https://rightwirereport.com/2022/06/08/clinton-body-count-see-the-exhaustive-list-adding-another-mark-middleton/
Judi Gibbs (1986) – the one-time Penthouse Pet, died alongside her lover Bill Puterburgh, 57, in an unexplained house fire in Fordyce, Arkansas. She was a high-class prostitute who used hotels and racetracks to pick up rich and powerful men and was known to have had an affair with then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton who would fly her from her hometown to Little Rock.
Stanley Huggins (1987) – who died in June. In 1987, Huggins examined the loan practices of the thrift Madison Guaranty at the center of the Whitewater storm. His 400-gage report has never been made public. But Dr. Richard Callery, Delaware’s top medical examiner, says Huggins died of viral myocarditis and bronchial pneumonia. Lt. Joel Ivory of the University of Delaware police says his “exhaustive” investigation of Huggins’s death turned up “no sign at all of the foul play.” However, the flood of accusations showed no sign of abating.
Danny Casolaro (1991) – Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
Paul Tulley (1992) – Democratic National Committee Political Director, was found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock in September 1992. Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser (1992) – Major players in the Clinton fundraising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992. Five others also died in the plane crash.
>Paul Tulley (1992) – Democratic National Committee Political Director, was found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock in September 1992. Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
Democratic Political Director Paul Tully Found Dead at Hotel
latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-25-mn-1217-story.html
L.A. Times Archives Sept. 25, 1992 12 AM PTSeptember 25, 1992
From Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. —
Paul Tully, political director of the Democratic National Committee, was found dead Thursday in his hotel room, authorities said. He was 48.
Pulaski County Coroner Steve Nawojczyk said Tully appeared to have died of natural causes, probably heart attack or stroke.
Tully, who had been directing state-by-state targeting for the Clinton campaign, was apparently stricken while getting ready for bed Wednesday night, Nawojczyk said.
His body was found by a maid in his hotel room late Thursday afternoon, the coroner said.
“Everybody here is still in a state of shock,” said Betsey Wright, research director for Bill Clinton’s campaign.
In a statement, Clinton called Tully “a dear friend and trusted adviser. Paul had one of the nation’s greatest political minds and one of its biggest hearts.”
Tully was a beefy, intense, chain-smoking political operative who moved in and out of top Democratic campaigns for more than a decade. He worked on the presidential campaigns of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) in 1980, Walter F. Mondale in 1984, Gary Hart, and later Michael Dukakis in 1988, after Hart’s effort collapsed.
Tully moved to the Democratic National Committee after Ronald H. Brown became chairman in 1989.
>https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1534906387599396866
https://twitter.com/DaltonEmahiser/status/1534906592411410432
https://twitter.com/bymissfrancis/status/1534906777845739521
Replying to
@POTUS
''A man robbing a Cricket Wireless store in Phoenix, AZ brutally attacked a female employee.''
10:34 AM · Jun 9, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/desertlife88/status/1534574629875945472
''DeNiro says Biden got us into “calm waters and is doing a very good job .” 🤔-''
From
Tom Elliott
12:34 PM · Jun 8, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/GroupofThirty/status/1534916824659333120
11:14 AM · Jun 9, 2022·Twitter Web App
''#G30 member @RaghuramRRajan discusses the downsides of "friend-shoring" trade mandates stating that, if applied too broadly, "they would have devastating effects on international trade."-''
Just Say No to “Friend-Shoring”
project-syndicate.org/commentary/friend-shoring-higher-costs-and-more-conflict-without-resilience-by-raghuram-rajan-2022-06
June 3, 2022
Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Jun 3, 2022 Raghuram G. Rajan
Following major shocks to global supply chains in recent years, it is not surprising that governments are groping for new policies to build more resilience and ensure a continuous supply of critical inputs. But abandoning free and fair trade is not the answer.
CHICAGO – In an important speech to the Atlantic Council in April, US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen issued a welcome call for revitalizing the world economic order. But she also generated headlines with a single sentence advocating what she called “friend-shoring”: that is, limiting the trade of key inputs to trusted countries in order to reduce risks to the supply chains on which the United States and its partners rely.
The Supply Solution to Stagflation Economics
1/
The Supply Solution to Stagflation Economics
This should worry us. Today’s global supply chains – made possible by reductions in tariffs and lower transportation and communication costs – have transformed production by allowing firms to manufacture goods wherever it is cheapest to do so. This has generally meant that while high-value-added inputs (such as research and development, design, advertising, and finance) are sourced in advanced economies, manufacturing moves to emerging markets and developing countries.
The benefits are obvious. Final products are significantly less expensive, so even the poorest people in rich countries can buy them.
