Dr. Jack Rasmus: “For Algeria, it’s great time to negotiate a deal with the US empire which is now in a weakened position”

Dr. Jack Rasmus. D.R.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: A few years ago, in your book “Prelude to the Great Depression”, you warned the public about the risk of a great financial meltdown through the burst of the gigantic debt post 2008 crisis and the criminal policies followed by the Western countries. Where do we stand today in the world, and more specifically in the USA? Are we closer to a Great Depression similar to the one of the 1930s?

Dr. Jack Rasmus: In that book I pointed out the history of economic contractions, in particular in the USA going back to the 19^th century, indicates there are three kinds of contractions. One is a normal recession, often precipitated by bad policy choices. Another is what I called an ‘Epic’ recession, which is a recession that’s accompanied by a financial instability event and crash. It drives the real economy into a deeper and longer contraction, the recovery from which is slower and weaker. Epic recessions can be stabilized by massive fiscal and liquidity injections by the central bank to stabilize the banking system.  Failing such a massive response, an Epic recession can transform into a bona fide Great Depression. That’s when the financial system is not stabilized adequately and subsequent banking and financial institution crashes occur. That drives the real economy contract deeper than the initial contraction. That in turn can exacerbate financial instability further as well, leading to a feedback contraction between the real economy and financial economy. That’s what happened in the 1930s in the USA when a series of five bank crashes occurred between 1930 and 1933. Epic recessions can morph into great depressions or they can be checked.

The 2008-09 USA epic recession followed a traditional ‘epic’ process: the financial crash occurred, dragging down the real economy in turn. The US policy makers (Obama, Congress, and the central bank) then threw a massive liquidity at the contraction. Obama and Congress about $800 billion. The Federal Reserve central bank another $4 trillion in bank and investor bailouts. The US real economy did not recover very well. It bounced along the bottom in typical epic recession fashion, with weak and shallow GDP recovery until 2015. Along the way there were relapses. A mild double dip real recession occurred around 2013. It was registered officially as only a slowdown due to the redefining of GDP in 2013 that made a contraction look like a temporary stagnation. Of course, in Europe and Japan the double dips were more pronounced.  In the USA the jobs lost in 2008-09 did not recover to pre-recession 2007 levels until 2015.  So why was the post 2008 crash so weak?

One reason was the $800 billion fiscal stimulus by the Obama administration in 2009 was insufficient and its composition poorly defined (too much business tax cuts and money given to the states instead of consumers directly). Another reason is Obama agreed with Republicans controlling Congress by 2011 and together cut government spending programs by $1.5 trillion. ($.5T was supposed to be defense cuts but they were postponed and then restored. $1T was social program cuts). So fiscal policy was insufficient and the economy stumbled and grew a mere 60% of normal following the recession even after a combined fiscal-monetary stimulus of almost $5 trillion. The lack of a strong recovery after 2009 contributed significantly I believe to the discontent of voters who turned to Trump in 2016. Trump immediately increased the fiscal stimulus in 2017 cutting taxes by another $4.5 trillion, although mostly for corporations and investors. GDP recovered a little more in 2018-19 but not all that much.

The point to keep in mind is that nearly $10 trillion in fiscal-monetary stimulus during the decade 2010-19 created a very tepid real economic recovery. But it did add to deficits and the national debt significantly. The US national debt in 2008 when Obama took office was about $10 trillion (up from $5.6T a decade earlier). When Obama left office, it was $19.5T. Mostly due to his acceleration of war spending and from his extending the George Bush tax cuts in 2013 permanently at a cost of $5 trillion. Then came Trump who cut taxes another $4.5T and further accelerated business-investor tax cuts another $4.5T. The deficit and debt surged further under Trump to $22.7T by end of 2019. Then the Covid economic shutdowns occurred driving the economy into another policy precipitated deep recession in 2020. Deficits in 2020 hit $3T and the national debt rose to $27T by the time Trump left office. Under Biden the fiscal bailouts cost another $1.9T and $1.7T in business subsidies and tax cuts; in other words a further $3.6T in deficits on his watch. When he left office the US national debt was $36 trillion.

Monetary policy in 2020-21 was a repeat of 2008-09. The central bank through another $5T of liquidity at the banking system even though there was no indication it was in trouble in 2020, unlike in 2008. The Fed thus injected $9T liquidity into the economy from 2009 to 2021. Then it started raising rates in 2021 as the reopening of the economy after Covid resulted in severe supply driven inflation and corporate price gouging to recover 2020 losses.  The Fed had to halt interest rate hikes in spring 2020 as rates of only 5.5% were provoking a financial instability event in the smaller regional banks in the US.

