Discussion about this post

User's avatar
uncle tungsten's avatar

Thank you Karl. Perhaps this is the reason behind the occasional not so subtle hints that the USA might walk away from the UN. I am not sure they will actually do that but first they will rely on the 'judicial activism' of the supreme court (if I can use that term in the US case) to reject the notion that the UN treaty binds the US constitution. We are talking about a nation that excels in calling black as white and vice versa. You have made the case really well and I trust some brave souls in South America seek compensation at the ICJ for repeated breaches of the UN Charter by the outlaw USA.

I wont be waiting for Tulsi Haggard to start up on behalf of Hawaii.

Expand full comment
uncle tungsten's avatar

While Karl is enjoying the good clean family fun I might pose a burning question. I was being entertained by shipping news from Sal at what's going on with shipping

https://youtu.be/2Wim-_Q_59o Who Pays?

It crossed my mind that insurance is likely hedged with collateralized debt obligations and this Baltimore bridge disaster is one humungous financial loss for the USA (at least) when one considers the ramifications for supply chain cost blowouts. I don't really have a deep knowledge of finance capitalism but I do know that all manner of debt obligations get bundled up and reincarnated as 'securities' and sold to suckers (like Baltimore bridges) then eventually a 2008 event comes along. So what is the state of play? Is Sal correct and some form of 'Titanic limitation' likely to be invoked to fix a limit or even an escape clause for insurance contracts. Would any merchant of Venice even tolerate such an escape.

Watch the video and perhaps Karl might invite some commentary from comrades Michael Hudson and associates. The outlaw US empire seems to have hit a wall in Baltimore. No pun intended ;))

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts