weaponizing to sabotage Western power structures in the region.

Indeed, with threats to Russia's periphery more daunting than ever, it can be argued that the Cold War never really ended for Moscow. But regardless of whether Russia's current actions in Latin America constitute a second Cold War, or if they're instead merely a reinvigoration of the original struggle, it's apparent that many of the same actors are actively involved in the unfolding unrest in Washington's backyard — and largely, for the same reasons.

The Big Picture

U.S. efforts to stem Russia's influence in its borderlands have compelled Moscow to reassert its geopolitical heft around the world. In Latin America, this can be evidenced by Russia's attempts to protect the Venezuelan government from the U.S.-backed opposition movement, while working to dismantle more Western-allied governments elsewhere in the region. 

The Soviet Legacy in Latin America

In its push to establish a global communist utopia, the Soviet Union encouraged exporting its revolution abroad to "liberate" workers around the world. But as the United States and its allies banded together to contain communist expansion, the Soviet Union began to feel threatened by the alliance structures that surrounded it, as well as the presence of U.S. troops and weapons on its periphery. In response, the Soviets embraced the Cuban Revolution and attempted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba — a gambit that ultimately led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. But even after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba, they continued to use the island as a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere from which to expand their influence from Canada to Chile — supporting communist parties in the Americas, while also training, financing and arming a host of Marxist terrorist and insurgent groups across the region.
 
Moscow's efforts in South and Central America, in particular, were largely conducted through their battle-hardened Cuban allies, as evidenced by the revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara's ill-fated foray into Bolivia in the late 1960s. The Soviets viewed such activities as a way to not only expand world communism, but to counter U.S. anti-communist efforts elsewhere. By creating problems in Washington's own backyard, Soviet actions also helped distract the United States and its resources from those other efforts. Growing communist influence in the region embroiled the U.S. government in a series of efforts that involved high-profile events such as the 1954 coup in Guatemala; the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba; the 1973 coup in Chile; and support for the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s.

Russia's Current Activities

Fast forward to the present, however, and the U.S. threat to Russian influence has only become more acute. The peripheral security buffer that once protected Russia from Europe has significantly eroded following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Former Warsaw Pact member states such as Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania have since become NATO members, as have the former Soviet-occupied Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

Growing fears of entrapment in Russia ultimately paved the way for the rise of President Vladimir Putin in 2000. But despite Putin's promises of restoring the country's past power, Russia's strategic buffer has continued to take hits. The fall of pro-Russian leaders in Ukraine in the wake of the 2014 Maidan protests and the 2005 Orange Revolution, in particular, have only ratcheted up Russian unease. To help offset the loss of such a crucial borderland, Putin has annexed Crimea and invaded southeastern Ukraine. But Russia still undoubtedly feels the sting of having lost the strategic depth of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Bloc that had long shielded the country's soft underbelly.

Instead of arming Marxist groups with weapons, this time Moscow's arming anti-government protesters with rhetoric to counter U.S. interests in Latin America.

The loosening grasp on its borderlands is now again compelling Russia to resort to its old tricks in Latin America. This has notably included propping up Nicolas Maduro's failing regime in Venezuela over the past year with the help of Moscow's Cuban partners. Cuba has been a key security partner of Venezuelan regimes since shortly after former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999. The vast web of Cuban intelligence operators and assets that has infiltrated Venezuelan society since then have informed the Maduro regime about potential threats while keeping the opposition divided and squabbling. Meanwhile, Russia's financial, military and technical intelligence support — not to mention the close protection from Russian military contractors — have been critical to the Maduro regime in recent years as well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Maduro would have long been ousted had it not been for Russia's and Cuba's help.
 
But the activities of Russia and its Cuban partners in Latin America are not limited to Venezuela. On Nov. 13, officials arrested four Cubans in Bolivia for allegedly financing anti-government protests in support of the country's former socialist president, Evo Morales. An ally of the Russian-backed Maduro regime, Morales was forced to seek refuge in Mexico after his victory in an apparently fixed election sparked widespread protests. In recent weeks, the Organization of American States (OAS) has also accused Cuba and Venezuela of helping instigate the anti-government protests in Ecuador, Chile and Colombia. Just as the Soviets bankrolled Cuban paramilitary efforts in Latin America during the first Cold War, it is clear that Russia is still funding these efforts, as both Cuba and Venezuela are severely cash-strapped and could not conduct these external operations alone.