What I’ve described in the foregoing is that traditional fiscal-monetary policies designed to stimulate recovery from recessions are not working very well any more. They have created severe internal contradictions. An ever-greater mountain of stimulus has to be thrown at the economy to generate an ever-smaller real recovery.  I believe that’s because the 21st century capitalist economy has become overly financialized. Fiscal-monetary stimulus ends up diverted into financial asset market investment instead of real investment in the US. Or it is diverted by capitalist investors offshore to fund the expansion of US capital and empire abroad. Or it’s just re-distributed to corporate shareholders. It’s notable that no less than $17 trillion has been distributed to Fortune 500 corporate shareholders since 2010 in the form of stock buybacks and dividend payouts. Fiscal-monetary stimulus by Congress and the central bank is thus ‘pushing on a string’, to use the too oft quoted metaphor by economists. It’s taking an ever-larger stimulus bang for the buck in real growth. I explain this in greater detail in my forthcoming book by Clarity Press later this year, ‘The Twilight of the American Empire’.

Of course, this scenario is about government debt. But it’s relevant to your question because it raises the possibility the next great financial crisis may mean the government(s) will have a harder time stabilizing the crisis, if fiscal-monetary policies are increasingly ineffective.

It’s important to understand that debt levels and rates of growth are not per se the problem. The problem is financing that debt and the resources available to do so. Financing means paying the principal and interest due on the debt. In the case of the US government, it can always create more liquidity to throw at a crisis, even if it has to ‘print’ it. That’s because the US dollar is the global currency and the US can ‘export’ the crisis to other countries that cannot just ‘print’ their currencies to stave off a crisis. To the extent the US dollar declines as the global reserve and transactions currency, which I believe it has begun to do as the BRICS rise and expand, then even the US will have difficulty stabilizing a domestic financial-economic crash again.  However, unlike many on the left I don’t see the dollar or the US economic empire imploding at the moment. It is in trouble, contradictions are intensifying but it’s not crashing. US capitalists still have a lot of resources to try to protect the dollar and the empire. Trump should be viewed as an attempt in that regard in 2025.

Financial instability can occur in the private corporate sector of course, not just the government. Corporate debt levels can and are rising. Corporate debt in the US is perhaps $10-20 trillion. Household debt is another $18 trillion or so, and rising fast as wage incomes are simply not keeping up with inflation. Households can experience a financial crash. Whether corporate or household, it’s the same issue as government. It’s not just the debt level that matters. Nor even the rate of increase of debt, although that’s more important. It’s whether corporations can ‘finance’ their debt covering principal and interest payments as they come due. That depends on income growth. If it is insufficient to cover debt costs, then it is like the entity (business or households) will default (miss a payment). If they can restructure that debt they may then become ‘insolvent’, meaning can’t pay it even if restructured. The next step is then bankruptcy. That’s when the contagion factor may come into play. A major institution, be it a bank or even a large business (like Intel or Boeing now both in trouble) going bankrupt can precipitate a chain reaction of defaults and bankruptcy. To prevent that the central bank and/or the government has to throw more liquidity at it to temporarily stabilize it. But throwing more liquidity into the system feeds the misallocation of money into financial asset markets, offshore diversion or shareholder wealth boosting.

The point here is that liquidity injections in the short run (monetary and fiscal) may stabilize the crisis (real and/or financial) temporarily but that same liquidity injection creates the further financialization, debt rise, and exacerbates the likelihood of another bigger crisis and crash down the road. In short: the solution to the immediate crisis creates a greater later crisis.

So, to get to your point more directly: is another 2008 like, or 1930s like, crisis imminent? It’s hard to predict.  The US government debt is becoming unsustainable. The system can’t keep running $2T a year deficit and grow the debt beyond $37T now as interest rates remain in the 4-5% range. The US is already paying US bondholders $1T a year in interest payments on that $37T. The Congress’s research arm, the CBO, estimates that’s going to $56T and $1,7T a year interest payments by 2034. The US already spends another $1.3T a year on defense. One should view Trump’s current cost cutting—foreign and domestic—in that context. The empire has to financially restructure. Unnecessary spending (Ukraine war, NATO, bases, USAID, etc.) is being cut. So too are domestic US social programs and government employment.

