American banker offers Russia a way to destroy the United States

A well-known banker, former head of the most influential bank in the United States and a person on the Time Magazine’s list, Lloyd Blankfein, said the US economy and army could be destroyed in the not-too-distant future, reports usatodaynews.live.

The statement of the ex-General Goldman Sachs became one of the main news of the American media field, and a certain emotional reaction of the American media and political community is connected with the fact that Mr. Blankfein identified Russia as a potential co-author and beneficiary of the impending catastrophe.

“If the Democrats nominated Sanders (in the presidential election), the Russians will have to reconsider who they work for in order to best (followed by an expressive verb meaning decisively inflicting humiliating damage) on the United States.

Sanders is as controversial in society as Trump is, and he will ruin our economy and not care about our armed forces. If I were Russian, I would prefer Sanders this time. ”

The most interesting thing in this story is that, firstly, Blankfein himself is also a democrat, and secondly, that he is, by and large, right in assessing political risks that could cause irreparable damage to the American economy if a socialist president is elected. Although Russia, of course, did not and will not have any relation to the results of the American presidential election.

It is also noteworthy that the public speech of one of the most hated American bankers against the socialist senator can be a serious image victory for Sanders himself, which will help him enlist the support of the electorate in the struggle for the right to represent the Democratic Party in the presidential election.

They can vote for him simply because he did not personally like the ex-head of Goldman Sachs — that is, a bank that is known for receiving multibillion-dollar state loans — the nickname Kalmar the vampire and the fact that people from this bank hold the posts of finance ministers The United States, regardless of the political orientation of the president, as well as senior positions in many European central banks.

What so frightened the famous and influential banker?

The version of the flagship American press, The New York Times, is consistent with the most popular explanation for what happened.

“Bernie Sanders proposed a wealth tax for the richest Americans, criticized big business for making huge profits while paying few taxes, and said he believed there shouldn't be billionaires, informs usnewslivetv. His victory in the Tuesday primary election in New Hampshire made believable what Wall Street had considered the worst-case scenario for several months: the inauguration of President Sanders. Mr. Sanders, a recognized socialist whose plans are to gut the private healthcare system and tighten the screws on loans and other banking operations, is seen by many traders, investors and bankers as the only candidate who is even more objectionable than Senator Elizabeth Warren, which they actively hate (in this environment). ”

What is worth noting here. Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont, really would have a good chance of winning the primaries of the Democratic Party, but only if they were truly honest. We already wrote about how the electronic voting system in Iowa (the first state in which the pre-election of a democratic candidate is held) caused the collapse of the electoral process, and then it suddenly turned out that the application for polling stations was written by a company founded by one of the candidates, and then this candidate unexpectedly turned out to be the winner of the vote, despite the fact that the socialist senator received the most votes.

A similar situation occurred in 2016, when the party establishment decided that Hillary Clinton should be the candidate — and it was she who, in violation of all possible procedures and voting rules of the party delegates, was “nominated” as a candidate from the Democratic Party. As a result of this betrayal of trust by the electorate, approximately one in ten Sanders supporters ultimately voted for Trump, which played a role in his shocking victory.

Now the situation may well repeat itself, but the primaries still resemble elections without a choice, because the candidate is now determined at the level of decisions of the party nomenclature, not the electorate. The nomenclature chooses between two candidates: the ex-mayor of the city of South Bend, the ex-intelligence officer and the ex-employee of the famous consulting company McKinsey Pete Buttigieg — and the owner of the news agency Bloomberg and the ex-mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg.

On the side of Buttigic are youth, attractive appearance and the fact that he is an open representative of sex minorities who does not hesitate to kiss his “husband” right on the stage during his meetings with voters. On the side of Bloomberg are political experience and the fact that he is a multi-billionaire, ready to invest colossal own funds in the election campaign. Sanders has a chance to win only if the establishment decides to organize a “show defeat” of the socialist from Trump with the aim to wean the Democratic Party supporters from supporting candidates who advocate the most radical forms of implementation of social justice in the next electoral cycle.

Lloyd Blankfein is right in his assessment of the consequences of electing a socialist as US president, but the banker himself, most likely, cannot clearly explain in public space the causes of the disaster “under President Sanders.”

Let's do it for him. Social justice, the dismantling of the banking system, a sharp reduction in the American army and military presence in the world — all this is fine, if you look at the situation from the point of view of humanistic ideals, but a disaster if you look from the point of view of the interests of the United States.

If there is no over-influential banking sector, and especially if there are no hundreds of military bases around the world, as well as strike aircraft carrier groups in the world's oceans, then robbing the outside world (or, for example, forcing a significant part of the world to trade oil for dollars) will fail. In this scenario, the United States, including ordinary American citizens, for the first time in decades will have to learn to live their own labor and spend their own money earned. Moreover, Americans will also have to try to sell to the world not their own bonds, financial services or “protection”, but goods and services created by their own labor, which should be competitive (including price) in comparison with, for example, Chinese counterparts. Such a life is unlikely to please even the Sanders voters themselves, not to mention the Pentagon generals or the Wall Street bigwigs. It is on the basis of these considerations that it can be assumed that the data of the polls by which the socialist-populist leads is irrelevant: they simply will not be allowed to take power and they will be stopped either by the establishment of their own party, or, in extreme cases, by Donald Trump personally in the autumn elections.

However, regardless of the details of the political election scenario, American experts and bankers will complain that Russia is receiving its bonuses — in the form of weakening Americans' faith in their own democracy. And this is especially true of Sanders’s many young supporters — their disappointment guarantees undermining public stability in the United States for many years or even decades.