Using Social Angst for Political Gain

The Soviets and Russians have had ample experience using protests to undermine their Western opponents' place in power. In the United States, there's evidence of Moscow's hand in both the anti-war protests of the 1960s and anti-nuclear protests of the 1980s, as well as the anti-hydraulic fracturing movement and the Occupy Movement in more recent years. And, of course, there's Russia's intervention in the 2016 Brexit referendum followed by the U.S. presidential election that same year.

Indeed, over the decades, Russia has become increasingly adept at tapping into very real social sentiments and issues to achieve its own political goals. In concert with its Cuban and Venezuelan allies, Russia has proven adept at amplifying the tension along very real social fault lines within these countries. Russia is not simply fabricating issues underpinning the unrest out of thin air; rather, it's simply providing the "spark" to ignite the underlying economic and social grievances that have quietly been brewing just beneath the surface in these countries for years.

Russia also now has vast experience using social media to disperse disinformation on the internet, just as it did ahead of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and the U.S. presidential election in 2016. In recent years, Moscow has also deployed similar online propaganda campaigns in Germany, Ukraine and the Baltic states. And there are signs it's attempting to do the same ahead of the next U.S. election in 2020.  We can thus expect to see these disinformation tools used elsewhere in the region to support socialist allies and oppose governments that are democratic, more free-market-oriented or otherwise allied with the United States.

Foreign Stakeholders in the Crosshairs

Given the socialist, anarchist and anti-capitalist bent of many of the anti-government movements, protesters have unsurprisingly already begun targeting commercial interests in the region. More than 100 stores owned by Walmart's subsidiary in Chile, for example, have so far been looted and burned amid escalating anti-capitalist demonstrations in the country. As protests rage on across the continent, U.S. and European businesses operating in these countries will likely continue to be targeted, including potentially mining and energy companies, hotels, banks and airline offices. U.S. diplomatic facilities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in the region could also come under fire. A number of businesses and NGOs have already pulled their personnel out of Bolivia following the U.S. Department of State's recent travel warning, which also urged American citizens living there to leave.
 
Given Russia's imperative to undermine growing U.S. influence closer home, as well as globally, Moscow will do everything in its power to ensure the protests continue apace right outside Washington's door. Businesses and organizations across South America will thus need to closely monitor the dynamics of the unrest in Latin America as it evolves and potentially escalates in the coming weeks. Otherwise, they may soon find themselves caught in the crossfire of another Cold War proxy battle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49984987?ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_campaign=bbcnews&fbclid=IwAR1_sQh6ylQxMF3c3eCtafQUJ2Bq6Qurkzkhvwbc5ZyVeGIwEJyVJZtUH6w

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/video-mass-protests-after-cop-shoots-ronald-davis-now-bodycam-is-out-yC8IU52t-U2oHva-HEEDog/?fbclid=IwAR1zdyO_eSzjYSSPc1cNpH1gtp5hjN9kbMuqahyvU2BgXBDZBqydqm-AcW4

Wonderful night at the Inosanto Academy tonight.  Then had dinner with Guro afterwards.

I am blessed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BojXVi3el-g&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1NgSQDtVvVGqVU2I2FNIiu479XqIoq4XHHgBIsHC5KQINvCFB3zPwIXyE

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/critical-speech-reveals-growing-rift-between-amlo-military/

Is something the technology aspect of which you could handle? Maybe with Webmaster Bob as your advisor?

Thank you very much.

Yeah there are some random tech glitches here or there.

Hope I wasn't to blunt with the guy ("It's a yes or a no question"  ) he was very nice.

I like the idea of doing a semi-regular podcast.  Would you like to be the interviewer?

