Posted originally on Feb 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Distributive bargaining is a competitive negotiation approach where one party aims to maximize its share from a limited pool of resources. This strategy is often called zero-sum negotiation, as the total amount of resources available remains constant. Some call this the win-lose method, as compromise is not the goal. David Honig, an attorney and adjunct professor at Indiana University, has spoken out about distributive bargaining and his belief that this is Donald Trump’s preferred negotiation style.
While I do not believe Trump is ill-prepared for the job at hand, I do believe his past experience in business has played a role in the viewpoint that America loses if there is a compromise. Integrative bargaining is a negotiation strategy that focuses on creating win-win situations where all parties feel that they are gaining something of value.
When world leaders negotiate trade agreements, international treaties, or economic policies, integrative bargaining is crucial because it encourages cooperation rather than competition. Healthy competition is what we want to see. Everyone wants a leader who fights for domestic interests first. But it is important to realize that international interests often spill over to the domestic side when we are speaking of economic matters. We cannot view the economy through purely domestic lenses.
Economies are highly interconnected through global supply chains, international trade, and cross-border investments. Disrupting these connections can and will cause significant economic instability. One cannot use distributive bargaining in economic matters since everything is connected. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada will result in an initial loss for those nations that will spread to America and elsewhere.
Below is Professor Honig’s interpretation that has been circulating online:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University – Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn’t another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM – HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
Posted originally on Feb 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Three years into the war and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has finally stated he is willing to TALK to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both Putin and Zelensky would like Trump to assist in negotiating a peace deal. Zelensky firmly said “at the negotiation table there must be the United States, Europe, Ukraine and Russia.” But that did not go well for Russia last time.
The last time European leaders sat down to mitigate Russia-Ukraine relations, they presented Moscow with the false Minsk Agreement. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel later revealed, the agreement was a complete hoax intended to buy time for Ukraine to build up its military. Putin may distrust Europe but has held out hope that Donald Trump could present a solution.
“Putin is ready. We are waiting for signals (from Washington). Everyone is ready. It is difficult to read the coffee grounds here. As soon as there is something, if there is something, we will inform you,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said weeks after Trump was elected. Putin has been asking to speak with Zelensky for many years, long before the war began. He may have held out some hope for discussions with Trump, but the Russian leader believes Zelensky’s recent statements are “empty words.” In fact, Putin no longer wants to speak with Zelensky as he does not consider him the official ruler of Ukraine. Zelensky declared himself the ruler of Ukraine without hosting a proper election, citing the war as the reason he must retain power.
Zelensky also signed a decree in 2022 that said he would not speak with Putin directly. It does not give much confidence when a leader refuses to sit down and speak with a foe. Zelensky is afraid to speak with Putin directly. Putin has been deeply engaged in politics for a lifetime while Zelensky is trained comedian and actor. He is not qualified to hold a discussion on his own.
“We will be speaking with Putin. Don’t we make too many compromises? Even the conversation with Putin is already a compromise,” Zelensky said. “Nobody knows how this conversation will start and how it will end. Nobody knows, but we believe that President Trump wants to succeed in this situation.”
Neither party has said that they would end the war without massive compromises. Ukraine is now seeking nuclear arms from the West as an alternative to NATO membership. Putin has been quite clear about what he wants. It is more likely than not that Zelensky became wrapped up in the moment of a live interview but likely does not have true intentions to negotiate peace.
Posted originally on Feb 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
President Trump announced that the US will be taking over the Gaza strip after a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump envisions transforming Gaza into an international economic hub for the Middle East. “He sees a different future for that piece of land,” Netanyahu said. “I envision the world people living there, the world’s people. You’ll make that into an international unbelievable place. I think the potential in the Gaza strip is unbelievable,” and it could be “the riviera of the Middle East,” Trump said.
