Behind the media circus around Trump’s latest shenanigans, there is a serious agenda to entrench the American empire.
Jem Bendell is Professor of Sustainability Leadership, University of Cumbria, UK. He has recently published the book ‘Breaking Together – a freedom-loving response to collapse’.
Cross-posted from Jem Bendell’s blog
Behind the headlines that are naively pro- or anti- Trump, there is a not-so-hidden agenda from the US government to remove any threat to continued US hegemony via its dominance of monetary systems. This is occurring in a context where the oil-backed dollar will not have the same power in decades to come. That means attempts are underway to secure future financial control in our digital era, where a handful of large companies have immense power. With this imperial agenda in mind, it is possible to predict future policy moves and consider how we wish to respond in our own lives and work.
To begin with, it is important to recognise the economic context we live within. The world is experiencing a new variant of capitalism, where a handful of international corporations control digital territory. In this internet age, it means they increasingly control our means of communication, trade and financial transaction. Some people think this is better described as ‘techno-feudalism’, rather than a more virulent form of monopolistic international capitalism. That term encourages us to recognise our subtle enslavement to corporations, and their executives, who increasingly influence our perceptions and behaviours.
I had this new era in mind when, in the book Breaking Together, I identified a hidden reason for the policy launched in 2020, which saw Central Banks in the US, UK and EU provide huge sums to their largest corporations, via corporate bond buying. A large part of that money was used for the acquisition of stakes in companies around the world. In particular, there has been a neo-colonial dash for owning and growing digital territories. That’s because in every country there is now an online marketplace similar to Amazon or Ebay, or subsidiaries of such international firms.
I regard the latest policies from the new US Administration to be an extension of that agenda. The team behind President Donald Trump in 2025 are pursuing a plan that will use tariffs to secure policies that suit the interests of those US corporations backing his government. Some commentators, notably the economist Yanis Varoufakis, believe this will eventually lead to the US demanding that countries swap existing US Treasury debt for new instruments that are more favourable to the US government, and thereby reduce the burden of the US debt and maintain the power of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. That might be so, but there is another reason that will have more significant implications for culture, economics and governance, in countries around the world. It is clear that the people around the President want to use US economic strength to remove any impediments to the growth of US tech companies in other countries. President Trump has said this himself, identifying EU requirements on Silicon Valley companies as unfair. He means those requirements to regulate data usage and potential user manipulation, efforts to claim appropriate levels of tax, and measures to curb the monopolistic practices and power of BigTech. Therefore, the recent US criticism of EU approaches to the freedom of online speech could be just a principled-sounding excuse for a future trade war that demands EU acquiescence to US BigTech. Whereas prior to the Ukraine War the EU could have been strong enough to resist such pressure, a deindustrialising continent facing ongoing energy costs, is less likely to resist. Post Brexit, an economically vulnerable UK is also unlikely to resist. Together they might try to justify to their citizens and companies that they need to give in the US demands in return for maintaining ongoing security and military cooperation.
Whereas some commentators think the Trump agenda is an unsophisticated attempt to prop-up the power of the US dollar in the world economy while also bringing jobs back to the US, it may be more focused on how the US maintains its hegemonic power as the share of oil in countries’ energy mix declines. That decline means that countries will not need as many dollars in relation to the size of their economies as they do today. So what will be the future global reserve currency? Some ‘realist’ economists in the US will want any future global reserve currency to enable the transfer of the world’s goods and services to the US in a similar way that the dominance of the dollar currently supports. The fact that the majority of people in the world might soon be relying on communications, marketplace and payment tools that are provided US corporations, or the companies that they own, looks like the starting point for securing a system that serves the US after the end of the dominance of the oil-backed dollar. That means that by working closely with the US government, the US BigTech firms will play a key role in shaping the next reserve currency – whether it is an instrument denominated in the US dollar, a reputation currency, or a hybrid, or a basket of instruments, or some other arrangement beyond my understanding. The support of Tech Giants for the Trump administration makes more sense when seen as part of a US attempt to increase its global tech dominance and ensure it shapes the new international monetary arrangements that will emerge in the coming years. What was once branded as a wave of freedom-enabling innovation from the liberal culture of San Francisco, has firmly morphed into the global wiring of US Imperialism. In that sense, it’s digital pay back time for the convenience we have had over the last 20 years of enjoying the internet while not organising better to maintain and build our own power.
This analysis of Trump’s economic agenda also predicts US hostility towards any Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). As the role of cash has declined, governments have less ability to generate the currency of their own country, and instead use the electronic bank deposits that are issued by private banks, through loans and bond buying. This makes sovereign nations beholden to international banks, which hold the ridiculous privilege of profiting from issuing our money supply and deciding who gets it for what price (due to interest payments and collateral requirements). That is a globally destructive situation, because it drives an imperative for infinite economic growth to avoid defaults, bankruptcies, budget cuts and unemployment, as I explained in some detail in a joint paper with a Professor of Economics, Christian Arnsperger. There are valid concerns about how a CBDC could become a tool of surveillance and control. Those concerns appear to have been addressed in the design of the Digital Euro, which will enable fully private transactions. That compares with the existing mechanisms of electronic payments, where at least 6 companies are required to authorise any of our payments while also collecting data about our transactions. Due to the potential for CBDCs to eat into the profits and power of private banks, they supported the demonisation of CBDCs, which was then amplified by commentators who seem blissfully unaware of the tyranny and destructiveness of the existing system of electronic money. That means there is likely to be support in Europe for the US government if it requests the cancelling, postponement or limited deployment the Digital Euro in future trade negotiations. That is a case of slaves begging to keep their chains, for fear of worse chains to come. It would mean BigTech would have more influence on the future of our monetary system, including a role for their our privately-issued currencies which would further empower themselves over the public.
It suits the elites perfectly that neither the mainstream media nor the alternative media discuss these geo-political-economic trends, and instead keep people fixated on a circus of characters and side issues. Neither mainstream or alternative media examine how monetary power really works today and what the great powers might be trying to do as they face a change in the future global energy mix and implications for the US dollar and, therefore, US hegemony. I mentioned Yanis Varoufakis earlier, and at least those journalists platforming his analysis are inviting us to look more closely at what the real agendas might be. If you want more background on the ideas I’ve described here, then I recommend Chapter 2 of Breaking Together, and then listening to Varoufakis on Break Through News. I have a different emphasis to him on where I think the new US policies are heading, as I think they aren’t just about restructuring and reducing the US deficit or propping up the US dollar – but those will be steps along the way. What the US government demands of EU and UK on BigTech regulation, and perhaps even on the Digital Euro, will soon tell us which way they are heading.
What does my analysis mean we should do? I don’t assume that the US will be successful in the aims I’ve outlined. The rapid degradation of the global environment and the breaking of the foundational systems of industrial consumer societies mean that their grand games will likely turn out to be hubris. But I also believe we are spectators to these processes and most people we talk to are misled by their media, so any organising towards realistic alternatives is a pipe dream. Therefore, I don’t see us having any impact at a national or international level. Rather, we can explore how to live with more freedom from the grand games of global exploitation, and prepare to cope better as there are declines or breakdowns in banks, currencies and financial systems. And, no, buying gold is not an answer. If you are interested in that, my colleague Matthew Slater explained how we can prepare for financial collapse in a previous essay. Because I agree with him that the response to this situation is to intentionally re-localise our economies while building transaction and credit systems which are separate from the global financial games, I will be speaking at the Festival of Commoning in Stroud, UK. It is an indicator of my conviction on this matter that my participation there in September will be my only in-person collapse-related talk to an English-speaking audience this year. Maybe see you there?
Be the first to comment