At the same time, developing countries participate in the production process, using their most valuable resource: low-cost labor. As their workers gain skills, their own manufacturers move to more sophisticated production processes, climbing the value chain. As workers’ incomes rise, they buy more rich-country products.
By 2017, for example, China had more iPhone users than any other country. Knowledge workers in rich countries then earn higher incomes as the market for high-value products grows.
Of course, even though trade yields net benefits, the distribution of gains and losses matters. Trade is not simply “win-win.” Hollowed-out small towns in the American Midwest attest to the downside of offshoring production.
It has ever been thus: Across the advanced economies, today’s rust-belt towns and cities initially grew by putting traditional craft workers elsewhere out of work. With the right policy support, however, trade need not leave people or communities behind. In Scandinavia, firms constantly focus on upgrading their workers’ skills so that they are ready for change.
These are the basic, Economics 101 arguments in support of free and fair trade. But in recent years, global supply chains have displayed new vulnerabilities. In their desire to maximize efficiency, companies have sometimes overlooked resilience. Climate disasters (including floods, droughts, and wildfires) and shocks like the pandemic-induced lockdowns have highlighted “just-in-time” supply chains’ many chokepoints.
As a result, firms are now considering whether they should increase their inventories as an additional buffer. They are also looking for ways to reduce chokepoints by diversifying production locations across countries, and to increase flexibility by making inputs more substitutable. Such private-sector responses can preserve the viability of global supply chains.
But resurgent protectionism – cloaked and augmented by new geopolitical rivalries – constitutes a more dangerous threat. The tit-for-tat tariffs between the US and China during Donald Trump’s presidency were the opening salvos. The West’s subsequent restrictions on the Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s sales, and China’s restrictions on Australian imports, added more policy uncertainty to the mix. Now, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has introduced the possibility of an angry public broadening official sanctions beyond what policymakers intend.
If all that is not sufficient to make corporate CEOs rethink the value of their global supply chains, government advocacy of friend-shoring certainly will. True, national security can never be taken lightly. It is legitimate for a country to ensure that goods and services essential to its national defense are produced domestically or by friendly neighbors. The problem is that “essential” is often broadened by protectionist interests to include even widely produced commodities like steel or aluminum.
2/x
If any forthcoming friend-shoring mandates were to apply such a broad categorization, they would have devastating effects on international trade. After all, friend-shoring will typically mean trading with countries that have similar values and institutions; and that, in practice, will mean transacting only with countries at similar levels of development.
The benefits of a global supply chain stem precisely from the fact that it involves countries with very different income levels, allowing each to bring its comparative advantage to the production process – PhD researchers from one, for example, and unskilled assembly-line workers from another. Friend-shoring would tend to eliminate this dynamic, thereby increasing production costs and consumer prices. While some labor unions would welcome the reduced competition, the rest of us would regret it.
Moreover, it is not even clear that on-shoring or near-shoring production helps to increase resilience or the reliability of supply. In the US, baby formula is supplied by a government-supported oligopoly of four domestic firms that are protected from foreign competition by high tariffs. But, at this moment, there is no baby formula to be had in some US states, owing to problems in just one facility. So much for building resilience through domestic production!
By the same token, concentrating production within a gated community of advanced economies would not necessarily increase the security of the community. As Brexit showed, friends do not always stay friends. Even countries as close in temperament as the US and Canada had serious disagreements during Trump’s presidency.
Even more to the point, existing economic interdependencies can make geostrategic rivals more reluctant to launch missiles at one another. Many observers have noted that China will think twice before invading Taiwan now that it has seen the damage that sanctions are doing to Russia.
But if China were to prepare for an invasion, it would start by reducing its reliance on Western economies, a process that Western friend-shoring would inadvertently advance. Economic entanglements may be messy, but they help keep the peace.
Finally, friend-shoring would tend to exclude the poor countries that most need global trade in order to become richer and more democratic. It will increase the risks that these countries become failed states, fertile grounds to nurture and export terrorism. The tragedy of mass emigration will become more likely as chaotic violence increases.
Friend-shoring is an understandable policy if it is strictly limited to specific items directly affecting national security. Unfortunately, the term’s public reception already suggests that it will be used to cover much else.
Raghuram G. Rajan
Writing for PS since 2003
77 Commentaries
Raghuram G. Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the author, most recently, of The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind (Penguin, 2020).
3/3
>Raghuram G. Rajan
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/raghuram-rajan
Raghuram G. Rajan
Distinguished Service Professor of Finance, Booth School
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/raghuram-rajan-a964fa31-ad8b-433d-a56f-ddd0ff47e830
Raghuram Rajan
Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Professor of Finance , University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-capitalism-needs-populism/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/going-the-extra-mile-distant-lending-and-credit-cycles/