As for the nearly 2 million inhabitants, well, they have been asked to leave. Gaza is not a place for people to be living. The only reason they want to go back, and I believe this strongly, is they have no alternative. What’s the alternative? Go where? If they had an alternative, they’d much rather not go back to Gaza and live in a beautiful alternative that’s safe,” he said. Arab nations have already stated that they will not accept Palestinians, but Trump said he plans to open negotiations with the likes of Egypt, Jordan, and other nearby nations.
Discussions of redeveloping Gaza began long before the war. Trump is a notorious real estate mogul. He discussed plans for redeveloping portions of Palestine in his 2020 peace plan, backed by his Jewish son-in-law and real estate developer Jared Kushner.
Real estate developers have been eyeing Gaza and have proposed numerous construction projects for Gaza. Harey Zahav, an Israeli real estate firm, created blueprints for luxury settlements along the West Bank. The company envisions beachfront homes build upon demolished land. Some say that the company was trolling but there indeed are now plans to turn this strip of land into the next Dubai. “You build really good quality housing, like a beautiful town, like some place where they can live and not die, because Gaza is a guarantee that they’re going to end up dying,” Trump told reporters.
“We consider it a recipe for creating chaos and tension in the region,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told the press. “Our people in the Gaza Strip will not allow these plans to pass, and what is required is to end the occupation and aggression against our people, not expel them from their land.” A senior Palestinian official wrote to Senator of State Marco Rubio, pleasing that his people do not want to leave their land. Rather, the people want to “live in their land and help rebuild it.”
As the Panama Canal has recently come under fire, let us not forget the Ben Gurion Canal Project. The US and Israel have been discussing plans to build a canal to rival the Suez Canal for over 50 years. The West can no longer count on the Suez Canal controlled by Egypt as tensions continue to rise with Egypt supporting Russia in its war. Yet, 20% of ALL world trade moved through the canal. The Ben Gurion Canal Project, as indicated by the declassified documents, would create an Israeli Canal to rival the Suez.
The document notes that 130 of the 160 miles dedicated to the canal are “virtually unpopulated desert wasteland,” but the primary issue would be relocating those from the Gaza Strip. “Another problem which has not been considered is that of political feasibility, as it is likely that the Arab countries surrounding Israel would object strongly to the construction of such a canal,” the declassified papers show. So, US intelligence has been looking to claim Gaza for some time now. It certainly did not begin with Trump.
Gaza must be annexed before it can be redeveloped. Trump foresees the US in a “long-term ownership position.” Hours earlier, Trump warned that Iran will be obliterated if it attempts to assassinate him. Saudi Arabia came out and said it will not establish relations with Israel without the presence of a Palestinian state. There is bipartisan distaste in the US for sending American troops back to the Middle East. No nation in the Middle East, aside from Israel, wants to see American presence in the region and there is no way that the US can simply walk in and take over a foreign land without bloodshed
Posted originally on the CTH on February 5, 2025 | Sundance
The fact that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was a sub-silo for the CIA is not a new revelation. In fact, this website and several others have been deep in the research of the networking for years.
From the Arab Spring to Libya, to the color revolution in Ukraine, to the attempted overthrow of Viktor Orban in Hungary, to overturning the outcome of the Romanian election (remember it was a global intelligence determination), to the efforts to support Emmanuel Macron, to influence and IC control over Moldova, and onto the efforts of USAID and Samantha Power in Tbilisi, Georgia, the footprint of USAID in connection to the CIA was always transparent.
The fact that USAID was similarly involved in domestic influence operations, is now coming forth with receipts showing how USAID paid domestic political groups for activism, paid for media influence operations and generally did the same thing inside the United States that the CIA/USAID were doing outside the USA.
The DC apoplexy is related to these USAID/CIA revelations, the financial benefits many were receiving, and the publicity therein.
Factually, the passage of the Patriot Act in October of 2001 created the legal authority for CIA operations to engage in domestic politics under the auspices of national security. That’s the entire role of the ODNI to act as the pivot point permitting the CIA to collaborate with the newly formed Dept of Homeland Security (DHS).