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/coastal-tourist-destinations-among-most-violent-locations/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/14/a-day-with-killology-police-trainer-dave-grossman/?fbclid=IwAR3lUIraCsujAjb1kkk55XNZ34zj27ondwBJr385GgNJlytGkfXgt9WI1JU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=8RDCtMEHFLM

I shouldn't laugh , , ,

Trey Gowdy
Yesterday at 7:11 AM ·

Elijah Cummings was one of the most powerful, beautiful & compelling voices in American politics. The power and the beauty came from his authenticity, his conviction, the sincerity with which he held his beliefs. We rarely agreed on political matters. We never had a cross word outside of a committee room. He had a unique ability to separate the personal from the work. The story of Elijah's life would benefit everyone, regardless of political ideation. The obstacles, barriers, and roadblocks he overcame, the external and sometimes internal doubt that whispered in the ear of a young Elijah Cummings. He beat it all. He beat the odds. He beat the low expectations of that former school employee who told Elijah to abandon the dream of being a lawyer, that he would never become a lawyer, to settle for a job with his hands and not his mind. Elijah loved telling that story because that school employee wound up being Elijah's first client as a lawyer. We live in an age where we see people on television a couple of times and we think we know them and what they are about. It is true Elijah was a proud progressive with a booming, melodious voice who found himself in the middle of most major political stories over the past decade. It is inescapable that be part of his legacy. But his legacy also includes the path he took to become one of the most powerful political figures of his time. It is a path filled with pain, prejudice, obstacles and doubt that he refused to let stop him. His legacy is perseverance. His legacy is fighting through the pain. His legacy is making sure there were fewer obstacles for the next Elijah Cummings. His legacy to me, above all else, was his faith. A faith in God that is being rewarded today with no more fights, no more battles, and no more pain.

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/guerrero-town-imposes-curfew-in-preparation-for-a-new-cartel-invasion/

First draft-- this will probably get some tinkering , , ,

Woof All:

One day back when we were working together at the RAW Gym in El Segundo (a world class MMA gym in those days) in the mid 2000s, (so I would be in my early-mid 50s and still pretty close to the fighting shape of my DB years) I was watching my friend Chris Gizzi (the Green B1ay Packer linebacker you see in "Kali-Tudo 1" who is now the strength and conditioning coach for the Packers) work with a San Diego Charger lineman (6'7", 290 lbs) to help him get ready for Camp.

Chris called me over and said to the man "Marc knows kung fu."

Uh oh , , ,

Some friendly banter ensued and somehow we wound up doing a bit of friendly slap boxing. Obviously the man could have splattered me; fortunately he dialed down to where I could play too. I pulled off a really slick move (the one I focus on in Kali Tudo-3) and he complimented me. "I've never seen that before. Let's do some more." Then he timed me with a cross like I have never been timed and I complimented him.

"That was a Lennox Lewis cross." (LL was a heavyweight boxing champ for a time).

"Pray tell, what makes it a LL cross?"

He shared the answer with me.

Afterwards, Chris asked me how I thought I would do in a real fight with one of his NFL buddies. I hemmed and hawed, and Chris said to me "A lot of these guys are from really tough backgrounds. They may not have formal fight training, but they've been in lots of fights. They are great athletes who are real comfortable with contact. They will "go nitrous" at you for about forty five seconds and then they will gas out. The question is whether you can survive the forty five seconds."

A few weeks later Chris was working with another of his NFL buddies. This one was about 6' and 260 lbs. Again Chris playfully set up a friendly engagement. We agreed that I would not be able to stop the man from tackling me (Duh!!!) and agreed to assume I would survive the tackle by guiding him into my guard (in the real world not a given!), so the game began with us with MMA gloves on and him in my guard.

As Chris had predicted he surged forward with moderate contact simulating continuous violent punches. I could feel that, as Chris had predicted, he had no martial arts training so I was able to walk on my upper back and shoulders by pressing on his head and traps so as to keep his head low on my body. Almost nothing landed. After about forty five seconds he gassed and I began simulating some elbow spikes on his head. We smiled and shook hands and from the sidelines Chris gave me a wink.

As I got up and walked away one of the pro fighters in the gym gave me a little fist bump of respect-- the old man had represented the gym well-- a moment I cherish.