But I still don’t see a government debt crisis erupting in the US. Not as long as the US dollar remains the crux of the US empire.

How about a banking crisis? So far, the Fed has been able to contain the regional bank crisis of 2002 by throwing another $1T at it. And the big banks are flush with profits. So, I don’t see a banking crisis imminent. What about non-bank corporations?  I’d watch Intel and Boeing. A financial contagion can occur if a non-bank implodes, providing it is large enough. Those two are. But the government is already quietly bailing them out. How about households? Their debt problem is already severe. Millions have maxed out on credit (debt). Their response is to cut spending which is already occurring as well.  If any of these sectors experience a debt-payments crisis usually the government and central bank can ‘contain’ the contagion by bailing them out, providing the crisis doesn’t erupt too fast and the contagion accelerate. Given time, the government and Fed can stabilize it.

So, are we closer to a Great Depression as in the 1930s? In terms of the internal contradictions growing, I’d say yes. In terms of the debt level excesses, again yes. But we haven’t hit the wall of not paying the principal and interest on the debt—whether corporate or government. So far, the governments have managed, despite the growing fundamental problems beneath the service.

Is the setup of the DOGE to brutally cut public expenses at a speed and dimension unseen since a long time in a developed country a sign of panic of Trump’s administration to improve the budgetary situation and avoid or limit the meltdown?

As I suggested in answering the previous question, DOGE represents the Trump administration’s recognition it must pare down the accelerating US budget deficit and consequent national debt. It can’t keep running $2T/year deficits and raising the national debt to $56T in a decade and pay $1.7T a year, from the budget, to bondholders of Treasuries. Not if it wants to continue funding its massive Pentagon/Defense budget and continue $4.5T tax cuts for businesses and investors.

Think of DOGE as part of the general strategy to reduce the deficit and debt domestically by cutting social programs and government employment, as Trump simultaneously cuts back unnecessary costs of foreign spending as well that also impact the budget and debt.

DOGE has targeted somewhere between $1T-$1.7T in cuts in social programs and government employment.  That’s not all that great when one remembers Obama-Republicans cut $1T in 2011. Whenever there’s a big economic crisis—whether 2008-09 or 2020-21—US politicians throw money at it to contain the crash. But then when it’s partly stabilized, take back what they three at it and then some. Obama did it in 2011. Trump’s doing in 2025 after the massive $6.7T fiscal stimulus and bailout of 2021-22 following Covid.

The likely $1T DOGE cuts don’t represent a panic but a plan. The propaganda mainstream media in the USA—allied closely with the Democrat party, the US state bureaucracy, and the wing of the capitalists who want to just continue as they did under Biden—is doing its best to sensationalize Trump policies. I’m not apologizing for those policies. They will devastate American workers and unions. But there is method to the Trump plan. It’s not just Trump craziness.

It is true the Trump initiatives reflect a speed and dimension of policy change not seen since 1980 and the Reagan administration response to the crisis of the 1970s in the US and world economies and the US empire itself. Neoliberal policies introduced by Reagan after 1980 served to check US capitalists’ challenge from the working class at home as well as challengers intro-capitalist, mainly Japan and USSR and to a lesser extent Europe as well. Reagan-Neoliberal policies succeeded in giving the US empire another four decades of expansion. That expansion came to a halt around 2008 economically and politically. Capitalist policy makers in the USA from Obama to Trump 2.0 have been trying to restore the Neoliberal policy mix. However, as I’ve said, policy contradictions are intensifying and it’s getting more difficult. 

One should view Trump, DOGE and new foreign policy initiatives of Trump (tariffs, deal with Russia in Ukraine, retreat from NATO, even Greenland and Panama Canal) as yet another effort by US capital to restructure the relations, foreign and domestic, in the empire. It restructured successfully in 1913-18, again in 1944-50, then in 1979-86, and now attempting once again under Trump.  Whether Trump succeeds re. the budget crisis and avoids a meltdown again financially, remains to be seen. The jury is not only ‘out’, as they say. It’s just taken it seat and listening to the prosecutor’s opening statements, to borrow a metaphor.

Do you think, like few independent economists, that the globalist oligarchy extremely powerful in the financial circles of the Fed, the large banking corporations, the IRB and the financial behemoths such as Blackrock, Vanguard, or State Street able to speed the burst of the financial crisis in order to derail Trump’s MAGA plan and speed up the crisis and, more perhaps, push for a third World war to emerge even stronger like they did for World war I and World war 2?