From this now legally justified origin the tentacles of CIA and DHS then enmeshed with the FBI culminating in the example of former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok discussing the CIA as their “sister agency” and receiving a CIA coin as a token of appreciation for the collaborative efforts. In sum, the CIA and FBI work in partnership with the DNI and DHS.
It’s all one big Intelligence Community network, and USAID was just a system of influence used both in foreign and domestic affairs. That’s the generally big picture behind all of these USAID revelations. None of this is really arguable any longer, and with each new detail the information only affirms the nature of the IC system we have been discussing for several years.
Domestically, the involvement of the CIA in the impeachment effort of President Donald Trump was always visible. Intel Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson changed the CIA whistleblower rules permitting a legal path for the CIA (Eric Ciaramella) to leak information about President Trump’s call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Former USDAG Mary McCord was the former boss of Atkinson and receiver of the information from NSC Vindman and CIA Ciaramella, within her new position as lead staff for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the impeachment committee.
None of this is in question. We have always discussed it openly as we researched the network and outlined the data providing the receipts. The newer aspects are how the USAID silo was used to influence the mediaon the CIA’s impeachment operation. The bottom line doesn’t change; the impeachment of President Trump was a CIA operation. However, we here -and other intellectually honest research groups- always knew this.
So, the USAID revelations are highlighting the relationship with the CIA; and the USAID revelations also reveal how the CIA was effectively working on domestic political influence operations. But the USAID revelations are not really revelations per se’, what they really represent are undeniable receipts for what we already knew. It’s good to have these affirmations, but the background of it all remains the same as it was before the receipts were generated.
Amid this frenzy of information coming forth about USAID, I recently said this in the public square (Twitter):
I would advise everyone to pause for a moment as the fevered pitch of a new awakening takes shape specifically around the USAID information.
Ask ourselves: are we being managed?
Pause. Think about the Twitter files as a reference for how DHS was controlling online speech and communication.
Did the Twitter files reveal the DHS control mechanisms, or was the DHS control system coming to light and the revelations needed to be managed?
Was the Twitter File release a control mechanism, to get out in front of something the American people were discovering on their own?
That’s the reference here.
Were we managed by a controlled system releasing the Twitter file information?
If you understand that reference, then ask yourself….
…Is this USAID information; which at its core outlines how the intelligence community was in control of multiple DHS silos to influence American society; yet another operation to control information that was coming to light?
Don’t be emotional about it. Think logically.
Are we discovering the USAID information because elements in the IC understood the USAID information was starting to surface in the national conversation organically?
If you can see the similar approach to both the DHS control of the social media coming to light (Twitter files) and the same DHS control of the USAID tentacles, then is it accidental that Elon Musk is involved in both information releases?
BIG PICTURE: Is the IC managing the revelations?
All roads lead to Langley.
Is the journey being managed?
Think about it.
The DHS [ultimately IC] control over social media was coming to light as an outcome of the COVID fiasco. Lawsuits in defense of speech were revealing how DHS was influencing and controlling information. Then came a controlled release within the Twitter Files.
The DHS [ultimately IC] control over elections was coming to light as an outcome of the 2020 vs 2024 vote scale that could no longer reasonably be concealed. Thanks to Trump.
Both system engagements, think of them as essentially datasets, were coming to light as the American people used every questioning mechanism that was available, including courts.
Essentially, We The People were in an unwitting (to most) fight with the IC [CIA], and the IC started losing control of the battlefield.
Opening the door to their USAID/CIA library of prior conduct and then standing back and letting the information flow out of the dark room, can be looked at as yet another controlled release operation for information that was already being discussed and only gaining traction amid the greater awakening.
Is it just a coincidence that both controlled information releases originate from the same source, Elon Musk?
This doesn’t mean that President Trump is some collaborative actor in the enterprise; in fact, I would argue the exact opposite.