Over the years since then (15?!?) I have reflected on this matter of "going nitrous" and its role in fighting. About ten years ago, I started working on my 100' dash at the football field at the high school at the end of the block where I live.

At first I was stunned to realize how many years it was since I had explosively exerted myself. At first, my times were hideous (22 seconds or so). Gradually I worked down to being consistently in the mid to low 15s, with one glorious day where I hit 14.24 (ideal conditions: Chinese massage two days before, really good night's sleep, great bowel movement that morning haha, etc).

Then hip arthritis became a problem and to avoid injury I stopped sprinting. Eventually after a few years of this, in December 2017 I had the hip replaced. Amazing! Wish I had done it sooner!

When it became time to sprint again (spring 2019), my first time coming back I was at 18.10. A pleasant surprise-- not as bad as I had feared it would be-- and in a month I was down to 16.40. I had visions of getting back into the 15s in fairly short order.

Then a long term issue caught up with me. Apparently my right shoulder issues were due to the development of a rather substantial bone spur and in June at the DBMA Camp it finishes fraying its way through the supraspinatus tendon. #$%^#$%^!!! Very painful @#$%@#$%!!!

Having trained my way out of many injuries over the years, it took me about six weeks to realize that whatever it was it was something I was not going to be able to fix on my own and I went to see my surgeon who promptly diagnosed it.

Surgery was August 16 and this was followed up by six weeks in a high tech sling and a lot of pain. (God bless percocet and prunes!) The sling came off about two weeks ago-- what a blessing to be able to move my arms in natural counter balance to my footwork! With this, I returned to my basic agility drills at the football field.

Last week I worked up to lightly sprinting, and this week I did it for time. I did not push myself, the shoulder is still tender and I did not want to irritate it, but even so I hit 19.04. Given the seriously diminished level of activity for the last few months, actually I was rather pleased.

The point is not to impress with my times-- for they are not impressive. The point is to stay in touch with and develop as best as we can our ability to "Go nitrous". If we compare ourselves to others as we get older it can be easy to become demotivated as we fall into the mind trap of young male hierarchical competition , , , and quit.

Around DBMA we say "If you ain't the lead sled dog the view is all the same. No one beats everyone all the time. Everyone looks at someone's butt sometimes. So be not humble and be not proud; respect others as you respect yourself."

In DBMA we define our mission as "To walk as warriors for all our days". One piece of that is to know what your nitrous burst is. Without knowing that it can be hard to assess well your best course of action in a given moment.

I remember watching Guro Inosanto go really hard on the Muay Thai bag for 45 minutes non-stop some years back (his Academy on Rayford in Playa del Rey). We watched with jaws hanging. I went up to him afterwords and he said to me "It is good to stay in touch with where you are really at."

Exactly so!

And so I continue my 100' dash work. At the moment I am confident I can get back into the 16s and aspire to the 15s. I aspire to to getting to where I feel like working the 220 and the 440 as well.

I am just an old man having a good time , , , and if I should ever have to "pull the trigger and go nitrous" I will know what I can do.

The Adventure continues!
Crafty Dog Marc Denny

Oct. 2, 2019


What Moscow Really Wants From Venezuela


Russia has both economic and domestic political reasons for supporting the Maduro government.


By Ekaterina Zolotova


Throughout Venezuela’s ongoing political crisis, Russia has been among its staunchest supporters. Last week, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro visited Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, hoping for some reassurances of the Kremlin’s continued support for his administration amid the ongoing turmoil in his country and international pressure for him to step down. In September, the United States imposed new sanctions (against four shipping companies registered in Cyprus and Panama) aimed at stopping Venezuelan oil exports headed for Cuba. The U.S. also promised last week to provide the Venezuelan opposition with $52 million in aid. The European Union, meanwhile, introduced sanctions against seven members of the Venezuelan security and intelligence forces. Russia, however, hasn’t wavered in its support for Venezuela. Indeed, Moscow has not only foreign policy reasons to maintain strong relations with Caracas but domestic ones, too.
The two countries are long-time allies, but their ties peaked around 2012. Moscow considered Venezuela among its main strategic partners, provided generous loans and supplied a wide range of goods. Several Russian companies were involved in the development of Venezuelan oil fields, Russian-made KAMAZ trucks were in wide supply, and Russia participated in a pro-government housing construction program in Venezuela. But geopolitical tensions, as well as tough sanction policies against both Russia and Venezuela, significantly complicated Russia-Venezuela relations. High inflation and the risk of default in Venezuela also affected the willingness of Russian investors and exporters to do business with Venezuela and the ability of Venezuelan companies to sell their goods to foreign customers.
Nonetheless, the Kremlin has chosen to seek greater cooperation with Caracas for several reasons. First, from an economic perspective, Russia and Venezuela have much to gain from maintaining close ties. Both have large markets and production potential.


