The Daily Beast
It is a symbolic coincidence that on the same day, June 13, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, tried their best to win over big factory workers, financial tycoons, the nouveau riche and, in general, representatives of big and very big business. Yellen spoke at the Economic Club of New York, while Trump spoke at the Business Roundtable in Washington.
«Both sides try to sell corporate America on their vision for 2025 and beyond», explains Hans Nichols, a political columnist for Axios, a news website based in Arlington, Virginia, whose name translates from Greek as (áxios), «Worthy».
Janet Yellen’s key message: tax cuts for the rich, both corporations and individuals, and deregulation for big business, are not the best ways to get the economy growing. Her boss has repeatedly blamed corporations for driving up inflation with their greed and thereby engaging in «robbing people» through greedflation.
Trump, on the other hand, was true to himself: he insisted on freeing the entrepreneurial wealthy class, or rather their businesses, from government tutelage (deregulation) and on the need to lower taxes for them. Trump saved a special curtsies for oil and gas tycoons, who are already allergic to the Democrats who are pushing the «green agenda» that is ruinous for them.
In May, speaking to his exalted supporters in Wildwood, New Jersey, Trump promised them, «Instead of Biden’s tax increase, I will give you a big tax cut for the middle class, the upper class, the lower class and the business class».
The promise and message are powerful, because Trump’s record already includes a corporate tax cut from 35% to 21%, which became law in his first term. But there’s one thing: the executive order on some benefits expires in 2025. Businesses are already nervous, which plays into Trump’s hands.
«President Trump is focused on rebuilding an economy in which hardworking Americans can once again live the American dream, and he understands that business leaders have an important role to play in that effort». With such strictly calculated language, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign staff, lures both entrepreneurs and «hard-working Americans» into the net.
Josh Boak, a columnist for the Washington Post, a Democratic mouthpiece, in the June 10 issue, points out that Joe Biden is also trying to position himself as an advocate not only for corporations but also for «hard-working Americans».
A piquant argument offered by political technologists: Joe Biden cannot be anti-business because he is a former senator from Delaware, which is considered the «corporate capital of the world». Which is true: more than a million corporations are incorporated here, including 63% of Fortune 500 companies.
Trump emphasizes that he is an entrepreneur, a real estate developer — look how many hotels he has around the world — and has also made his mark in marketing, selling everything from educational courses to steaks and neckties, and his Trump Media & Technology Group shares are traded on the stock market.
For Democrats, a major upset was the news that Trump’s camp is growing, especially at the expense of the moneybags. Thus, Bill Ackman, a billionaire from predominantly «blue» New York, announced that he would support the former president’s rematch. Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder of Blackstone Inc, whose personal fortune is estimated at $41 billion (among the 40 richest people in the world) announced that he will again support Trump, as a longtime sponsor of the Republican Party. The number of bigwigs willing to support Trump has been steadily growing.
And it’s no coincidence that a landmark notification came from Joe Biden’s campaign headquarters. As part of the direct communication with businessmen and businesswomen that was Janet Yellen’s speech and exchange of views at the Economic Club of New York, the Democrats wanted to know how they could help the business community. And at the same time to explain why Biden is better than Trump.
The most expected argument for the influential financial and oligarchic clans of the United States, used by Democratic appointees, boils down to two assertions. The first argument is that Trump’s planned increase in tariffs on imported products, if he is re-elected, «could destroy relations with trading partners and damage corporate profits», according to the Washington Post.
It should be understood in such a way that the fat part of the economy, represented by trade intermediaries, who make money on the scheme «buy and sell», may lose their usual profits. It is a well-known fact: not so long ago, 90% of all goods that filled the shelves and racks in the country’s and the world’s largest wholesale and retail chain, Wallmart (every third American shops there), were made in China, which guaranteed a high rate of profit.
The second attack on Trump is even more significant and contains a sinister subtext. Quote, «Stocks and bonds could plummet if Trump tries to assert control over politically independent agencies like the Federal Reserve».
The Fed, which serves as the central bank of the United States, is an intricate structure run, if you accept the view of Murray Rothbard, author of The Case Against the Fed, by private banks and a group of individuals.
It is well known that the financial and banking clans of Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller were the initiators of the formation of the Fed as a private firm engaged in printing dollars on the condition that neither the president elected by citizens nor the U.S. Congress have the right to interfere in this sacrament.
However, who really owns the Fed is still unknown to anyone. But, as the author under the nickname «Mastermind» argues in LiveJournal, «only the close friendship and family ties of all Fed heads with the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, as well as the history of the creation of the Fed, point to them as the true owners».
When the Washington Post reminds us that Trump, an outsider with a primary focus on the industrial and commodities sectors of the economy, may encroach on the holy of holies — the financial oligarchy represented by the Fed — it should be interpreted as signals of distress and caution. The first signal is addressed to the banking community: know who is your dear friend and who is your sworn enemy.
The second signal is to the audacious parvenu, who can’t help but know about one of the loudest conspiracy theories. On June 4, 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order that gave the Treasury Department the right to print two-dollar and five-dollar bills with the inscription «Banknote of the United States» — and not with the previous indication that it is a «Federal Reserve Banknote».
The Fed was losing, in effect, its exclusive right to run the printing press. On November 22, 1963, less than six months later, Kennedy was shot on live television in a manner reminiscent of a ritual assassination for the edification of other potential renegades. The version of a lone fanatic did not fit with the fact that at the same time about 40 possible accomplices to the crime were physically eliminated. The conspiracy was large-scale, and the liquidation was executed perfectly.
Thus, the financial and banking clans allied with the Democrat Party make it known that any restriction on the unaccountability, and thus the immunity of the Fed, will be seen as crossing a red line.
The current tug-of-war between Biden and Trump, this informal beauty contest as the two contenders for power try to capture the sympathy and, more importantly, the cash flow of America’s big and not-so-big businesses, is projected onto the never-ending competition between the two poles of the national economy.
On one side is Wall Street, the stockbrokers, hedge funds and banking empires that make money out of money or its derivatives. On the other side is the real sector, which produces tangible goods or services that can be either touched or valued by the result of a transaction.
Of course, the two poles are intertwined, and sometimes financial structures are the true owners of, let’s say, enterprises manufacturing airplane landing gear or oil and gas companies producing on drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, a certain distance between the poles remains, and their modus operandi and ways of profit extraction are different. Accordingly, they have different demands and requirements to the state.
The emerging trend of large corporations moving to the Republican camp, with statements about their readiness to bet on Trump instead of Biden, indicates that the split and discord that is taking place not only in the political class, but also in the business community, is getting worse.
All of this suggests a well-founded fear that neither outcome of the November election, whoever prevails, Biden or Trump, will lead to appeasement of the warring parties. Neither is willing to accept defeat.
The traditional phrase of the winner that he or she is ready to be president of all citizens without exception, not just his or her supporters, in the context of escalating «cultural», gender-racial and other wars within American society will simply hang in the air and dissolve.
And since the antagonists seeking supreme power are supported by competing business clans, including those that run the printing press, it is unknown whether they would be willing to finance a small but noisy «color revolution». This time at home.