I don’t see the finance capitalists as wanting to purposely precipitate a financial crisis just to derail Trump.  Many of them I suspect see Trump’s changes as either necessary for the empire and also providing a number of new profitable opportunities. A lot of Trump’s plans for privatizing parts of the economy are favored by them, especially the ‘shadow’ banks (Blackrock et. al). Blackrock for example is already involved in buying up the port facilities on both ends of the Panama Canal. I’m sure they and others see further opportunities for minerals development in Greenland. Then there’s Trump’s plans to redirect spending on foreign aid, CIA operations abroad, and even NATO to new weapons development through the Pentagon. As for Blackrock, it’s well known they are heavily invested in Ukraine. A settlement to that conflict will mean further investment opportunities in the so-called rebuilding of Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure after the war, which is coming. All Trump’s talk about a minerals deal in Ukraine is about creating a fund of investment capital, much of which will be distributed to big US corporations and finance capitalists that will do the ‘rebuilding’.  So, once again, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the US mainstream media ‘Atlanticist’ propaganda channels. Nor would I too quickly draw historical parallels to capitalists who favored world wars to divert the public from crises at home.  The current US economic and political crisis is not that severe yet. It’s not the 1930s collapse of regimes. Nor are the finance capitalists the historical equivalent of the inbred European aristocracies in 1912-14 fighting over dividing up the rest of the world for their respective empires.

In short, I don’t see the capitalists in the US—regardless of which wing (MAGA or Atlanticist) they prefer—going to far as to provoke a crisis just to check Trump. They’re not all as opposed to him as the propaganda media/Democrat party would have us think. Besides, there’s a lot of new money to be made from the Trump restructuring.

On another note, do you think that the spectacular collaboration between Trump and Russia is a return to the Monroe doctrine from a Genuine American Patriot with the perspective of sharing the world in several spheres of influence between the main 3 superpowers with China or is it a ruse similar to the warming between the US and China in the 1970s against the USSSR in order to, ironically, weaken China as it is the only true rival of the USA?

Saying ‘return’ to the Monroe doctrine suggests the US ever abandoned it. The USA has always viewed the western hemisphere as its sphere of influence. Its problem is that since 9-11 and the US neocons running the foreign policy show, the USA has overly-focused on the Middle East. That has meant it ignored the shifts going on in Latin America the last quarter century. It probably also thinks that focus has slowed down plans to confront China in the South China Sea and Taiwan to the degree it wanted.  Then the US neocons doubled down on their failed policies by getting a light weight and partially demented president Biden to do the Europeans’ bidding and get over-extended in the Ukraine war.

Trump’s current foreign policy shift should be viewed as the US empire consolidating, both in focus and expenditure. It’s refocusing on the western hemisphere and the American lake called the Pacific Ocean. Those are in its imperial interests as it restructures to deal with the real challenges to American hegemony: the BRICS and Global South and China.  Somehow the neocons convinced the amateur Democrats to focus on east Europe.  They convinced the politicians to expand NATO east which made a confrontation with Russia inevitable. Then they convinced them Russia would implode economically and regime change would be easy. All that backfired of course. History will show the neocons, who essentially took over control of US foreign policy in the late 1990s and then solidified control under Bush and Obama, have been a disaster for the American empire.

Trump recognizes that continuing to subsidize the defense of Europe and pay for the military adventure in Ukraine is not in the USA’s interest long term. There’s no need to throw the billions of dollars to prop up Europe. And the Ukraine war was a loser from the start, as anyone with an ROTC military background and understanding of the principles of war could easily see. A total folly. Trump knows the Ukraine war is already lost and doesn’t want to throw more money at it, after the US has spent $350 billion on it.  Nor does he want to continue to fund Europe’s defense. Neither are strategic. The world has moved on. The BRICS and global south is strategic. Restoring American hegemony in the western hemisphere is strategic.

The US so far has failed to develop a coherent arctic strategy, whereas Russia has and is years ahead of the US in that region. Greenland is a key element of the new US arctic strategy. It also has critical minerals the US needs. Canada sits between Alaska and Greenland. It too must be part of the US new arctic strategy to confront Russia in that region. But Canada has been proving unreliable under Trudeau, who Trump hates anyway. Canada for some reason is orienting more to Europe. That’s what Trump tariffs on Canada and all his needling it about becoming the 51^st US state is about.  What Trump really wants is the northern Arctic territories of Canada to make it a comprehensive strategic bulwark across the arctic. That’s how I see it. Greenland is also important if the US wants to ever deny China shipping passage through the arctic to the Atlantic Ocean now that the ice shelf in the arctic is declining rapidly.