 

(click to enlarge)


Trade between the two has fluctuated over the years, however. When it comes to oil, Russian companies of course have an interest in Venezuela – the country, after all, has the largest oil reserves in the world, exceeding 300 billion barrels, according to OPEC. Some Russian oil companies have therefore invested in the Venezuelan energy sector. But in recent years, many Russian oil companies have left Venezuela, put off by the political uncertainty, security risks and general low quality of Venezuelan oil, not to mention the threat of sanctions. Yet a small group of companies, including Rosneft and Gazprom Neft, remains, despite U.S. threats to impose new penalties. In early September, for example, Washington said it was considering sanctions against Rosneft for its involvement in the Venezuelan oil sector; Rosneft, however, continues to purchase oil and develop fields in Venezuela.
Russia also sees Venezuela as a potential market for Russian wheat (wheat exports to Venezuela in 2018 increased by 33 percent year over year), mechanical engineering products and medical supplies. Such products could provide some relief from the scarcity issues plaguing Venezuela since the crisis began. For its part, Venezuela sees Russia as a potential buyer of its agricultural products. Russia already buys food products from other Latin American countries – these tend to be cheaper than Russian food products despite logistical costs and tariffs. In fact, Uruguay and Argentina account for 7 percent and 5 percent respectiely of Russian dairy imports. In addition, Argentina is the second-largest supplier of cheese to Russia after Belarus.
The Kremlin also has domestic political reasons for wanting to increase cooperation with Venezuela. It sees an opportunity to boost its approval rating by backing the Maduro government because Russian public opinion tends to be favorable toward Venezuela, and Latin America in general. A survey released in February by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center found that 57 percent of respondents were interested in current events in Venezuela. It also found that 20 percent of Russians see the deteriorating political and economic situation in Venezuela as a result of actions by other countries, particularly the United States. When it comes to the Venezuelan opposition and anti-government protesters, 15 percent said they felt indifferent, 12 percent felt distrust and 11 percent condemned them. Thus, if Moscow were to refuse to help Maduro, it might experience some backlash from the Russian public. Moreover, the amount of support Russia has provided – food supplies and a small number of troops for nonmilitary support – doesn’t carry a huge financial burden for Moscow anyway. Considering that it, too, has seen a recent wave of anti-government protests, it has been inclined to help Caracas in its time of need.


 

(click to enlarge)


In addition, Russia has an interest in increasing its presence in the Western Hemisphere, in the United States’ own backyard. It has done so primarily by getting close to Cuba – given its proximity to the U.S. – a country the Russian prime minister is scheduled to visit later this week for the first time since 2013. But maintaining strong relations with Venezuela could also help the Kremlin boost relations with Cuba. It has been difficult for Russia to gain a substantial foothold in Venezuela, partly because the U.S. would react strongly to any Russian military involvement in the country. For this reason, not to mention the expense and logistical requirements, it’s extremely unlikely that Russia would set up a military base in Venezuela, but it did send roughly 100 troops there in March, and a group of Russian military personnel arrived in Venezuela a week ago to carry out maintenance on Russian-made equipment.
Venezuela used to be one of the largest buyers of Russian weapons; it had purchased Russian tanks, Grad multiple rocket launchers, Pechora-2M missile systems, S-300 air defense systems and many others. But today, Venezuela is no longer considered a major market for Russian arms. In the past, these goods were purchased mainly using Russian loans, and Moscow can no longer rely on Caracas to pay back its debts given the state of its economy. Moscow too is short on funds and reluctant to offer loans it can’t be sure will be paid back. Thus, Russia’s defense-related activity in Venezuela today is limited mostly to fulfilling old contracts and maintaining assets that have already been delivered under previous agreements.
Russia has unquestionable long-term economic and geopolitical interests in Venezuela. But its ability to increase its presence there is limited, in part by its own economic obstacles, which include falling oil prices, reduced federal budget revenue and deteriorating living conditions for the Russian people. Still, Moscow will continue to make gestures of increased cooperation with an eye toward strengthening ties in the long term, not only because of the potential economic benefits but also because the Kremlin knows this is a popular policy position at home.