Donald Trump is organic. Organic systems need to be managed and controlled. The assassination effort failed. Immediately thereafter, Musk appeared with support…
Posted originally on the CTH on February 5, 2025 | Sundance
Earlier today President Trump held an event at the White House where he signed an executive order banning men from participating in Women’s sports. [Executive Order Here] Prior to the signing, President Trump delivered remarks to the audience. WATCH:
[Executive Order] – “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose. In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports. This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.
Moreover, under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), educational institutions receiving Federal funds cannot deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports. As some Federal courts have recognized, “ignoring fundamental biological truths between the two sexes deprives women and girls of meaningful access to educational facilities.” Tennessee v. Cardona, 24-cv-00072 at 73 (E.D. Ky. 2024). See alsoKansas v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 24-cv-04041 at 23 (D. Kan. 2024) (highlighting “Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education”).
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy. It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.
Sec. 2. Definitions. The definitions in Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government), shall apply to this order.
Sec.3. Preserving Women’s Sports in Education. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of Title IX, the Secretary of Education shall promptly:
(i) in coordination with the Attorney General, continue to comply with the vacatur of the rule entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance” of April 29, 2024, 89 FR 33474, see Tennessee v. Cardona, 24-cv-00072 at 13-15 (E.D. Ky. 2025), and take other appropriate action to ensure this regulation does not have effect;
(ii) take all appropriate action to affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms and thereby provide the equal opportunity guaranteed by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, including enforcement actions described in subsection (iii); to bring regulations and policy guidance into line with the Congress’ existing demand for “equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes” by clearly specifying and clarifying that women’s sports are reserved for women; and the resolution of pending litigation consistent with this policy; and
(iii) prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions (including athletic associations composed of or governed by such institutions) that deny female students an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events by requiring them, in the women’s category, to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.
(b) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall review grants to educational programs and, where appropriate, rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with the policy established in this order.
(c) The Department of Justice shall provide all necessary resources, in accordance with law, to relevant agencies to ensure expeditious enforcement of the policy established in this order.
Sec. 4. Preserving Fairness and Safety in Women’s Sports. Many sport-specific governing bodies have no official position or requirements regarding trans-identifying athletes. Others allow men to compete in women’s categories if these men reduce the testosterone in their bodies below certain levels or provide documentation of “sincerely held” gender identity. These policies are unfair to female athletes and do not protect female safety. To address these concerns, it is hereby ordered:
(a) The Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall, within 60 days of the date of this order:
(i) convene representatives of major athletic organizations and governing bodies, and female athletes harmed by such policies, to promote policies that are fair and safe, in the best interests of female athletes, and consistent with the requirements of Title IX, as applicable; and
(ii) convene State Attorneys General to identify best practices in defining and enforcing equal opportunities for women to participate in sports and educate them about stories of women and girls who have been harmed by male participation in women’s sports.
(b) The Secretary of State, including through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ Sports Diplomacy Division and the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, shall:
(i) rescind support for and participation in people-to-people sports exchanges or other sports programs within which the relevant female sports category is based on identity and not sex; and
(ii) promote, including at the United Nations, international rules and norms governing sports competition to protect a sex-based female sports category, and, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, convene international athletic organizations and governing bodies, and female athletes harmed by policies that allow male participation in women’s sports, to promote sporting policies that are fair, safe, and in furtherance of the best interests of female athletes.
(c) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review and adjust, as needed, policies permitting admission to the United States of males seeking to participate in women’s sports, and shall issue guidance with an objective of preventing such entry to the extent permitted by law, including pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)).
(d) The Secretary of State shall use all appropriate and available measures to see that the International Olympic Committee amends the standards governing Olympic sporting events to promote fairness, safety, and the best interests of female athletes by ensuring that eligibility for participation in women’s sporting events is determined according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 5, 2025 | Sundance
Today at 1:00pm EST, White House Press Secretary Karolina Leavitt will deliver remarks from the Brady Room and answer questions from the assembled press pool. Livestream Links Below:
Posted originally on the CTH onFebruary 5, 2025 | Sundance
On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump introduced recently confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi for her swearing-in ceremony in the oval office. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 