As for Trump’s action re. Panama, that too is about checking China which had been investing heavily in the canal and Panama. China’s been investing heavily in Ecuador and Peru. I predict some Trump initiatives there too eventually.  Trump wants to take back the canal to deny it to China. The canal also needs to be expanded which Panama the country has lagged in doing. Why? The largest Ford class US supercarriers can’t fit in the canal, I’m told. It needs to be expanded. That’s part of Trump’s plan too. And, as I said before, Blackrock’s already jumped in and bought up port facilities on both sides of the canal. The US will take control of the canal under Trump, I predict. Whether that’s ownership or not is not critical.

I think what we’re seeing is Trump attempting to get agreements with Putin and Xi on a new global geopolitical understanding. Trump sees business opportunities with Russia as well. That will come out of the current US-Russia negotiations. Sanctions will be dismantled, at least by the US. The Europeans are another question. They’re still wallowing in neocon fantasies re Ukraine and Russia. It’s reported that after meeting with Putin, Trump has already invited Xi to come to Washington. The three will divide up the global economy, I predict. It’s almost like a parallel to the Yalta summit in 1944 when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met and redefined the post war political relations. Except this time there’s no Churchill or Europe. It’s destined to become a global economic backwater. Politically as well. That’s part of why the Europeans are so freaked out about Trump. He won’t even let them sit at the table in discussions with Russia.

I think the three will define new spheres of interest and areas of cooperation. The USA under Trump in other words is coming to terms with the new realities. The USA is seeking a rapprochement with both global powers. That will include a broader rapprochement between the US and the BRICS as well.

As to the point whether this is all a ruse by Trump to split Russia from China, I don’t think so. This isn’t the 1970s when China was desperate for a relationship as its economy was weak after the disruptions of the cultural revolution. China is a global economic power now. And the global south is also major factor in all this since China and the BRICS are now linked. The global south is now industrialized and cannot be ignored, as it was in the 1980s when the US restructured its relations with Japan and Europe and the USSR.

I would add that even if Trump’s overtures to Russia were a ‘ruse’, Russia and China will not break their new alliance and economic cooperation. Russia has totally given up, I believe, on any restoration of relations, economic or other, with Europe. Europe has ‘shot itself in the foot’, as the saying goes, over its fixation on its proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

European elites’ current war hysteria against Russia is really strange.  Sometimes I think there’s something wrong with Europe at the DNA level. After all, they gave us two world wars and now it appears they want another with Russia. Only this time the US and rest of the world won’t be joining them.  And the recent decision by Germany to rearm military should raise some concern.  It’s another example perhaps of the turmoil in NATO. As the saying goes, ‘the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out and the Germans down’. Germany will likely take the lead in Europe’s remilitarization and weapons industry development.

I also predict that both NATO and the EU itself will eventually restructure. I can’t see Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia being part of it in the long run. And if they break, expect a kind of southeast Europe alliance with Romania and Bulgaria joining them. Maybe even Turkey.

In a number of ways, I see the outcome of the loss of the war in Ukraine driving Europe into a greater dependency economically on the USA. Not just Europe becoming more dependent on US energy sales, as it has, but its entire economy as US businesses moves into the economic vacuum left by Russia’s exit. Having driven Russia out of the region, Europe will have to become more dependent on the US. It’s gushing capital. Much of it investing in the US instead of in Europe. Recent US tax policies, and now tariffs, are evidence of Europe’s inevitable growing dependency on the US. As I’ve recently said, Europe is destined to become a nice museum to visit, but increasingly irrelevant globally both in economy and geopolitics.

After 75 years of integration and globalization with Europe, do you think that Trump can decouple and disengage the United States from Europe as fast as he wants?

I have addressed this question somewhat in my previous remarks. But I’d add that don’t think of the US-Europe future relationship as a decoupling. Think of it as a restructuring, with US providing less support economically and politically. Think of it as a growing dependency of Europe on the US, which will become clearer once the dust settles with the current differences over Ukraine, Russia, NATO, Greenland and tariffs.