TTT

https://gumroad.com/l/kali-tudo-4

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/entire-police-forces-continue-arrested-mexico/?fbclid=IwAR37BhCZtvMeUwEOoHmsDM5Irhs90u8WHc7b3zUqvVVNKfV9zSItb-nB-zs

https://www.apnews.com/9231894fd9bf451e92a6ba64e3c68dc2?fbclid=IwAR1CuzWgpK8yvuvibjwWLsQ3xSruVP7pIs_rfzjeJ9rR9ERZyfHO04csfQQ

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/entire-police-forces-continue-arrested-mexico/?fbclid=IwAR1F1SelQPjGUDq_lZC870QiuFFB5t2qqP22pfP1p5wEe2ygxcvhvhsCkRk

https://combatsportslaw.com/2019/08/17/study-only-9-minutes-of-boxing-sparring-results-in-acute-and-transient-brain-changes/?fbclid=IwAR2fnWpO2rIgtu6Epl8V9Op7ZNcaENmCBH6udolPqpjrw5mw3Epu1-0RYWg

GETTING TO THE SHOT - PART 1

Today on my forum, warriortalk.com, a member commented in incredulity on the El Paso shooting. That a place like Texas, with so many CCW licensees, and likely many in the Walmart being covertly armed, that nobody shot the gunman. The same could be said of any mass shooting that takes place in any state where CCW is prolific. A great question.

Here is what I think.

1). Most people, whether police or private citizens, have a trained aversion to kill and will do everything possible to not engage. The guys that interdict active shooters are outliers in society. When most people on scene are of the violence-avoidance types, they will most likely not engage the shooter. See my prior articles on Fear Aggression , and The Predator Mind.

2). The information flow is always the same, but many will not be able to process it fast enough to act upon it. A great deal has to do with proximity, but also what the individual’s perception of events is. The man on scene receives information first hand but may or may not understand it.

Were those shots?
Why are people running?
Where is the shooter?
What does he look like?
What can I do?
What will I do?

The more internal debate that takes place, the more one will talk themselves out of action and into submission or flight. And CCW folk are nothing special. They are everyday average people that happen to have a pistol with them, but their self-identity is no different from the fleeing masses of victims. Running to cover with everyone else and allowing someone “more qualified” is far more comfortable than doing the opposite of the herd, and I expect many will take the easy way out. And they likely have already prepared a myriad of “reasonable” excuses to justify themselves.

The flow of information for police may be different as they are receiving justification data on the radio. But at the risk of being labelled anti-police, I saw the same thing when I was on the job. Officers who had the shot, were justified ten times over, but failed to act. Society has not changed and police that come from that society will not be very different.

The officers that speed to the scene to kill the gunman are outliers in their field and likely passing by other officers that are somehow not moving as fast…or not taking the same direct route to contact…or are waylaid by victims and other things not directly involved in killing the gunman. That is human nature. Sometimes we get a perfect confluence of events with the outlier officer and the gunman and he is eliminated in minutes. Other times we get debacles like Broward County and Thousand Oaks. In my opinion, the conclusion will depend on who arrives on scene in time to act.

But what of the guys that are not already soul-snatching meat eaters, but want to be? Becoming that is not difficult if the will is there to do so.

First is understanding what you want to be and do. What is your self image? Are you just another armed but helpless victim, or are you the one that will interdict the active shooter? How do you see yourself? Decide now and engrave that deep in your mind. The rest will follow easily.