Trump’s policy shifts are not about disengaging from Europe. And I don’t think Trump is committed to do anything with Europe ‘fast’. The US shift is fundamental and so obvious it appears as if Trump is impatient.

By the way, expect the G7’s global role to change as well. The US will become more dominant in relation to Europe and the G7 or it will just ignore the G7.  The role of the G20 will become even more important to the US in the future, as will certainly US bilateral relations with Russia and likely China.  So, no decoupling and no disengaging, but some basic restructuring of relations between US and Europe—which Europe political elites won’t be happy about but which they’ll accept in the longer run. Think about it: where can Europe turn to? It has no future relation with Russia.  It’s finding it can’t compete with China and its endorsement of sanctions on China has soured that relationship. Can it focus on the global south in competition with Russia, China and the US? Not very well, I think. So it’ll have no alternative but to seek a new set of relationships economically with the US and in the long run that means politically as well. Also, as I suggested, various countries in Europe may break not only from NATO but from the EU possibly as well.

For my country Algeria, Arab country, oil producer, rich in minerals, very attached to its sovereignty, one of the pillars of multilateralism in Africa, close partner of the BRICS, would you advise to try to improve our relations with the US and accept these ‘deals’ from Trump or should we stick to multilateralism and play the card of the BRICS?

I don’t see that the choice is an ‘either/or’. Algeria (and all the BRICS) can and should do both. For countries like yours it’s great time to negotiate a deal with the US empire which is now in a weakened position. Cut the deals if it’s to your advantage, so long as it doesn’t mean you give up your sovereignty. And play the BRICS card too. Isn’t that what Russia will soon be doing when it cuts business deals in current negotiations with Trump, as well as decides on compromise solutions to end the US role in the Ukraine war. If Russia can couple negotiations on the war with economic cooperation deals, so can Algeria and other BRICS.

The US is entering a period when it knows it must establish new relations with the BRICS. It will seek to retain the influence and role of the dollar, the SWIFT payments system, the IMF, etc. while recognizing some of the demands of the BRICS and countries in the global south. The world is moving from a unipolar to the multi-polar economy, it’s true. But it will be a transition period that will continue for some time.  A good time to leverage Trump and the American empire wanting to make a deal. Trump needs some successes to show his general strategy of restructuring US global economic and political relations works.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Who is Jack Rasmus?

Dr. Jack Rasmus, Ph. D Political Economy, teaches economics at St. Mary’s College in California. He is the author and producer of the various nonfiction and fictional workers, including the books The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy From Reagan to Bush, Clarity Press, October 2019; Alexander Hamilton & The Origins of the Fed, Lexington books, March 2019; Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression, Clarity Press, August 2018; Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges, Clarity Press, Sept. 2016; Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy, Clarity Press, January 2016;  ‘Obama’s Economy: Recovery for the Few‘, Pluto Press, 2012, ‘Epic Recession: Prelude to Global Depression‘, Pluto Press, 2010, and ‘The War at Home: The Corporate Offensive from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush‘, Kyklosproductions, 2006.

He has written and produced several stage plays, including ‘Fire on Pier 32‘and ‘1934‘. Jack is the host of the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network, and a journalist writing on economic, political and labor issues for various magazines, including European Financial Review, World Financial Review, World Review of Political Economy, ‘Z‘magazine, and others. Before his current roles as author, journalist and radio host, Jack was an economist and market analyst for several global companies for 18 years and, for more than a decade, a local union president, vice-president, contract negotiator, and organizer for several labor unions, including the UAW, CWA, SEIU, and HERE.

Jack’s website is www.kyklosproductions.com where his published articles, radio-tv interviews, plays and book reviews are available for download. He blogs at jackrasmus.com, where weekly commentaries on US and global economic matters are available. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

Published in French in Algeriepatriotique : https://www.algeriepatriotique.com/2025/04/14/jack-rasmus-explique-pourquoi-lalgerie-doit-negocier-un-accord-avec-donald-trump/

In La Nouvelle République : https://www.lnr-dz.com/2025/04/13/pour-lalgerie-cest-le-moment-ideal-pour-negocier-un-accord-avec-lempire-americain-qui-est-desormais-en-position-de-faiblesse/ 

https://www.lnr-dz.com/2025/04/14/pour-lalgerie-cest-le-moment-ideal-pour-negocier-un-accord-avec-lempire-americain-qui-est-desormais-en-position-de-faiblesse-2/